↓ Skip to main content

In Vitro Fermentation of Bacterial Cellulose Composites as Model Dietary Fibers

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Agricultural & Food Chemistry, March 2011
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
62 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
74 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
In Vitro Fermentation of Bacterial Cellulose Composites as Model Dietary Fibers
Published in
Journal of Agricultural & Food Chemistry, March 2011
DOI 10.1021/jf104855e
Pubmed ID
Authors

Deirdre Mikkelsen, Michael J. Gidley, Barbara A. Williams

Abstract

Plant cell walls within the human diet are compositionally heterogeneous, so defining the basis of nutritive properties is difficult. Using a pig fecal inoculum, in vitro fermentations of soluble forms of arabinoxylan, mixed-linkage glucan, and xyloglucan were compared with the same polymers incorporated into bacterial cellulose composites. Fermentation rates were highest and similar for the soluble polysaccharides. Cellulose composites incorporating those polysaccharides fermented more slowly and at similar rates to wheat bran. Bacterial cellulose and cotton fermented most slowly. Cellulose composite fermentation resulted in a different short-chain fatty acid profile, compared with soluble polysaccharides, with more butyrate and less propionate. The results suggest that physical form is more relevant than the chemistry of plant cell wall polysaccharides in determining both rate and end-products of fermentation using fecal bacteria. This work also establishes bacterial cellulose composites as a useful model system for the fermentation of complex cell wall dietary fiber.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 74 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 17 23%
Student > Master 13 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 12%
Professor 6 8%
Student > Bachelor 5 7%
Other 9 12%
Unknown 15 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 26 35%
Engineering 6 8%
Chemistry 5 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 7%
Materials Science 3 4%
Other 8 11%
Unknown 21 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 February 2014.
All research outputs
#17,286,645
of 25,377,790 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Agricultural & Food Chemistry
#13,977
of 19,056 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#95,279
of 120,793 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Agricultural & Food Chemistry
#133
of 162 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,377,790 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 19,056 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 120,793 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 162 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.