↓ Skip to main content

Artificial sweeteners induce glucose intolerance by altering the gut microbiota

Overview of attention for article published in Nature, September 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#20 of 71,109)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
712 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
2937 Mendeley
citeulike
13 CiteULike
Title
Artificial sweeteners induce glucose intolerance by altering the gut microbiota
Published in
Nature, September 2014
DOI 10.1038/nature13793
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jotham Suez, Tal Korem, David Zeevi, Gili Zilberman-Schapira, Christoph A. Thaiss, Ori Maza, David Israeli, Niv Zmora, Shlomit Gilad, Adina Weinberger, Yael Kuperman, Alon Harmelin, Ilana Kolodkin-Gal, Hagit Shapiro, Zamir Halpern, Eran Segal, Eran Elinav

Abstract

Non-caloric artificial sweeteners (NAS) are among the most widely used food additives worldwide, regularly consumed by lean and obese individuals alike. NAS consumption is considered safe and beneficial owing to their low caloric content, yet supporting scientific data remain sparse and controversial. Here we demonstrate that consumption of commonly used NAS formulations drives the development of glucose intolerance through induction of compositional and functional alterations to the intestinal microbiota. These NAS-mediated deleterious metabolic effects are abrogated by antibiotic treatment, and are fully transferrable to germ-free mice upon faecal transplantation of microbiota configurations from NAS-consuming mice, or of microbiota anaerobically incubated in the presence of NAS. We identify NAS-altered microbial metabolic pathways that are linked to host susceptibility to metabolic disease, and demonstrate similar NAS-induced dysbiosis and glucose intolerance in healthy human subjects. Collectively, our results link NAS consumption, dysbiosis and metabolic abnormalities, thereby calling for a reassessment of massive NAS usage.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3,769 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 2,937 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 57 2%
Germany 12 <1%
Canada 12 <1%
United Kingdom 10 <1%
Brazil 9 <1%
Spain 8 <1%
Japan 7 <1%
Netherlands 7 <1%
Chile 5 <1%
Other 62 2%
Unknown 2748 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 526 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 523 18%
Student > Bachelor 468 16%
Student > Master 435 15%
Other 195 7%
Other 614 21%
Unknown 176 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1017 35%
Medicine and Dentistry 551 19%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 311 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 164 6%
Immunology and Microbiology 105 4%
Other 506 17%
Unknown 283 10%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4504. 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 25 November 2019.
All research outputs
#86
of 14,015,228 outputs
Outputs from Nature
#20
of 71,109 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2
of 207,340 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature
#1
of 1,013 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,015,228 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 71,109 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 78.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
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 207,340 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1,013 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.