Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2021 Dec 2;16(12):e0260765. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0260765

Polydextrose with and without Bifidobacterium animalis ssp. lactis 420 drives the prevalence of Akkermansia and improves liver health in a multi-compartmental obesogenic mice study

Christian Clement Yde 1,2,*, Henrik Max Jensen 1, Niels Christensen 1, Florence Servant 3, Benjamin Lelouvier 3, Sampo Lahtinen 4, Lotta K Stenman 4, Kaisa Airaksinen 4, Henna-Maria Kailanto 4
Editor: Nikolaos Perakakis5
PMCID: PMC8638982  PMID: 34855861

Abstract

The past two decades of research have raised gut microbiota composition as a contributing factor to the development of obesity, and higher abundance of certain bacterial species has been linked to the lean phenotype, such as Akkermansia muciniphila. The ability of pre- and probiotics to affect metabolic health could be via microbial community alterations and subsequently changes in metabolite profiles, modulating for example host energy balance via complex signaling pathways. The aim of this mice study was to determine how administration of a prebiotic fiber, polydextrose (PDX) and a probiotic Bifidobacterium animalis ssp. lactis 420 (B420), during high fat diet (HFD; 60 kcal% fat) affects microbiota composition in the gastrointestinal tract and adipose tissue, and metabolite levels in gut and liver. In this study C57Bl/6J mice (N = 200) were split in five treatments and daily gavaged: 1) Normal control (NC); 2) HFD; 3) HFD + PDX; 4) HFD + B420 or 5) HFD + PDX + B420 (HFD+S). At six weeks of treatment intraperitoneal glucose-tolerance test (IPGTT) was performed, and feces were collected at weeks 0, 3, 6 and 9. At end of the intervention, ileum and colon mucosa, adipose tissue and liver samples were collected. The microbiota composition in fecal, ileum, colon and adipose tissue was analyzed using 16S rDNA sequencing, fecal and liver metabolomics were performed by nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy. It was found that HFD+PDX intervention reduced body weight gain and hepatic fat compared to HFD. Sequencing the mice adipose tissue (MAT) identified Akkermansia and its prevalence was increased in HFD+S group. Furthermore, by the inclusion of PDX, fecal, lleum and colon levels of Akkermansia were increased and liver health was improved as the detoxification capacity and levels of methyl-donors were increased. These new results demonstrate how PDX and B420 can affect the interactions between gut, liver and adipose tissue.

Introduction

Despite an increased awareness of obesity having a negative impact on human health, according to OECD almost one out of four adults in OECD countries (24%) is obese [1]. In addition to exercise and diet, the past two decades of research have shown many other factors, including gut microbiota composition, to contribute to the development of obesity [2, 3]. In 2014 an expert committee defined probiotics as live microorganisms that, when administered in adequate amounts, confer a health benefit on the host [4]. Also, a consensus has been reached to state that prebiotics are substrates selectively used by the host microbiota conferring a health benefit [5]. The microbiota can influence the host through several mechanisms including energy balance and appetite regulations. As reviewed by Kobyliak and coworkers [6], intervention studies in both animals and humans demonstrate that the intake of probiotics can assist in reducing body weight gain in animals on a high energy diet and ameliorate metabolic health risk factors such as insulin resistance in humans. A probiotic strain Bifidobacterium animalis ssp. lactis 420 (B420) has shown potential as weight controlling agent, since administrating it has resulted in a reduction of body fat mass accumulation in mice fed the high fat diet (HFD) [7, 8]. A synergistic effect between B420 and a prebiotic soluble fiber, polydextrose (PDX) [9, 10], has been indicated by our group, when a lower accumulation of body fat mass with the combination of these two ingredients was noted in humans during a 6-month intervention period in a randomized double-blind clinical trial [11]. PDX, which is a non-digestible oligosaccharide consisting of randomly-bonded glucose units, has reported prebiotic properties including partial fermentation by colonic bacteria, SCFA production and modification of fecal microbiota [1214]. PDX has also shown potential in supporting metabolic health and weight management, as reported in several preclinical and clinical studies [1518].

Alteration of gut microbiota is known to impact human health in a growing number of health areas. Several publications have shown correlations between obesity and diet, probiotic and prebiotics interventions in relation to changes in fecal levels of short chain fatty acids (SCFA) [19], amino acids [20, 21] and biogenic amines [22]. In a paper by Zhao et al. [23] deficiency in SCFA production from carbohydrate fermentation by specific strains was linked to type-2 diabetes. A multi-compartment approach enables the analysis of gut-liver axis functions, as metabolite levels influenced the bidirectional communication between gut and liver [24]. However, the precise mode of action and molecular mechanisms behind these fascinating links are not understood. Metabolomics and metagenomics are both techniques that together with a multi-compartmental approach can provide a mechanistic understanding of the underlying mechanisms of intake of pro- and prebiotics [25, 26]. The strength of combining the study of gut microbiota and analysis of small-molecule metabolites in relation to human physiology was recently reviewed [27].

Certain bacterial species have been identified to be present in higher abundance in persons with lean phenotype, and others with obesity. Species that belong to genus Akkermansia, such as Akkermansia muciniphila, have been getting a lot of attention during the past years as they have increasingly shown to be associated with lean phenotype and good metabolic health in earlier studies [28]. A proof-of-concept exploratory clinical trial with supplemented A. muciniphila has been conducted recently showing improved insulin sensitivity and reduced insulinemia and plasma total cholesterol [29]. Furthermore, the oral administration of A. muciniphila has been shown to reverse HFD-induced metabolic disorders via increased mucin layer thickness, to reduce endotoxemia, and to even increase the number of goblet cells in the epithelium [30]. In a recent study, the beneficial effects of A. muciniphila were recapitalized partially by a membrane protein called Amuc_1100 isolated from the outer membrane of the bacterium via its interaction with Toll-like receptor 2 [31]. In a recent randomized clinical trial B420 and PDX were shown to induce compositional shift in human microbiota including increased prevalence of Akkermansia [25]. Thus, it is of great interest to better understand how B420 and PDX administration during HFD affects mice microbiota composition not only in various parts of the gastrointestinal tract, but also in adipose tissue, as well as the metabolites in gut and tissues.

In the present multicompartmental study, the microbiota composition in feces, ileum, colon and adipose tissue was analyzed using 16S rDNA sequencing and NMR metabolomics on fecal extracts using solution NMR and intact liver tissue using high resolution magic angle spinning (HR-MAS) NMR spectroscopy [32, 33]. The aim of the present study was to examine the underlying mechanisms of PDX and B420 treatments explaining the earlier findings in animal studies and human clinical trials on metabolic health. Specifically, our aim was to study the cross-talk between gut and liver as demonstrated by the observed changes in the microbiota composition as well as bacterial and host metabolite levels induced by the HFD and probiotic, prebiotic or synbiotic intervention using a C57BL/6J mice model.

Materials and methods

Animals and study design

All animals were male C57Bl/6J mice obtained from Charles River (L’Arbresle, France) and acclimatized for at least seven days prior to any experimentation. Mice were housed in groups of five animals per cage and maintained under a normal dark-light cycle (12 h /12 h), 22±2°C and 55±10% relative humidity. Tap water and feed were provided ad libitum. At ten weeks of age, intervention week 0, each group of mice started one of the five treatments and gavaged daily (n = 40 per arm): 1) Normal control (NC; RM1-Special Diets Service); 2) High-fat diet (HFD, 60 kcal% fat, 20 kcal% protein, 20 kcal% carbohydrate, 5.21 kcal/kg; Research Diets Inc. D12492); 3) HFD + polydextrose (HFD+PDX, 60 kcal% fat, 20 kcal% protein, 20 kcal% carbohydrate, 5.21 kcal/kg, Litesse® Ultra™ (Danisco USA Inc., Terre Haute, IN, USA) 200 mg/day); 4) HFD + Bifidobacterium animalis ssp. lactis 420 (HFD+B420, 60 kcal% fat, 20 kcal% protein, 20 kcal% carbohydrate, 5.21 kcal/kg, 109 CFU/day), or 5) HFD (60 kcal% fat) + PDX (200 mg/day) + B420 (109 CFU/day) also referred to as HFD+S. Two experiments were performed, where experiment I included 10 mice per group and experiment II included 30 mice per group. One mouse died at intervention week 7 prior to completion of the study. The clinical data and metagenomics data were combined for both experiments I and II, whereas the metabolomics data were split into each experiment due to experiment-wise variation between experiments I and II in these analyses. Body weight was recorded every week from the age of 10 weeks until the age of 19 weeks week (intervention week 0 to 9). Mice studies were performed at the French biotech company and contract research organization, Vaiomer, in accordance with the article R-214-89 of the French “Code rural et de la pêche maritime” section 6 “Use of living animals for scientific research” and approved by the ethical committee CEEA-122 of the SICOVAL Prologue Biotech Institute.

Glucose tolerance tests

An intraperitoneal glucose-tolerance test (IPGTT) was performed after six weeks of treatment to assess glucose management in mice. Six-hour-fasted mice were injected with glucose (1 g/kg) into the peritoneal cavity. The glucose response was followed from 30 min before the glucose challenge until 120 min after the challenge, measuring plasma glucose every 15–30 min using a standard glucose meter (Roche Diagnostics, Basel, Switzerland).

Sample collection and processing

Feces were collected fresh (between 9am and 11am) at intervention weeks 0, 3, 6 and 8 and stored at -80°C until analyzed. After the end of the intervention, intervention week 9, the mice were anesthetized in the fasting state (overnight). Ileum and colon mucosa were collected after a quick removal of the content, the mesenteric adipose tissue was collected (without the mesenteric lymph nodes). All samples were stored in plastic tube containing TRIzol (Invitrogen) and frozen in liquid nitrogen. Liver was harvested and frozen in liquid nitrogen. All samples were stored at -80°C.

DNA isolation and microbiota sequencing

Total DNA was extracted from frozen samples using the TRIzol protocol according to the manufacturer’s instructions and as previously described [34]. Protocols for PCR and sequencing were similar to the methods performed in Hibberd et al. [25] paper with the following modification for the intestinal and adipose tissues due to the low bacterial DNA template: the Taq used was instead Platinum Taq DNA Polymerase (ThermoFisher Scientific, Waltham, MA) with 35 PCR cycles (rather than 30) and an increase to 30% PhiX (rather than 15%) spike-in for the Illumina MiSeq sequencing run. 16S rDNA bacterial profiles associated with 780 fecal, 198 ileum, 202 colon, and 197 mesenteric adipose tissue samples from the mice were collected. The targeted metagenomic sequences from microbiota were analyzed using the bioinformatics pipeline established by Vaiomer from the FROGS guideline (described in detail in an [35]). Briefly, after demultiplexing of the bar-coded Illumina paired reads, single read sequences were cleaned and paired for each sample independently, into longer fragments. OTUs were produced with via single-linkage clustering and taxonomic assignment was performed to determine community profiles. As a software to trim sequences, fastx trimmer from FASTX Toolkit v0.0.14 was used with the following parameters: R1 and R2 were cut to 200nt due to the amplicon size (around 250nt with the primers used). As bioinformatics pipeline, FROGS v1.3.0 was used with following filters: Amplicons with a length < 200nt or a length > 300nt were removed; Amplicons with at least one ambiguous nucleotides (‘N’) were removed; OTU identified as chimera (with vsearch v1.9.5) in all samples in which they were present were removed; OTU with an abundance lower than 0.005% of the whole dataset abundance were removed; OTU with a strong similarity (coverage and identity > = 80%) with the phiX (library used as a control for Illumina sequencing runs) were removed. The clustering was produced in two passes of the swarm algorithm v2.1.6. The first pass was a clustering with an aggregation distance equal to 1, and the second pass was a clustering with an aggregation distance equal to 3. The taxonomic assignment was produced by Blast+ v2.2.30+ with the databank RDP v11.4. The R package PhyloSeq v1.14.0 was used to perform the microbiome diversity analyses and graphics. The samples with less than 5000 sequences after FROGS processing were not included in the statistics.

NMR spectroscopy

The NMR measurements of the fecal extracts were performed on a 600 MHz Bruker Avance III spectrometer and the intact liver were performed on a 600 MHz Bruker Avance spectrometer both operating at a frequency of 600.13 MHz for 1H nucleus (Bruker Biospins, Rheinstetten, Germany).

Fecal samples were extracted in a 1:4 weight-to-buffer ratio using a 0.75 M phosphate-buffered saline solution (pH = 7.4). The samples were homogenized by whirl mixing for 2 min and centrifuged at 10,000g for 15 min at 4°C. A volume of 500 μl supernatant was mixed with 100 μl of D2O containing 0.05% 3-(Trimethylsilyl)propionic acid-d4 sodium salt (TSP) as an internal standard (IS). A standard 1D Noesy experiment with pre-saturation (Bruker “noesypr1d” sequence) was used to acquire 1H NMR spectra at 298 K using a 5-mm broadband observe (BBO) probe. A total of 128 scans collected into 64K data points were acquired with a spectral width of 11.97 ppm, a recycle delay of 3 s and an acquisition time of 4.55 s. The fecal 1H spectra were processed with an exponential line-broadening of 0.8 Hz prior to the Fourier transformation. Automatic metabolic deconvolution and quantifications of 33 metabolites were performed using the Bayesian AuTomated Metabolite Analyser (BATMAN) R package [36].

For the intact liver High Resolution Magic Angle Spinning (HR-MAS) analysis, a piece of each of the intact liver samples (still frozen) were packed at -20°C in disposable pre-weighed 50 μL inserts (Bruker Biospin, Rheinstetten, Germany) followed by addition of 10 μL of D2O containing 0.05% TSP. Upon measurement, the insert (sample) was placed in a 4 mm zirconium rotor (Bruker BioSpin) and 1H NMR spectra were acquired with a CPMG experiment (cpmgpr1d, Bruker sequence) using a 4 mm HR-MAS probe (Bruker BioSpin). The acquisition parameters for the spectra were as follows: 5 kHz spin rate, 64 scans, a spectral width of 17.36 ppm with 32K data points, a total spin−spin relaxation delay of 100 ms (2nτ), a spin−echo delay of 1 ms (τ), a recycle time of 3 s and an acquisition time of 1.57 s. An exponential line broadening function of 0.3 Hz was applied to the free induction decay prior to the Fourier transformation. The Chenomx NMR Suite 8.4 software was applied to assign and quantify metabolites by determining the relative area of each metabolite and normalization to the mass of each liver sample. The methyl lipid signal at 1.33 ppm was manually integrated as a measurement of the relative hepatic lipid content and normalized to the mass of each liver sample.

Each spectrum was automatically phased and referenced to the anomeric signal of a-glucose at 5.23 ppm for intact liver samples and TSP at 0.0 ppm for feces samples using TopSpin 3.5 (Bruker BioSpin).

Data analysis

All clinical data were analyzed by one-way ANOVA with univariate information carrier comprising area under curve for IPGTT and log-transformed growth rate (slope) for body weight growth. If the global P-value was significant, Tukey’s multiple comparisons test was used to assess differences between groups. All data are expressed as mean ± standard error of mean (SEM), and significances are two-sided. Differences were considered statistically significant when P < 0.05.

Residual water signal and spectral ends were removed from the 1H NMR spectra. The intact liver samples were normalized to sample weight. For each sample type, the NMR spectra were imported into Matlab 2017a (The MathWorks, Inc., Natick, MA, USA), baseline-corrected by distribution-based classification [37], aligned using icoshift version 1.3.1 [38] and binned according to an optimized bucketing algorithm [39]. In addition, multivariate data analysis was performed by PCA analysis on Pareto-scaled data using PLS Toolbox (eigenvector Research, U.S.A.) in Matlab R2016b to detect clustering behavior. Univariate statistics using mixed models in SAS statistical software package version 9.3 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA) were performed on the quantified fecal metabolites with treatment and week effects and their interaction. The NMR variables were log-normal distributed and baseline-adjusted with week 0 samples prior to modelling. The effects of treatment and experiment on the quantified liver metabolites were analyzed using a two-way ANOVA in R (v. 3.5.1).

LDA Effect Size (LEfSe) [40] is an algorithm for high-dimensional biomarker discovery and explanation that can identify taxonomic groups characterizing the differences between two or more biological conditions. LEfSe first robustly identified features that were statistically different among biological classes. It then performed additional tests to assess whether these differences are consistent with respect to expected biological behavior. The OTU files were uploaded and formatted for LEfSe analysis using the per-sample normalization of sum values option. The linear discriminant analysis effect size was determined using default values (alpha value of 0.5 for both the factorial Kruskal-Wallis test among classes) except for the logarithmic LDA score threshold for discriminative features which was set to 4.3. The strategy for multi-class analysis was set to ‘all-against-all’. Differential features detected as biomarkers from the raw data used to generate the cladograms were plotted as abundance histograms with class information. The biomarkers found by LEfSe were ranked according to their effect size and associated by color (red and green for pairwise analysis) with the class (group) having the highest median.

Spearman’s rank correlation analysis adjusted for differences between experiments I and II was performed on body weight gain, fecal and intact liver metabolites and relative abundance of Akkermansia using SAS (v. 9.3). Fisher-Z transformation was determined for experiments I and II. Afterwards, a single correlation for each treatment was calculated by the inverse Fisher-Z transformation to the standard weighted average of experiments I and II Z-scores. Two-sided P values for each correlation were also included. Visualization by heat maps were done using R (v. 3.5.1) and gglot2 package (R Development Core Team, 2008).

Results

Body weight development and glucose tolerance as an effect of B420 and PDX

The C57BL/6J mouse model with the intake of HFD showed significant (NC vs. HFD: p<0.001) increased body weight gain during the intervention from weeks 0 to 9 (age weeks 10 to 19) when compared to a NC diet (Fig 1A). Treatment HFD+PDX (HFD vs. HFD+PDX, p = 0.020) also reduced body weight gain during 8 weeks of intervention compared to HFD alone. In addition, HFD impaired glucose tolerance for all HFD groups and no effect of pre-, pro- and synbiotics were observed (Fig 1B).

Fig 1. Treatment effects in male C57Bl/6J mice during 19-weeks intervention for 1st and 2nd experiment.

Fig 1

Values are means ± SEM. (A) Body weight gain (%). Significance: NC vs. all HFD, p<0.001; HFD vs. HFD+B420, p = 0.959; HFD vs. HFD+PDX, p = 0.020; HFD vs. HFD+S, p = 0.712; HFD+B420 vs. HFD+PDX, p = 0.127; HFD+B420 vs. HFD+PDX+B420, p = 0.979; HFD+PDX vs. HFD+PDX+B420, p = 0.366. (B) intraperitoneal glucose-tolerance test (mg/dl). Significance: NC vs. all HFD, p<0.001; HFD vs. HFD+B420, p = 0.987; HFD vs. HFD+PDX, p = 0.214; HFD vs. HFD+S, p = 0.975; HFD+B420 vs. HFD+PDX, p = 0.483; HFD+B420 vs. HFD+PDX+B420, p = 1.000; HFD+PDX vs. HFD+PDX+B420, p = 0.545.

Microbiota diversity and clustering of intervention groups

Looking at the relative abundance at Genus level revealed a similar microbial composition pattern between HFD and HFD+B420 groups and between HFD+PDX and HFD+S groups for the fecal weeks 3-6-8 and ileum and colon samples at week 9 (S1 Fig). No difference was observed between the groups for fecal samples at baseline and adipose tissue (MAT) (S1A and S1G Fig), indicating that there were no pre-treatment differences between the groups. From week 3 and onwards, a clear pattern was seen in the fecal samples with increased abundance of Alistipes and Bacteroides in all HFD groups. PDX also increased the relative abundance of Akkermansia and Parabactoroides (S1B–S1D Fig). In ileum and colon HFD and HFD+B420 did not induce clear systematic changes in the relative abundance at Genus level, whereas PDX induced increased relative abundance of Akkermansia and additional for most mice Parabacteroides in both the HFD+PDX and HFD+S groups.

Shannon index was used to represent α-diversity (within-sample species diversity), and the α-diversity was significantly decreased for all HFD groups in all fecal samples at week 8 and colon samples (S2B and S2D Fig). β-diversity was visualized using PCoA and the Bray-Curtis method. No differences in β-diversity were found at fecal baseline between the groups (S3A Fig). After intervention, PCoA plots of fecal, ileum, colon and MAT samples showed separation between NC and HFD groups and distinct clusters for PDX in the diet (S3B–S3E Fig).

Furthermore, the pairwise group LEfSe analysis (LDS >4.3) of the microbiota in fecal samples showed no difference between groups at baseline (Fig 2A). On a Phylum level, HFD increased the prevalence of Firmicutes, and decreased that of Bacteroidetes, in 8-week fecal, ileum and colon samples (Fig 2B–2D). On a genus level, in fecal microbiota, Alistipes and Bacteroides were increased in HFD when compared to NC, and with the inclusion of PDX the fecal relative abundance of Akkermansia and Parabacteroides were increased (Fig 2B). In the gut, relative abundance of Barnesiella was decreased in the ileum (Fig 2C) and Bacteroides and Mucispirillum were decreased in the colon (Fig 2D) in the HFD groups in comparison to NC. In addition, the relative abundance of Akkermansia increased in the ileum and colon as an effect of PDX intake, the relative abundance of Parasutterella increased in the ileum as an effect of PDX intake while the relative abundance of Parabacteroides increased in the synbiotic HFD+S group (Fig 2B–2D). B420 supplementation alone did not modify the observed changes on a Genus level for fecal, colon or ileum (Fig 2B–2D). On the contrary, in the adipose tissue (MAT), the abundance of Akkermansia was increased with the synbiotic treatment only (Fig 2E).

Fig 2. Cladogram shown for LEfSe analysis performed on the complete sequence data.

Fig 2

The significant LDA scores for the bacterial taxon found by LEfSe were ranked according to their effect size and associated by color with each treatment. (A) Fecal samples at week 0. (B) Fecal samples at week 8. (C) Ileum samples. (D) Colon samples. (E) Adipose tissue (MAT) samples.

The effect of pre- and probiotic on the metabolome

To get an overview of the effect of intake of an HFD diet together with probiotic, prebiotic or synbiotic interventions on the metabolome, PCA models for metabolomics data obtained from each compartment and sample type were performed. In feces, NC mice and fecal week 0 samples clustered together and the inclusion of PDX in the HFD diet, either alone or in synbiotic product, separated the HFD mice into two clusters (Fig 3A). From weeks 3 to 8, no changes in the fecal metabolome were seen. To obtain a better model of the changes in fecal metabolites without the dominating PDX signal, a targeted approach by automatic metabolic deconvolution was performed (Table 1). The baseline-adjusted fecal metabolic changes showed that HFD alone decreased the fecal SCFA levels of acetate, formate and propionate (P<0.001). The HFD+B420, HFD+PDX and HFD+S groups all had fecal SCFA levels closer to or similar to those observed in the NC group. BCFA (2-methyl butyrate and 3-methyl-2-oxovalerate) was decreased in the NC group, whereas it was increased in all HFD groups during the intervention (P<0.0001). Glycerol was increased the most with the inclusion of PDX (P<0.0001). In addition, ethanol levels increased in all groups, but the increase was highest in the HFD and HFD+B420 groups (P<0.0001). Overall, the concentrations of the majority of the measured fecal amino acids were increased most in the HFD+B420 group and least in the NC group. The changes of the TCA cycle intermediates including fumarate, malate and succinate in the fecal samples during the intervention were increased more in both HFD+PDX and HFD+S groups than in HFD group (all P<0.0001). The fecal glucose levels increased in the NC group and decreased in HFD and HFD+B420 groups during intervention, whereas inclusion of PDX resulted in no change in the synbiotic group and a slight decrease was observed in the HFD+PDX group (P<0.0001). The concentration of trimethylamine (TMA) in feces was found to be elevated after intervention with B420 alone and in combination with PDX (P<0.0001).

Fig 3. PCA models performed on the NMR data showing scores and loadings plots.

Fig 3

(A) Fecal samples. (B) intact liver samples.

Table 1. Mixed models describing treatment and week effects of fecal metabolites.

Metabolite Treatment Week Treatment* Week
LSMeans LSMeans
NC HFD HFD+B420 HFD+PDX HFD+B420+PDX P 3w 6w 8w P P
SCFA Acetate 0.006a -1.438c -0.919b -0.767b -0.582b <0.0001 -0.789 -0.775 -0.657 0.12 0.006
Butyrate -0.751ab -0.472ab -0.084a -0.984b -0.664ab 0.005 -0.513 -0.533 -0.726 0.057 0.11
Formate 0.807a -0.171c 0.187bc 0.493ab 0.738a <0.0001 0.071b 0.493a 0.668a <0.0001 0.16
Isobutyrate 0.268 -0.194 0.056 -0.026 -0.109 0.66 0.143 -0.119 -0.027 0.25 0.26
Isovalerate 0.287c 2.300a 3.004a 1.281b 1.471b <0.0001 1.824 1.500 1.682 0.049 0.63
Propionate -0.196a -1.169b -0.744ab -0.539ab -0.218a <0.0001 -0.696 -0.502 -0.521 0.18 0.068
Valerate -0.285c 1.698ab 2.035a 0.954b 1.420ab <0.0001 1.398 1.026 1.069 0.005 1.00
BCFA 2-methyl butyrate -0.224b 1.484a 1.999a 1.930a 1.993a <0.0001 1.576 1.286 1.449 0.12 0.45
3-methyl-2-oxovalerate -0.416b 1.757a 2.162a 1.421a 1.768a <0.0001 1.265 1.312 1.439 0.28 0.074
Alcohols Ethanol 0.561c 2.694a 2.688a 1.436bc 1.629b <0.0001 1.709b 1.501b 2.194a <0.0001 <0.0001
Glycerol 0.438b 0.403b 0.719b 1.347a 1.469a <0.0001 0.751b 0.782b 1.092a 0.001 0.74
Amino Acids Alanine 0.189c 0.858b 1.456a 1.082ab 1.453a <0.0001 0.984 0.949 1.090 0.044 0.32
Arginine 0.356a -1.744b -1.396b -1.577b -1.635b <0.0001 -1.388b -0.932a -1.278b <0.0001 0.089
Glycine -0.001 0.013 0.006 0.014 -0.003 0.65 0.005 0.003 0.009 0.57 0.23
Isoleucine 0.331c 1.520b 2.096a 1.831ab 2.121a <0.0001 1.569 1.524 1.646 0.13 0.70
Leucine 0.270c 1.661ab 2.086a 1.327b 1.594b <0.0001 1.438 1.303 1.422 0.15 0.59
Lysine 0.087c 0.602b 1.005a 0.786ab 1.022a <0.0001 0.701 0.720 0.681 0.84 0.47
Phenylalanine -0.005c 0.612b 1.222a 0.518b 0.713b <0.0001 0.316 0.851 0.668 0.44 0.57
Tryptophan 0.138c 0.422bc 1.061a 0.286bc 0.771ab 0.0001 0.606 0.444 0.557 0.19 0.11
Tyrosine -0.037c 0.719b 1.287a 0.491b 0.729b <0.0001 0.463b 0.797a 0.653ab <0.0001 0.010
Valine 0.062c 1.254b 1.657a 1.172b 1.544ab <0.0001 1.119 1.110 1.184 0.50 0.98
Metabolism Fumarate 0.186b -0.791c -0.562c 1.082a 0.947a <0.0001 0.155 0.237 0.125 0.47 0.001
Glutarate -0.065c 0.775ab 1.204a 0.127bc 0.732ab <0.0001 0.674 0.492 0.499 0.17 0.33
Glucose 0.514a -2.022d -1.440c -0.215b 0.000ab <0.0001 -0.660 -0.579 -0.659 0.62 0.005
Lactate -0.006a -0.904b -0.688b -0.025a 0.203a <0.0001 -0.316 -0.313 -0.224 0.37 0.10
Malate 0.232d 1.568c 1.921bc 2.179ab 2.426a <0.0001 1.700 1.594 1.702 0.25 0.61
Ribose 0.051bc -0.654d -0.465cd 0.803a 0.692ab <0.0001 0.100 0.123 0.033 0.79 0.77
Succinate 0.173a -1.265c -0.956bc -0.190a -0.298ab <0.0001 -0.472 -0.530 -0.519 0.81 0.016
Others Cadavarine -0.329b 1.456a 1.758a 1.113a 1.323a <0.0001 1.119 0.916 1.158 0.13 0.038
Orotic acid -0.582 -0.865 -1.066 -0.589 -0.216 0.14 -0.920b -0.799b -0.272a <0.0001 0.024
Nicotinate -0.747 -0.891 -0.265 -1.153 -0.763 0.13 -0.775 -0.677 -0.839 0.39 0.15
Trimethylamine -0.325c 0.004bc 0.500a 0.224ab 0.693a <0.0001 0.137 0.307 0.213 0.17 0.83
Xanthine -0.593 -0.031 -0.140 -0.061 -0.165 0.15 -0.100 -0.146 -0.347 0.12 0.16

The quantified fecal metabolites are log-normal distributed and baseline-adjusted; i.e. a positive and a negative LSMeans value shows increasing and decreasing fecal levels, respectively. Least-square mean values within a row with unlike superscript letters were significantly different for the diet or week effects (P<0.05).

For the intact liver samples in experiment I, all the NC samples had negative scores in PC1 (62.6% explained variation), which corresponded to a decreased hepatic liver fat (Fig 3B). Although the different treatment groups were otherwise heavily overlapped in the PCA scores plot making it difficult to observe clustering, they showed some clustering in experiment II with mice consuming B420 in the upper-right quadrant, mice consuming PDX in the upper-left quadrant, mice solely on HFD in the right quadrants, and the synbiotic group with NC mice in the lower-left quadrant. These differences were mainly due to higher hepatic fat levels observed in HFD and HFD+B420 mice than in NC, HFD+PDX and HFD+S mice, which was in agreement with the integrated methyl lipid signal reported in Table 2 (P<0.0001). Furthermore, Table 2 shows that acetate (P<0.0001), ethanol (P = 0.001) and glycerol (P<0.0001) levels were elevated in NC mice and with the inclusion of PDX compared to HFD and HFD+B420 mice. For the quantified amino acids, the pattern was not that clear except that there seemed to be an increase in some of the amino acids in the liver in HFD+PDX and HFD+S groups. Both hepatic betaine and choline levels were significantly higher in HFD mice with the inclusion of PDX alone or together with B420 (P<0.0001). The energy-related metabolites creatine (P<0.0001), glucose (P = 0.0008), glycogen (P = 0.046) and lactate (P = 0.0002) all had higher concentrations in the HFD+PDX and HFD+S groups compared to HFD and HFD+B420 groups. In addition, the content of ascorbate (P = 0.029) and glutathione (P = 0.001) in liver were elevated with the inclusion of PDX.

Table 2. ANOVA models describing treatment and experiment effects of log-normal distributed quantified liver metabolites values.

Metabolite Treatment Experiment Ln(normalised conc.)
Ln(normalised conc.)
NC HFD HFD+B420 HFD+PDX HFD+B420+PDX P I II P
SCFA & Alcohols Acetate -4.79a -5.83b -5.63b -4.73a -4.87a <0.0001 -4.90 -5.45 <0.0001
Ethanol -2.74a -3.75b -3.71b -2.82a -3.00a 0.001 -2.66 -3.75 <0.0001
Glycerol -4.24a -4.74b -4.85b -4.04a -3.76a <0.0001 -4.07 -4.58 0.004
Amino Acids Alanine -4.83b -5.36c -5.44c -4.28a -4.71b <0.0001 -4.75 -5.09 0.003
Glycine -4.29a -4.93b -4.89b -4.03a -4.25a <0.0001 -4.35 -4.61 0.06
Glutamine -3.67ab -4.20c -3.96bc -3.38a -3.56ab 0.0001 -3.66 -3.85 0.09
Isoleucine -5.24 -5.92 -5.94 -5.56 -5.75 0.58 -5.53 -5.83 0.13
Leucine -3.68 -4.17 -4.00 -3.82 -3.56 0.11 -3.84 -3.85 0.68
Valine -4.67a -5.82b -6.11b -5.13a -5.04a <0.0001 -5.08 -5.63 0.002
Metabolism & Others Ascorbate -4.69ab -4.89b -4.84b -4.29a -4.58ab 0.029 -4.63 -4.69 0.57
Betaine -4.59bc -4.85cd -5.07d -4.09a -4.31ab <0.0001 -4.30 -4.86 <0.0001
Choline -4.75a -5.24b -5.35b -4.42a -4.40a <0.0001 -4.45 -5.21 <0.0001
Creatine -6.16ab -7.09c -6.98c -5.95a -6.48b <0.0001 -6.29 -6.77 0.008
Glucose -0.48a -0.88b -0.91b -0.29a -0.47a 0.0008 -0.30 -0.92 <0.0001
Glutathione -4.01b -4.47c -4.37bc -3.75a -3.90a 0.001 -4.21 -3.99 0.18
Glycerophosphocholine -2.48b -2.59b -2.58b -1.76a -2.05a <0.0001 -2.24 -2.35 0.25
Glycogen 2.52a 2.11b 1.90b 2.57a 2.66a 0.046 -1.38 -1.78 0.07
Lactate -3.70a -4.32b -4.21b -3.56a -3.75a 0.0002 -3.72 -4.09 0.006
Taurine -1.57 -1.78 -1.75 -1.33 -1.50 0.089 -1.38 -1.79 0.002
Lipid 1.68c 2.28ab 2.42a 1.72c 2.02b <0.0001 1.89 2.16 0.004

Least-square mean values within a row with unlike superscript letters were significantly different for the treatment or experiment effects (P<0.05).

Spearman correlations

Within group Spearman correlations were tested multi-compartmentally on Akkermansia and body weight gain and glucose intolerance (Fig 4A). The correlations between Akkermansia in all compartments and the fecal and liver multi-compartmental metabolite levels were also tested (Fig 4B and 4C).

Fig 4. Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients heat map of associations to the relative abundance of Akkermansia.

Fig 4

(A) At different compartment, body weight gain and glucose tolerance. (B) Fecal metabolites. (C) Liver metabolites.

Intriguingly, Akkermansia in adipose tissue was positively correlated with Akkermansia in ileum in the HFD+B420 (r = 0.41, P = 0.02) and HFD+PDX (r = 0.41, P = 0.03) groups. In ileum of the HFD+S group, Akkermansia was inversely correlated with body weight gain (r = -0.53, P = 0.01) and glucose tolerance (r = -0.33, p = 0.08).

Correlations between fecal metabolites and Akkermansia indicated that for HFD+S mice fecal Akkermansia was positively correlated with fecal fumarate levels (r = 0.47, P = 0.01) and negatively correlated with fecal propionate (r = -0.55, P<0.01) and nicotinate (r = -0.60, P<0.01). It was also observed in the adipose tissue that the B420 treatment induced an inverse correlation between fecal glycerol and Akkermansia (r = -0.40, P = 0.03) and the synbiotic treatment induced an inverse correlation between fecal glycerol and Akkermansia (r = -0.50, P<0.01). Ileal Akkermansia in HFD+S mice were positively correlated with fecal trimethylamine (TMA; r = 0.40, P = 0.03) and hepatic choline (r = 0.40, P = 0.03) and betaine (r = 0.42, P = 0.02). In the mice fed HFD + B420, a positive correlation between ileum Akkermansia and hepatic levels of Taurine (r = 0.44, P = 0.01) and Leucine (r = 0.40, P = 0.03) was seen. In colon, in the case of HFD+PDX fed mice, Akkermansia showed inverse correlations to hepatic creatinine (r = -0.40, P = 0.03), choline (r = -0.41, P = 0.03), valine (r = -0.44, P = 0.02) and ethanol (r = -0.47, P = 0.01). Furthermore, synbiotic treatment results in inverse correlations between Akkermansia in adipose tissue and hepatic glycine (r = -0.38, P = 0.04), valine (r = -0.39, P = 0.03), choline (r = -0.41, P = 0.02) and positive correlation to hepatic lipid (r = 0.40, P = 0.03). HFD+B420 had positive correlations within group between Akkermansia in adipose tissue and liver amino acids such as glycine (r = 0.43, P = 0.02), Alanine (r = 0.40, P = 0.03) as well as branched chain amino acids leucine (r = 0.64, P<0.01) and isoleucine (r = 0.39, P = 0.03). No significant correlations were found for the other treatments in adipose tissue.

Discussion

In this study, the mechanism of probiotic, prebiotic and synbiotic treatment on fat accumulation was studied by administering HFD (with 60 kcal% fat) to C57BL/6J mouse model susceptible to diet induced obesity. As expected, HFD resulted in drastic weight gain in C57BL/6J mice and induced a dramatic shift in gut microbiota composition by increasing Firmicutes and decreasing Bacteroidetes in phylum level–this diet-induced reshape of the composition in microbial community under HFD is well-characterized and in accordance with previous literature [41]. This modulation of the Firmicutes/Bacteroidetes-ratio has been reported to be associated with overweight or obese phenotype not only in animal trials but also in observational human trials both in adults [42] and in children [42]. HFD also decreased the α-diversity. All in all, the fecal microbiota changes induced in the present trial by HFD in C57BL/6J mice were similar to what has previously been described in literature [43].

The primary result of this nine weeks’ intervention study was that the metabolic response in C57BL/6J mice to HFD was modified by all three active diets and accompanied by the multi-compartmental changes in microbiota composition and metabolite profiles. It was expected from previous research that the prebiotic and synbiotic treatments would alleviate the effects of HFD on microbiota in fecal samples and in the gut [7, 8, 11]. However, the present study added to the previously shown ability of PDX to decrease food intake due to its satiety effect [16, 17], an ability to attenuate body weight gain and high hepatic fat levels induced by HFD. On the other hand, pro- and synbiotics did not induce such reduced weight gain in this obesogenic mouse model. Intriguingly, it should be noted that the ability of PDX to attenuate body weight gain demonstrated in this mice HFD study contrasts with what has previously been observed in a human study [11].

An overview of the main findings and on how Akkermansia correlates to liver metabolism in a tissue & diet specific manner is illustrated in Fig 5. Importantly, prebiotic PDX both alone and in combination with probiotic B420 increased the prevalence of Akkermansia both in gut and in MAT. Akkermansia muciniphila has previously been associated with lean phenotype and healthy metabolism [28], possibly via reversing HFD-induced decrease in mucin layer thickness and number of goblet cells in the epithelium [30] by outer membrane protein-Toll-like receptor 2-interaction [31]. Thus, one of the most striking new finding of this study was that synbiotic intervention increased the level of Akkermansia in MAT. Utilization of Akkermansia as a probiotic is limited by its requirements for complex culture conditions and animal-based medium as well as its sensitivity to oxygen [44]. Although, a recent study by Depommier et al. [29] conducted a human clinical trial on oral supplementation of A. muciniphila, which was found to be safe in longer term administration. Increasing the relative proportion of Akkermansia in the gut microbiota by prebiotics was studied in a clinical trial, in which B420 not only together with PDX but also alone was able to increase the prevalence of A. muciniphila in human fecal samples during six-month intervention [25]. Another recent study by Ondee et al. [45] with a similar HFD mice model as the present study, found that Lactobacillus acidophilus 5 (LA5) administration promotes A. muciniphila in the gut and showed a clear attenuation of the adverse effects of HFD as indicated by decreased hepatic injury. The present study offers further means to gain mechanistical understanding on the modes of action that pre-, pro- and synbiotics might induce healthy metabolism via increased Akkermansia proportion.

Fig 5. Graphical abstract of findings including overview of the Akkermansia abundance in different tissues with Spearman rank correlations to liver metabolites (color coded to treatment).

Fig 5

The treatment effect of each liver metabolite is given relative to HFD (legends E, H, L) based on the ANOVA model in Table 2.

Bacterial metabolites are known to exert many of the observed effects that gut microbiota composition has on health. SCFAs form a group of metabolites produced by bacterial fermentation from dietary components such as fiber. In general, associations between fecal levels of SCFAs and obesity is still rather contradictory. Kimura showed that the diet-induced obesity was linked to a decrease in SCFA levels [46] while an increase in levels was observed in genetically modified (ob/ob) mice [2]. Further, the mechanisms through which SCFAs can modulate weight gain include appetite regulation. SCFAs have been shown to regulate the G Protein-coupled receptor activity by increasing its expression in adipose tissue and decreasing it in colon [47]. Specifically, propionate has been shown to affect appetite regulation [48] through PYY and GLP-1 hormone release stimulation from human colonic cells. In a clinical trial, B420 alone, as well as together with PDX as a synbiotic product, modulated the dietary intake of the participants so that they consumed less calories than the placebo group, although no dietary recommendations or intervention was given [11]. PDX alone is known to increase the release of GLP-1 postprandially in humans [17, 18]. A. muciniphila has been shown to produce propionate, a SCFA with shown effects on genes that regulate for example lipid metabolism and lipolysis [49, 50]. In this study, HFD decreased fecal SCFA levels (acetate, formate and propionate) when compared to normal chow, and synbiotic product with both PDX and B420 was able to statistically significantly increase the SCFA levels compared to HFD. Also, a trend was observed for propionate also in the probiotic and prebiotic groups compared to HFD. Butyrate level was increased in the probiotic group alone compared to all other groups. Thus, the present study showed that PDX and B420 can modulate the gut microbiota under HFD towards composition sustaining propionate production. One can speculate that one of the mechanisms behind the observed ability of PDX and B420 to modulate the calorie intake in clinical trial [11], could be modulation of the appetite hormone level release from human colonic cells by sustained propionate production.

The levels of TCA-cycle metabolites in the fecal samples were increased by PDX, as an increase of fumarate, malate, succinate levels in the HFD+PDX and HFD+S groups compared to HFD and HFD+B420 groups was seen. This kind of metabolic turnover could be expected from the prebiotic effect of the PDX-fiber, and the findings were in accordance with a previous human study in which the intake of PDX was correlated with increased levels of succinate, acetate, butyrate and propionate in fecal metabolome [9].

Gut-liver axis refers to the interaction between gastrointestinal tract and liver which in both healthy and diseased state involves transfer of gut microbiota derived molecules. The close anatomical and functional association between intestinal lumen and liver control the metabolism in the liver tissue. When there is surplus translocation of bacterial components or bacteria towards liver tissue, TLR signaling is modulated and levels of inflammatory markers get elevated [51]. Low choline-diet promotes accumulation of triacylglycerols in the liver, and choline deficiency is also associated to fecal microbiota composition inducing variation in Firmicutes and Proteobacteria species that are directly associated with changes in the liver fat [52]. It is known that HFD may promote distortion of gut-liver axis communication also by inducing alterations in the bile acid and choline metabolism [51]. In the present study, the liver metabolomics showed PDX driven effect of normalized levels of various amino acids, as well as betaine, choline, glycerolphosphocholine, glucose and creatine in the metabolome of intact liver. Betaine functions in liver as a methyl-donor donor for methionine biosynthesis [53]. Furthermore, betaine is hepatoprotective having i.e. anti-inflammatory effect in liver, and has been associated with reduced liver injury [54]. Choline is an important essential nutrient having various roles in sustaining healthy liver function [55]. Betaine, on the other hand, can be oxidized from choline in a two-step reaction. Choline and its metabolites have crucial roles in maintaining liver health as well as regulating gene expression and seem to even function as a neuroprotectant as reviewed recently by Wiedeman et al. [56]. Glutathione levels were observed to be improved by both the PDX and synbiotics intervention, hence improving the detoxification capacity of the liver [57]. Besides being a reactive oxygen species scavenger, human clinical studies indicate that glutathione administration has positive effects on patients with diagnosed fatty acid liver disease [58]. In a study by Gogiashvili et al. [59], perturbations in the betaine and transsulfuration pathways have been observed in fatty acid liver disease in ob/ob mice by profiling of the liver using HR-MAS NMR. The authors speculate in limitation of glutathione synthesis caused by these pertubations.

As the key finding of this study was to show that Akkermansia can be found in mice adipose tissue, and that the infiltration of Akkermansia is increased by the synbiotic probiotic and prebiotic intervention, it was very interesting to take a closer look into how Akkermansia abundance in various tissues correlates with liver metabolome. Akkermansia prevalence in ileum was negatively associated with body weight gain, and positively correlated with Leucine and Taurine for the HFD+B420 group and similar for the hepato-protectants betaine and choline in liver for in the synbiotic group. Akkermansia levels in the adipose tissue (MAT) was positively associated (P<0.05) with amino acid levels of Alanine, Glycine, Leucine, Isoleucine in the liver of mice fed the HFD + B420 diet. On the contrary, during the HDF + Synbiotic diet a negative correlation was observed between Glycine, Valine and the Choline while hepatic Lipid was negatively associated. Schneeberger et al., 2015 [60] observed a positive correlation of levels of Akkermansia to an altering of metabolic parameters related to adipose fat browning and lipid oxidation. Brown fat tissue energy metabolism has recently been associated with changes in the catabolism of branched chained amino acids [61]. It can be hypothezised that the synbiotic diet alters lipid oxidation and brown fat metabolism through the adipose Akkermansia infiltration.

A recent paper by Perakakis et al. [62] describes the underlying mechanistic effect of liraglutide and elafibranor, which are a GLP-1 receptor analog and a dual PPAR α/δ agonist, respectively, in regard to treatment of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). Similarities between the two studies were found for HFD+PDX and HFD+S groups with liraglutide by restoring the levels of glycogen and increasing betaine concentration in the liver. Additionally, both HFD+PDX and HFD+S showed similar results with elafibranor treatment considering the increased glutathione levels in the liver. It has previously been discussed in literature that probiotics supplementation is a potential therapeutic strategy towards NAFDL [63]. Thus, it can be speculated, administration of PDX alone or in combination with B420 could potentially be a supplement to liraglutide and elefibranor to be used in the treatment of NAFLD.

In conclusion, polydextrose and B. animalis lactis ssp. 420, alone and in combination, induced multi-compartmental changes in microbiota and metabolite levels in an obesogenic mouse model. Supplementation of the dietary fiber, polydextrose, was reducing the weight gain during the high fat diet intervention. An increase in the prevalence of Akkermansia and improved liver health as indicated by methyl-donors was observed after supplementation of polydextrose with or without probiotics Bifidobacterium animalis ssp. lactis 420. However, further studies are needed to clarify the effect on liver health incl. e.g. histology and hepatic in-vitro models. The Synbiotic intervention increased the abundance of Akkermansia in mice adipose tissue, which again was correlated to reduced weight gain. Understanding the mechanisms behind gut microbiota association with lean/obese phenotype as well as weight development is highly demanded. The results of the present study bring valuable new information in understanding how pre- and probiotics can affect the interplay between gut, liver and adipose tissue.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Relative abundance at Genus level from metagenomic sequencing.

(A) Fecal samples at week 0. (B) Fecal samples at week 3. The order of the treatments is from left to right: NC, HFD, HFD+B420, HFD+PDX and HFD+S.

(PDF)

S2 Fig. Microbiota α-diversity index evaluated using the Shannon index.

(A) Fecal samples at week 0. (B) Fecal samples at week 8. (C) Ileum samples. (D) Colon samples. (E) Adipose tissue (MAT).

(PDF)

S3 Fig. Principal coordinate analysis (PCoA) on microbiota β-diversity clustering based on BrayCurtis, Jaccard, Unifrac and Weighted Unifrac distances for comparison of the different treatments.

(A) Fecal samples at week 0. (B) Fecal samples at week 8. (C) Ileum samples. (D) Colon samples. (E) Adipose tissue (MAT) samples.

(PDF)

S4 Fig. Representative 1H NMR spectra from the same synbiotic HFD+PDX+B420 mice.

(A) Fecal samples. (B) Intact liver samples.

(PDF)

Acknowledgments

Anita Beck-Rasmussen and Nina Eggers for technical support with the metabolomics. Ashley Hibberd, Buffy Stahl and Wesley Morovic for performing the PCR and sequencing. The authors also express their gratitude to Arthur Ouwehand for critical review of the manuscript.

Abbreviations

PDX

polydextrose

B420

Bifidobacterium animalis subsp. lactis 420

CPMG

Carr-Purcell-Meiboom-Gill sequence

GCMS

gas chromatography mass spectrometry

HFD

high fat diet

MAT

mesenteric adipose tissue

LCMS

liquid chromatography mass spectrometry

LDA

Linear discriminant analysis

NC

normal control

NMR

nuclear magnetic resonance

Noesy

nuclear overhauser spectroscopy)

OMV

outer membrane vesicles

OTU

Operational taxonomic units

PCA

principal component analysis

PCOA

principal coordinate analysis

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

This study was funded by IFF Health & Biosciences. CCY was financially supported by the Innovation Fund Denmark (Project No. 4228-00010B). IFF Health & Biosciences manufactures the prebiotic (Litesse® polydextrose) and probiotic (HOWARU® Shape (10B CFU B. lactis B420™) used in this study. Investigating the effects of these commercial products was the reason to initiate the study incl. study design, data collection and analysis and decision to publish. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.

References

  • 1.OECD. The Heavy Burden of Obesity:The Economics of Prevention, OECD Health Policy Studies. OECD Publishing, Paris. 2019. 10.1787/67450d67-en. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Turnbaugh PJ, Ley RE, Mahowald MA, Magrini V, Mardis ER, Gordon JI. An obesity-associated gut microbiome with increased capacity for energy harvest. Nature. 2006;444(7122):1027–31. doi: 10.1038/nature05414 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Ley RE, Turnbaugh PJ, Klein S, Gordon JI. Microbial ecology: human gut microbes associated with obesity. Nature. 2006;444(7122):1022–3. doi: 10.1038/4441022a . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Hill C, Guarner F, Reid G, Gibson GR, Merenstein DJ, Pot B, et al. Expert consensus document. The International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics consensus statement on the scope and appropriate use of the term probiotic. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2014;11(8):506–14. doi: 10.1038/nrgastro.2014.66 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Gibson GR, Hutkins R, Sanders ME, Prescott SL, Reimer RA, Salminen SJ, et al. Expert consensus document: The International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics (ISAPP) consensus statement on the definition and scope of prebiotics. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017;14(8):491–502. doi: 10.1038/nrgastro.2017.75 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Kobyliak N, Conte C, Cammarota G, Haley AP, Styriak I, Gaspar L, et al. Probiotics in prevention and treatment of obesity: a critical view. Nutr Metab (Lond). 2016;13:14. doi: 10.1186/s12986-016-0067-0 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4761174. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Stenman LK, Waget A, Garret C, Klopp P, Burcelin R, Lahtinen S. Potential probiotic Bifidobacterium animalis ssp. lactis 420 prevents weight gain and glucose intolerance in diet-induced obese mice. Benef Microbes. 2014;5(4):437–45. doi: 10.3920/BM2014.0014 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Amar J, Chabo C, Waget A, Klopp P, Vachoux C, Bermudez-Humaran LG, et al. Intestinal mucosal adherence and translocation of commensal bacteria at the early onset of type 2 diabetes: molecular mechanisms and probiotic treatment. Embo Mol Med. 2011;3(9):559–72. doi: 10.1002/emmm.201100159 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3265717. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Lamichhane S, Yde CC, Forssten S, Ouwehand AC, Saarinen M, Jensen HM, et al. Impact of dietary polydextrose fiber on the human gut metabolome. J Agric Food Chem. 2014;62(40):9944–51. doi: 10.1021/jf5031218 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Lahtinen SJ, Knoblock K, Drakoularakou A, Jacob M, Stowell J, Gibson GR, et al. Effect of molecule branching and glycosidic linkage on the degradation of polydextrose by gut microbiota. Biosci Biotechnol Biochem. 2010;74(10):2016–21. doi: 10.1271/bbb.100251 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Stenman LK, Lehtinen MJ, Meland N, Christensen JE, Yeung N, Saarinen MT, et al. Probiotic With or Without Fiber Controls Body Fat Mass, Associated With Serum Zonulin, in Overweight and Obese Adults-Randomized Controlled Trial. EBioMedicine. 2016;13:190–200. doi: 10.1016/j.ebiom.2016.10.036 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5264483. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Costabile A, Fava F, Roytio H, Forssten SD, Olli K, Klievink J, et al. Impact of polydextrose on the faecal microbiota: a double-blind, crossover, placebo-controlled feeding study in healthy human subjects. Br J Nutr. 2012;108(3):471–81. doi: 10.1017/S0007114511005782 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Holscher HD, Caporaso JG, Hooda S, Brulc JM, Fahey GC Jr., Swanson KS. Fiber supplementation influences phylogenetic structure and functional capacity of the human intestinal microbiome: follow-up of a randomized controlled trial. Am J Clin Nutr. 2015;101(1):55–64. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.114.092064 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Lamichhane S, Yde CC, Jensen HM, Morovic W, Hibberd AA, Ouwehand AC, et al. Metabolic Fate of (13)C-Labeled Polydextrose and Impact on the Gut Microbiome: A Triple-Phase Study in a Colon Simulator. J Proteome Res. 2018;17(3):1041–53. doi: 10.1021/acs.jproteome.7b00683 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Hull S, Re R, Tiihonen K, Viscione L, Wickham M. Consuming polydextrose in a mid-morning snack increases acute satiety measurements and reduces subsequent energy intake at lunch in healthy human subjects. Appetite. 2012;59(3):706–12. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2012.08.004 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Raza GS, Putaala H, Hibberd AA, Alhoniemi E, Tiihonen K, Makela KA, et al. Polydextrose changes the gut microbiome and attenuates fasting triglyceride and cholesterol levels in Western diet fed mice. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):5294. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-05259-3 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5509720. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Olli K, Salli K, Alhoniemi E, Saarinen M, Ibarra A, Vasankari T, et al. Postprandial effects of polydextrose on satiety hormone responses and subjective feelings of appetite in obese participants. Nutr J. 2015;14:2. doi: 10.1186/1475-2891-14-2 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4320494. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Ibarra A, Olli K, Pasman W, Hendriks H, Alhoniemi E, Raza GS, et al. Effects of polydextrose with breakfast or with a midmorning preload on food intake and other appetite-related parameters in healthy normal-weight and overweight females: An acute, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, and crossover study. Appetite. 2017;110:15–24. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2016.12.002 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Le Chatelier E, Nielsen T, Qin J, Prifti E, Hildebrand F, Falony G, et al. Richness of human gut microbiome correlates with metabolic markers. Nature. 2013;500(7464):541–6. doi: 10.1038/nature12506 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Liu R, Hong J, Xu X, Feng Q, Zhang D, Gu Y, et al. Gut microbiome and serum metabolome alterations in obesity and after weight-loss intervention. Nat Med. 2017;23(7):859–68. doi: 10.1038/nm.4358 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Paul HA, Bomhof MR, Vogel HJ, Reimer RA. Diet-induced changes in maternal gut microbiota and metabolomic profiles influence programming of offspring obesity risk in rats. Sci Rep. 2016;6:20683. doi: 10.1038/srep20683 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4751613. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Thomas CM, Hong T, van Pijkeren JP, Hemarajata P, Trinh DV, Hu W, et al. Histamine derived from probiotic Lactobacillus reuteri suppresses TNF via modulation of PKA and ERK signaling. Plos One. 2012;7(2):e31951. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0031951 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3285189. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Zhao L, Zhang F, Ding X, Wu G, Lam YY, Wang X, et al. Gut bacteria selectively promoted by dietary fibers alleviate type 2 diabetes. Science. 2018;359(6380):1151–6. doi: 10.1126/science.aao5774 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Tripathi A, Debelius J, Brenner DA, Karin M, Loomba R, Schnabl B, et al. The gut-liver axis and the intersection with the microbiome. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018;15(7):397–411. doi: 10.1038/s41575-018-0011-z ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6319369. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Hibberd AA, Yde CC, Ziegler ML, Honore AH, Saarinen MT, Lahtinen S, et al. Probiotic or synbiotic alters the gut microbiota and metabolism in a randomised controlled trial of weight management in overweight adults. Benef Microbes. 2019;10(2):121–35. doi: 10.3920/BM2018.0028 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Pedersen HK, Gudmundsdottir V, Nielsen HB, Hyotylainen T, Nielsen T, Jensen BA, et al. Human gut microbes impact host serum metabolome and insulin sensitivity. Nature. 2016;535(7612):376–81. doi: 10.1038/nature18646 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Vernocchi P, Del Chierico F, Putignani L. Gut Microbiota Profiling: Metabolomics Based Approach to Unravel Compounds Affecting Human Health. Front Microbiol. 2016;7:1144. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2016.01144 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4960240. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Dao MC, Everard A, Aron-Wisnewsky J, Sokolovska N, Prifti E, Verger EO, et al. Akkermansia muciniphila and improved metabolic health during a dietary intervention in obesity: relationship with gut microbiome richness and ecology. Gut. 2016;65(3):426–36. Epub 2015/06/24. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2014-308778 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Depommier C, Everard A, Druart C, Plovier H, Van Hul M, Vieira-Silva S, et al. Supplementation with Akkermansia muciniphila in overweight and obese human volunteers: a proof-of-concept exploratory study. Nat Med. 2019;25(7):1096–103. doi: 10.1038/s41591-019-0495-2 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6699990. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Everard A, Belzer C, Geurts L, Ouwerkerk JP, Druart C, Bindels LB, et al. Cross-talk between Akkermansia muciniphila and intestinal epithelium controls diet-induced obesity. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013;110(22):9066–71. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1219451110 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3670398. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Plovier H, Everard A, Druart C, Depommier C, Van Hul M, Geurts L, et al. A purified membrane protein from Akkermansia muciniphila or the pasteurized bacterium improves metabolism in obese and diabetic mice. Nat Med. 2017;23(1):107–13. Epub 2016/11/29. doi: 10.1038/nm.4236 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Beckonert O, Coen M, Keun HC, Wang Y, Ebbels TM, Holmes E, et al. High-resolution magic-angle-spinning NMR spectroscopy for metabolic profiling of intact tissues. Nat Protoc. 2010;5(6):1019–32. doi: 10.1038/nprot.2010.45 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Feng J, Isern NG, Burton SD, Hu JZ. Studies of Secondary Melanoma on C57BL/6J Mouse Liver Using 1H NMR Metabolomics. Metabolites. 2013;3(4):1011–35. doi: 10.3390/metabo3041011 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3937829. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Lluch J, Servant F, Paisse S, Valle C, Valiere S, Kuchly C, et al. The Characterization of Novel Tissue Microbiota Using an Optimized 16S Metagenomic Sequencing Pipeline. Plos One. 2015;10(11):e0142334. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0142334 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4636327. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Escudie F, Auer L, Bernard M, Mariadassou M, Cauquil L, Vidal K, et al. FROGS: Find, Rapidly, OTUs with Galaxy Solution. Bioinformatics. 2018;34(8):1287–94. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btx791 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Hao J, Liebeke M, Astle W, De Iorio M, Bundy JG, Ebbels TM. Bayesian deconvolution and quantification of metabolites in complex 1D NMR spectra using BATMAN. Nat Protoc. 2014;9(6):1416–27. doi: 10.1038/nprot.2014.090 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Wang KC, Wang SY, Kuo CH, Tseng YFJ. Distribution-Based Classification Method for Baseline Correction of Metabolomic 1D Proton Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Spectra. Analytical Chemistry. 2013;85(2):1231–9. doi: 10.1021/ac303233c PubMed PMID: WOS:000313668400080. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Savorani F, Tomasi G, Engelsen SB. icoshift: A versatile tool for the rapid alignment of 1D NMR spectra. J Magn Reson. 2010;202(2):190–202. doi: 10.1016/j.jmr.2009.11.012 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Sousa SAA, Magalhaes A, Ferreira MMC. Optimized bucketing for NMR spectra: Three case studies. Chemometr Intell Lab. 2013;122:93–102. doi: 10.1016/j.chemolab.2013.01.006 PubMed PMID: WOS:000316428400011. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Segata N, Izard J, Waldron L, Gevers D, Miropolsky L, Garrett WS, et al. Metagenomic biomarker discovery and explanation. Genome Biol. 2011;12(6):R60. doi: 10.1186/gb-2011-12-6-r60 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3218848. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Cotillard A, Kennedy SP, Kong LC, Prifti E, Pons N, Le Chatelier E, et al. Dietary intervention impact on gut microbial gene richness. Nature. 2013;500(7464):585–8. Epub 2013/08/30. doi: 10.1038/nature12480 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Santos Pereira Indiani CMD, Rizzardi KF, Castelo PM, Ferraz LFC, Darrieux M, Parisotto TM. Childhood Obesity and Firmicutes/Bacteroidetes Ratio in the Gut Microbiota: A Systematic Review. Childhood obesity (Print). 2018. Epub 2018/09/06. doi: 10.1089/chi.2018.0040 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Shang Y, Khafipour E, Derakhshani H, Sarna LK, Woo CW, Siow YL, et al. Short Term High Fat Diet Induces Obesity-Enhancing Changes in Mouse Gut Microbiota That are Partially Reversed by Cessation of the High Fat Diet. Lipids. 2017;52(6):499–511. Epub 2017/04/22. doi: 10.1007/s11745-017-4253-2 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Ouwerkerk JP, Aalvink S, Belzer C, de Vos WM. Akkermansia glycaniphila sp. nov., an anaerobic mucin-degrading bacterium isolated from reticulated python faeces. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2016;66(11):4614–20. doi: 10.1099/ijsem.0.001399 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Ondee T, Pongpirul K, Visitchanakun P, Saisorn W, Kanacharoen S, Wongsaroj L, et al. Lactobacillus acidophilus LA5 improves saturated fat-induced obesity mouse model through the enhanced intestinal Akkermansia muciniphila. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):6367. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-85449-2 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC7973717. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Kimura I, Ozawa K, Inoue D, Imamura T, Kimura K, Maeda T, et al. The gut microbiota suppresses insulin-mediated fat accumulation via the short-chain fatty acid receptor GPR43. Nature communications. 2013;4:1829. Epub 2013/05/09. doi: 10.1038/ncomms2852 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3674247. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Lu Y, Fan C, Li P, Lu Y, Chang X, Qi K. Short Chain Fatty Acids Prevent High-fat-diet-induced Obesity in Mice by Regulating G Protein-coupled Receptors and Gut Microbiota. Sci Rep. 2016;6:37589. Epub 2016/11/29. doi: 10.1038/srep37589 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5124860. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Chambers ES, Viardot A, Psichas A, Morrison DJ, Murphy KG, Zac-Varghese SE, et al. Effects of targeted delivery of propionate to the human colon on appetite regulation, body weight maintenance and adiposity in overweight adults. Gut. 2015;64(11):1744–54. Epub 2014/12/17. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2014-307913 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4680171. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Lukovac S, Belzer C, Pellis L, Keijser BJ, de Vos WM, Montijn RC, et al. Differential modulation by Akkermansia muciniphila and Faecalibacterium prausnitzii of host peripheral lipid metabolism and histone acetylation in mouse gut organoids. MBio. 2014;5(4). doi: 10.1128/mBio.01438-14 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4145684. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Ottman N, Davids M, Suarez-Diez M, Boeren S, Schaap PJ, Martins Dos Santos VAP, et al. Genome-Scale Model and Omics Analysis of Metabolic Capacities of Akkermansia muciniphila Reveal a Preferential Mucin-Degrading Lifestyle. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2017;83(18). doi: 10.1128/AEM.01014-17 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5583483. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.de Faria Ghetti F, Oliveira DG, de Oliveira JM, de Castro Ferreira L, Cesar DE, Moreira APB. Influence of gut microbiota on the development and progression of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. Eur J Nutr. 2018;57(3):861–76. doi: 10.1007/s00394-017-1524-x . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Spencer MD, Hamp TJ, Reid RW, Fischer LM, Zeisel SH, Fodor AA. Association between composition of the human gastrointestinal microbiome and development of fatty liver with choline deficiency. Gastroenterology. 2011;140(3):976–86. Epub 2010/12/07. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2010.11.049 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3049827. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Day CR, Kempson SA. Betaine chemistry, roles, and potential use in liver disease. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2016;1860(6):1098–106. Epub 2016/02/07. doi: 10.1016/j.bbagen.2016.02.001 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Hasanzadeh-Moghadam M, Khadem-Ansari MH, Farjah GH, Rasmi Y. Hepatoprotective effects of betaine on liver damages followed by myocardial infarction. Veterinary research forum: an international quarterly journal. 2018;9(2):129–35. Epub 2018/08/02. doi: 10.30466/vrf.2018.30834 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6047573. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Corbin KD, Zeisel SH. Choline metabolism provides novel insights into nonalcoholic fatty liver disease and its progression. Curr Opin Gastroenterol. 2012;28(2):159–65. Epub 2011/12/03. doi: 10.1097/MOG.0b013e32834e7b4b ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3601486. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Wiedeman AM, Barr SI, Green TJ, Xu Z, Innis SM, Kitts DD. Dietary Choline Intake: Current State of Knowledge Across the Life Cycle. Nutrients. 2018;10(10):1513. doi: 10.3390/nu10101513 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Kaplowitz N. The importance and regulation of hepatic glutathione. Yale J Biol Med. 1981;54(6):497–502. ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2596047. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Honda Y, Kessoku T, Sumida Y, Kobayashi T, Kato T, Ogawa Y, et al. Efficacy of glutathione for the treatment of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: an open-label, single-arm, multicenter, pilot study. Bmc Gastroenterol. 2017;17(1):96. doi: 10.1186/s12876-017-0652-3 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5549431. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Gogiashvili M, Edlund K, Gianmoena K, Marchan R, Brik A, Andersson JT, et al. Metabolic profiling of ob/ob mouse fatty liver using HR-MAS (1)H-NMR combined with gene expression analysis reveals alterations in betaine metabolism and the transsulfuration pathway. Anal Bioanal Chem. 2017;409(6):1591–606. doi: 10.1007/s00216-016-0100-1 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Schneeberger M, Everard A, Gomez-Valades AG, Matamoros S, Ramirez S, Delzenne NM, et al. Akkermansia muciniphila inversely correlates with the onset of inflammation, altered adipose tissue metabolism and metabolic disorders during obesity in mice. Sci Rep. 2015;5:16643. doi: 10.1038/srep16643 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4643218. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Yoneshiro T, Wang Q, Tajima K, Matsushita M, Maki H, Igarashi K, et al. BCAA catabolism in brown fat controls energy homeostasis through SLC25A44. Nature. 2019;572(7771):614–9. doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1503-x ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6715529. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Perakakis N, Stefanakis K, Feigh M, Veidal SS, Mantzoros CS. Elafibranor and liraglutide improve differentially liver health and metabolism in a mouse model of non-alcoholic steatohepatitis. Liver Int. 2021;41(8):1853–66. doi: 10.1111/liv.14888 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Meroni M, Longo M, Dongiovanni P. The Role of Probiotics in Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease: A New Insight into Therapeutic Strategies. Nutrients. 2019;11(11). doi: 10.3390/nu11112642 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6893730. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Nikolaos Perakakis

25 May 2021

PONE-D-21-07582

Polydextrose with and without Bifidobacterium animalis ssp. lactis 420 drives the prevalence of Akkermansia and improves Liver Health in a Multi-compartmental obesogenic Mice Study.

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Yde,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 02 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Nikolaos Perakakis

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

3. Please include your tables as part of your main manuscript and remove the individual files. Please note that supplementary tables (should remain/ be uploaded) as separate "supporting information" files

4.Thank you for stating the following in the Financial Disclosure section:

"This study was funded by IFF Health & Biosciences. CCY was financially supported by the Innovation Fund Denmark (Project No. 4228-00010B)."

We note that one or more of the authors are employed by a commercial company: IFF Enabling Technologies and Vaiomer

We also note that one or more of the authors have an affiliation to the commercial funders of this research study: IFF Health & Biosciences

a) Please provide an amended Funding Statement declaring this commercial affiliation, as well as a statement regarding the Role of Funders in your study. If the funding organization did not play a role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript and only provided financial support in the form of authors' salaries and/or research materials, please review your statements relating to the author contributions, and ensure you have specifically and accurately indicated the role(s) that these authors had in your study. You can update author roles in the Author Contributions section of the online submission form.

Please also include the following statement within your amended Funding Statement.

“The funder provided support in the form of salaries for authors [insert relevant initials], but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.”

If your commercial affiliation did play a role in your study, please state and explain this role within your updated Funding Statement.

b) Please also provide an updated Competing Interests Statement declaring this commercial affiliation along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, or marketed products, etc.  

Within your Competing Interests Statement, please confirm that this commercial affiliation does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to  PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests) . If this adherence statement is not accurate and  there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please include both an updated Funding Statement and Competing Interests Statement in your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: I am thankful for the opportunity to review this manuscript. Apparently, I would like to declare that the conceptual design of this work is very similar to what my team and I recently published in Scientific Reports (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-85449-2). I believe I was selected as a reviewer because of my relevant work. Hence, please allow me to provide comments with regard to it.

The major differences were that the present work investigated the effect of PDX and B. animalis ssp. lactis 420 on a few outcomes and made a conclusion about liver health improvement whereas mine assessed the comprehensive effects of L. acidophilus LA5 on weight reduction, regional fat accumulation, lipidemia, liver injury (liver weight, lipid compositions, and liver enzyme), gut permeability defect, endotoxemia, and serum cytokines; using both in vitro and in vivo evidences.

Interestingly, both B. animalis lactis 420 and L. acidophilus LA5 contributed to the fat reduction through the Akkermansia promotion mechanism. Although at least two probiotics show this potential, many other probiotics may have insufficient evidence so the Short Title and the Conclusions should be more specific. (ie. PDX and B. animalis lactis improves liver health and change levels of Akkermansia in obese mice).

It is essential to demonstrate and/or discuss how the PDX and B. animalis lactis 'move' to liver and other organs. In our L. acidophilus LA5 study, we demonstrated the gut leakage mechanism. Also, potential toxicity, inflammation, and injury of the PDX and B. animalis lactis on the liver should also be included.

Please discuss whether PDX could have a similar or different effect with probiotics other than B. animalis lactis.

The design of this study implicitly suggested the preventive effect of B. animalis lactis 420 but not treatment effect. Please mention this limitation in the Discussion. Also, the improvement of liver health was assessed without in vitro evidence, which should be addressed as another limitation.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Krit Pongpirul

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Dec 2;16(12):e0260765. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0260765.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


9 Jul 2021

Thank you for the revision of my manuscript. I have tried to address the concerns raised by you and the reviewer, and I am confident that this has improved the manuscript. Consequently, I hope you will consider the revised manuscript for publication in PLOS ONE, and I am looking forward to be hearing from you.

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming.

Figure citations have been changed to meet PLOS ONE's style requirement. E.g. Fig. 1A has been changed to Fig 1A.

Heading for all major sections have been modified to Level 1 (Bold type, 18pt font).

Multiple figures have been cited as Figs instead of Fig.

The figure captions have been moved after the paragraph in which they are first cited.

2. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly.

“Supporting information” title has been added.

The order of the supporting figures has been changed.

S1_Fig is now provided as a single file.

Supporting figure citations have been changed to meet PLOS ONE's style requirement.

3. Please include your tables as part of your main manuscript and remove the individual files. Please note that supplementary tables (should remain/ be uploaded) as separate "supporting information" files.

Tables have been included after the paragraph in which they are first cited.

Table legend have been moved below the table.

4.Thank you for stating the following in the Financial Disclosure section:

"This study was funded by IFF Health & Biosciences. CCY was financially supported by the Innovation Fund Denmark (Project No. 4228-00010B)."

We note that one or more of the authors are employed by a commercial company: IFF Enabling Technologies and Vaiomer.

We also note that one or more of the authors have an affiliation to the commercial funders of this research study: IFF Health & Biosciences.

a) Please provide an amended Funding Statement declaring this commercial affiliation, as well as a statement regarding the Role of Funders in your study. If the funding organization did not play a role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript and only provided financial support in the form of authors' salaries and/or research materials, please review your statements relating to the author contributions, and ensure you have specifically and accurately indicated the role(s) that these authors had in your study. You can update author roles in the Author Contributions section of the online submission form.

Please also include the following statement within your amended Funding Statement.

“The funder provided support in the form of salaries for authors [insert relevant initials], but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.”

If your commercial affiliation did play a role in your study, please state and explain this role within your updated Funding Statement.

As the commercial affiliation did play a role in our study, we have updated the Funding Statement.

b) Please also provide an updated Competing Interests Statement declaring this commercial affiliation along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, or marketed products, etc.

Within your Competing Interests Statement, please confirm that this commercial affiliation does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competinginterests). If this adherence statement is not accurate and there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these.

In the amended Competing Interests Statement, we have declared the commercial affiliation.

An amended Funding Statement and Competing Interests Statement have been included in the cover letter.

5. Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: I am thankful for the opportunity to review this manuscript. Apparently, I would like to declare that the conceptual design of this work is very similar to what my team and I recently published in Scientific Reports (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-85449-2). I believe I was selected as a reviewer because of my relevant work. Hence, please allow me to provide comments with regard to it.

Response: I agree this is a very relevant and interesting paper regarding Akkermansia muciniphilia findings in the present manuscript.

The major differences were that the present work investigated the effect of PDX and B. animalis ssp. lactis 420 on a few outcomes and made a conclusion about liver health improvement whereas mine assessed the comprehensive effects of L. acidophilus LA5 on weight reduction, regional fat accumulation, lipidemia, liver injury (liver weight, lipid compositions, and liver enzyme), gut permeability defect, endotoxemia, and serum cytokines; using both in vitro and in vivo evidences.

Response: Both papers have a clear focus on gut microbiota composition after intake of probiotics. The Ondee et al. paper uses as mentioned both in vitro and in vivo methods to investigate the beneficial effects of LA5 by especially gut leakage and liver injury. The present paper is a different approach with a focus on the correlation between the microbiota and the metabolome, which targets the mechanistical understanding on the modes of action of pre- and probiotics intake via increased Akkermansia proportion.

Interestingly, both B. animalis lactis 420 and L. acidophilus LA5 contributed to the fat reduction through the Akkermansia promotion mechanism. Although at least two probiotics show this potential, many other probiotics may have insufficient evidence so the Short Title and the Conclusions should be more specific. (ie. PDX and B. animalis lactis improves liver health and change levels of Akkermansia in obese mice).

Response: This a very important point that both probiotics show the increase in Akkermansia. Therefore, the Ondee et al. paper has been cited in the discussion in the present manuscript.

“Another recent study by Ondee et al. [46] with a similar HFD mice model as the present study, found that Lactobacillus acidophilus 5 (LA5) administration promotes A. muciniphila in the gut and showed a clear attenuation of the adverse effects of HFD as indicated by decreased hepatic injury”.

To be more specific, ‘PDX and B420’ have been used instead of ‘pre, pro and synbiotics’ in the Short Title and the Conclusion.

It is essential to demonstrate and/or discuss how the PDX and B. animalis lactis 'move' to liver and other organs. In our L. acidophilus LA5 study, we demonstrated the gut leakage mechanism. Also, potential toxicity, inflammation, and injury of the PDX and B. animalis lactis on the liver should also be included.

Response: We found that prebiotic PDX both alone and in combination with probiotic B420 increased the prevalence of Akkermansia in the gastrointestinal tract. Also, the most striking new finding of this study was that synbiotic intervention increased the level of Akkermansia in adipose tissue. In Stenman et al. (EBioMedicine 13 (2016) 190–200; ref. [11]), we found some subtle indications of inflammation and gut leakage (in humans during a 6-month intervention period as an effect of the consumption of PDX and B420. In comparison with the Ondee et al. paper, PDX and B420 interventions show almost no effect on body weight gain (only HFD+PDX was significant compared to HFD). Thus, I would expect the present study to shown little/or no gut leakage mechanism. Of course, it could be of great interest with a study of the effect of PDX and B420 intake on systematic inflammation. However, the main objective of the present study was to examine the underlying mechanisms of PDX and B420 treatments explaining the earlier findings in animal studies and human clinical trials on metabolic health.

Please discuss whether PDX could have a similar or different effect with probiotics other than B. animalis lactis.

Response: Magro et al. (Nutrition Journal 2014, 13:75) and Forssten et al. (Microb Ecol Health Dis. 2015; 26) discusses the combination of PDX, L. acidophilus NCFM® and B. lactis HN019 in a yogurt on intestinal transit and PDX, Lactobacillus acidophilus NCFM, and L. paracasei Lpc-37 effects on the growth of C. difficile, respectively. It is a relevant question, but I’m not aware of the combination of PDX and other probiotics than B420 regarding a similar research question as the present study.

The design of this study implicitly suggested the preventive effect of B. animalis lactis 420 but not treatment effect. Please mention this limitation in the Discussion. Also, the improvement of liver health was assessed without in vitro evidence, which should be addressed as another limitation.

Response: Yes – agree this is a limitation to the study, which would be of great importance to examine in the future. The conclusion has been rewritten to reflect this:” An increase in the prevalence of Akkermansia and improved liver health as indicated by methyl-donors was observed after supplementation of polydextrose with or without probiotics Bifidobacterium animalis ssp. lactis 420. However, further studies are needed to clarify the effect on liver health incl. e.g. histology and hepatic in-vitro models.”

Decision Letter 1

Nikolaos Perakakis

15 Sep 2021

PONE-D-21-07582R1Polydextrose with and without Bifidobacterium animalis ssp. lactis 420 drives the prevalence of Akkermansia and improves Liver Health in a Multi-compartmental obesogenic Mice Study.PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Christian Clement Yde,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it is an interesting article and has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR: Thank you for submitting your article in PLOS one. I apologize for the delay which was due to difficulties in the recruitment of reviewers in the summer period. Your manuscript has been carefully reviewed from two reviewers and they both agree that this is a very interesting study and a solid work. Before accepting the manuscript for publication, we would like you though to try to address the remaining comments of the reviewers, especially of reviewer 2. Reviewer 2 has also committed to review the revised form of the manuscript in a timely manner.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript within 4 weeks. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Nikolaos Perakakis

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Thank you for submitting your article in PLOS one. I apologize for the delay which was due to difficulties in the recruitment of reviewers in the summer period. Your manuscript has been carefully reviewed from two reviewers and they both agree that this is a very interesting study and a solid work. Before accepting the manuscript for publication, we would like you though to try to address the remaining comments of the reviewers, especially of reviewer 2. Reviewer 2 has also committed to review the revised form of the manuscript in a timely manner.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Thank you very much for the revised manuscript. All of my comments have been addressed satisfactorily.

Nonetheless, there are some minor formatting issues to be corrected. For example, the 'author' of the first reference should be 'OECD', not '2019 O'.

Reviewer #2: Clement Yde et al. present an impressive assessment of murine metabolomics and metagenomics following five (4+control) different treatment combinations of prebiotic and probiotic elements alongside a high-fat diet. The study is well-written and conveys an interesting message, whereas its methods section comprehensively describes all implemented modalities. The authors have provided extensive evaluations of murine microbiota both at treatment initiation and study endpoint, showcasing relative similarities in diversity indices upon initiation, which is important given the numerous relevant confounding factors (cage, bedding, basal animal conditions etc.) The metabolomic arm could be ideally supplemented with the inclusion of biopsy images from tissues obtained and the analysis and discussion of liver histology and/or immunohistochemistry pertaining to non-alcoholic fatty liver disease.

In its current form the manuscript is well delineated and the reviewer believes the authors should follow the suggestions below. However, if available, the inclusion of data on murine body composition and plasma concentrations of insulin, liver enzymes, triglycerides, conventionally-measured cholesterol fractions etc would be of great scientific interest, since it could ascertain the precise pathobiological fingerprint of all described interventions that reflect the altered metabolomic profiles and their correlation with microbiota.

Additionally, some further suggestions are in order to improve overall readability and quality.

• Consider describing the full dietary energy composition of the murine HFD (total calories, %carbs, %protein, %fat)

• Was there any attrition / mice deaths before study completion?

• Gut microbiome constitutes a primary driver of hepatic steatosis and inflammation, both components of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, whereas relevant interventions through probiotic administration are being discussed across the literature as potential therapeutic strategies (Meroni et al., Nutrients . 2019 Nov 4;11(11):2642; Delzenne et al., Nat Med 2018; 24: 906–907; Le Roy et al., Gut 2013; 62(12): 1787-94) Consider expanding your discussion and thus further abridging the two main areas of your study (microbiota + metabolomics) towards this direction, and to address the functional significance and potential long-term clinical relevance of your findings regarding liver metabolomics, especially considering weight gain differences between human and murine models as described in your already published work, already cited (Ref. 11), and the similarities or differences of metabolomic findings observed herein to recently published evidence on murine NAFLD therapeutics regarding liraglutide (especially relevant owing to the known PDX-induced increase of GLP-1) /elafibranor/empagliflozin administration in HFD-fed mice with HFD-induced non-acoholic steatohepatitis (Perakakis et al., Liver Intl 2021 Aug;41(8):1853-1866).

• Consider providing an additional image, embedded in Figure 5, in the form of a time scale graph/diagram showcasing the study design, randomization and number of total mice per group at study end, and measurements per week

• Figure 1: Consider including all between-group significances in a small table included within the image, rather than in the figure legend

Minor:

• If possible, consider increasing the DPI of your tiff figures to ensure that all legends are easily readable in their final form, because owing to the small fonts, it can be hard for a curious reader to discern them, especially in the components of figure 2 (A-E)

• Optionally, consider including supplementary figures alongside their respective legends in a separate PDF file to facilitate readability and continuity rather than including captions separately and uploading a zip file with images only;

• Consider carefully screening the text for minor English language mistakes, especially adverb utilization, tense discrepancies etc.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Assoc. Prof. Dr. Krit Pongpirul, MD, MPH, PhD.

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Dec 2;16(12):e0260765. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0260765.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


2 Nov 2021

[Author] Thank you again for the second revision of our manuscript and providing valuable input for improving the manuscript. Below, we have addressed the remaining comments and suggestions of the reviewers.

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Author] No cited papers have been retracted.

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Thank you very much for the revised manuscript. All of my comments have been addressed satisfactorily.

Nonetheless, there are some minor formatting issues to be corrected. For example, the 'author' of the first reference should be 'OECD', not '2019 O'.

[Author] Thank you, this has been amended accordingly.

Reviewer #2: Clement Yde et al. present an impressive assessment of murine metabolomics and metagenomics following five (4+control) different treatment combinations of prebiotic and probiotic elements alongside a high-fat diet. The study is well-written and conveys an interesting message, whereas its methods section comprehensively describes all implemented modalities. The authors have provided extensive evaluations of murine microbiota both at treatment initiation and study endpoint, showcasing relative similarities in diversity indices upon initiation, which is important given the numerous relevant confounding factors (cage, bedding, basal animal conditions etc.) The metabolomic arm could be ideally supplemented with the inclusion of biopsy images from tissues obtained and the analysis and discussion of liver histology and/or immunohistochemistry pertaining to non-alcoholic fatty liver disease.

[Author] I fully agree, it would be of great relevance to incl. liver histology in the study. It has been previously been discussed in the response to the first review of the manuscript. In the discussion, it has been stated as an important focus area for future research: “However, further studies are needed to clarify the effect on liver health incl. e.g. histology and hepatic in-vitro models”.

In its current form the manuscript is well delineated and the reviewer believes the authors should follow the suggestions below. However, if available, the inclusion of data on murine body composition and plasma concentrations of insulin, liver enzymes, triglycerides, conventionally-measured cholesterol fractions etc would be of great scientific interest, since it could ascertain the precise pathobiological fingerprint of all described interventions that reflect the altered metabolomic profiles and their correlation with microbiota.

[Author] In the clinical trial described in the Stenman et al. paper (EBioMedicine 13 (2016) 190–200; ref. [11]), we report serum insulin, ASAT, ALAT, gamma-glutamyltransferase, total cholesterol, LDL, HDL and triglycerides etc.. Unfortunately, these standard clinical analyses were not incl. in the present study as the main objective was to examine the underlying mechanisms of PDX and B420 treatments explaining the earlier findings in animal studies and human clinical trials on metabolic health.

Additionally, some further suggestions are in order to improve overall readability and quality.

• Consider describing the full dietary energy composition of the murine HFD (total calories, %carbs, %protein, %fat)

[Author]The caloric information of protein, carbohydrate and energy density have been added to the ‘Animals and study design’ section.

• Was there any attrition / mice deaths before study completion?

[Author]One mouse died at intervention week 7 prior to completion of the study. This has been added to the ‘Animals and study design’ section.

• Gut microbiome constitutes a primary driver of hepatic steatosis and inflammation, both components of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, whereas relevant interventions through probiotic administration are being discussed across the literature as potential therapeutic strategies (Meroni et al., Nutrients . 2019 Nov 4;11(11):2642; Delzenne et al., Nat Med 2018; 24: 906–907; Le Roy et al., Gut 2013; 62(12): 1787-94) Consider expanding your discussion and thus further abridging the two main areas of your study (microbiota + metabolomics) towards this direction, and to address the functional significance and potential long-term clinical relevance of your findings regarding liver metabolomics, especially considering weight gain differences between human and murine models as described in your already published work, already cited (Ref. 11), and the similarities or differences of metabolomic findings observed herein to recently published evidence on murine NAFLD therapeutics regarding liraglutide (especially relevant owing to the known PDX-induced increase of GLP-1) /elafibranor/empagliflozin administration in HFD-fed mice with HFD-induced non-acoholic steatohepatitis (Perakakis et al., Liver Intl 2021 Aug;41(8):1853-1866).

[Author] Thanks for providing very relevant and interesting literature regarding probiotics potential as a therapeutic strategy towards NAFDL. Indeed, I agree that it is relevant to discuss the similarities with effects of liraglutide and elafibranor.

Added to the discussion: “A recent paper by Perakakis et. al [63] describes the underlying mechanistic effect of liraglutide and elafibranor, which are a GLP-1 receptor analog and a dual PPAR α/δ agonist, respectively, in regard to treatment of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). Striking similarities between the two studies were found for HFD+PDX and HFD+S groups with liraglutide by restoring the levels of glycogen and increasing betaine concentration in the liver. Additionally, both HFD+PDX and HFD+S showed similar results with elafibranor treatment considering the increased glutathione levels in the liver. It has previously been discussed in literature that probiotics supplementation is a potential therapeutic strategy towards NAFDL [64]. Thus, administration of PDX alone or in combination with B420 could potentially be a supplement to liraglutide and elefibranor to be used in the treatment of NAFLD.”

• Consider providing an additional image, embedded in Figure 5, in the form of a time scale graph/diagram showcasing the study design, randomization and number of total mice per group at study end, and measurements per week

[Author] To enhance the overview, the study design has been included in Fig. 5 as suggested.

• Figure 1: Consider including all between-group significances in a small table included within the image, rather than in the figure legend

[Author] To avoid presenting a too crowded figure, we prefer having the significances in the figure legend.

Minor:

• If possible, consider increasing the DPI of your tiff figures to ensure that all legends are easily readable in their final form, because owing to the small fonts, it can be hard for a curious reader to discern them, especially in the components of figure 2 (A-E)

[Author] The resolution of the legends in Fig. 2 have been increased for better readability. Furthermore, the font size has been increased for the taxonomy names labelling.

• Optionally, consider including supplementary figures alongside their respective legends in a separate PDF file to facilitate readability and continuity rather than including captions separately and uploading a zip file with images only;

[Author] Thank you for your suggestion, this has been amended accordingly.

• Consider carefully screening the text for minor English language mistakes, especially adverb utilization, tense discrepancies etc.

[Author] Minor language mistakes, mainly tense discrepancies, have been corrected throughout the manuscript.

[Author] Additional changes:

• The fecal samples were collected after 8-weeks but it was a 9-weeks intervention study. In the manuscript, the study was described as a 8-weeks intervention, which has been corrected to 9-weeks.

• Description of the harvesting of blood in the ‘Sample Collection and Processing’ section has been deleted as the blood analysis was not incl. in the manuscript.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers_PONE-D-21-07582R1.docx

Decision Letter 2

Nikolaos Perakakis

17 Nov 2021

Polydextrose with and without Bifidobacterium animalis ssp. lactis 420 drives the prevalence of Akkermansia and improves Liver Health in a Multi-compartmental obesogenic Mice Study.

PONE-D-21-07582R2

Dear Dr. Clement Yde,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Nikolaos Perakakis

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

Acceptance letter

Nikolaos Perakakis

22 Nov 2021

PONE-D-21-07582R2

Polydextrose with and without Bifidobacterium animalis ssp. lactis 420 drives the prevalence of Akkermansia and improves Liver Health in a Multi-compartmental obesogenic Mice Study.

Dear Dr. Yde:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Nikolaos Perakakis

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. Relative abundance at Genus level from metagenomic sequencing.

    (A) Fecal samples at week 0. (B) Fecal samples at week 3. The order of the treatments is from left to right: NC, HFD, HFD+B420, HFD+PDX and HFD+S.

    (PDF)

    S2 Fig. Microbiota α-diversity index evaluated using the Shannon index.

    (A) Fecal samples at week 0. (B) Fecal samples at week 8. (C) Ileum samples. (D) Colon samples. (E) Adipose tissue (MAT).

    (PDF)

    S3 Fig. Principal coordinate analysis (PCoA) on microbiota β-diversity clustering based on BrayCurtis, Jaccard, Unifrac and Weighted Unifrac distances for comparison of the different treatments.

    (A) Fecal samples at week 0. (B) Fecal samples at week 8. (C) Ileum samples. (D) Colon samples. (E) Adipose tissue (MAT) samples.

    (PDF)

    S4 Fig. Representative 1H NMR spectra from the same synbiotic HFD+PDX+B420 mice.

    (A) Fecal samples. (B) Intact liver samples.

    (PDF)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers_PONE-D-21-07582R1.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES