1. Introduction
The global obesity epidemic has emerged as a significant public health concern due to the prevalence of poor dietary choices and sedentary lifestyles in conjunction with social advancements and improved living condition [
1]. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), approximately 2.5 billion adults worldwide were classified as overweight (body mass index, BMI ≥ 25) in 2022, with 890 million individuals falling into the category of obesity (BMI ≥ 30). This equates to 43% of adults being overweight and 16% living with obesity[
2]. In the past twenty years, there has been a significant increase in the prevalence of both general and abdominal obesity among adults of diverse age groups and genders in China[
3]. The detrimental impacts of overweight or obesity extend to various bodily functions, leading to the development of numerous comorbidities such as hyperlipidemia, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and other disorders[
4]. Increasing evidence suggests that the initiation and progression of overweight/obesity are closely associated with the homeostatic regulation of overall metabolism. Especially, microbial metabolites, as the primary way that gut microbes interact with hosts, are important for maintaining the metabolic homeostasis of the organism[
5]
. According to the existing evidence, identified microbial metabolic signatures have been associated with obesity[
6], such as short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs)[
7],trimethylamine N-oxide (TMAO)[
8], bile acids[
9],linoleic acid[
10] and branched chain fatty acids (BCFAs). The diverse metabolic products generated by the gut microbiota permeate into the intestinal mucosa, subtly influencing intestinal cellular activities. A subset of these metabolites possesses the capability to traverse the intestinal barrier, subsequently disseminating to distant organs through either circulatory routes or neural pathways[
11].
Furthermore, overweight/obesity-associated microbial metabolites are regulated by intestinal microbiota to affecting the metabolic health of overweight/obese[
12]. Multiple studies have demonstrated a notable disparity in the composition of intestinal bacteria between individuals of normal weight and those with overweight/obesity[
13]. The alterations in microbiome associated with overweight/obesity, commonly referred to as ‘dysbiosis,’ are characterized by a deficiency in beneficial functions or the prevalence of detrimental microbial activity[
14]. Lower proportion of
Bifidobacteria,
Faecalibacterium prausnitzii,
Akkermansia muciniphila, F.
prausnitzii, which are considered as the benefic strains, were found in overweight and obesity[
15,
16].
Probiotics are acknowledged as a valuable supplementary approach for regulating microbiota dysbiosis, consisting of viable microorganisms that can successfully modify imbalanced microbiota to enhance key obesity-related factors when given in precise doses of probiotic strains[
17]. And, previous studies have identified
Bifidobacterium,
Lactobacillus,
Enterococcus,
Streptococcus, and
Saccharomyces, as well as
E. coli Nissle 1917 and
the yeast Saccharomyces boulardii, as the primary probiotic genera [
18,
19]. Especially,
Bifidobacterium species are frequently utilized as functional foods and dietary supplements, purportedly aiding in the prevention of dysmetabolic diseases through enhancement of metabolic function[
20]. Furthermore,
Bifidobacterium is one of the main producers of SCFAs in the intestinal flora to participate in regulating energy homeostasis[
21]. As one kind of
Bifidobacterium, the commercially available probiotic
Bifidobacterium brevis BBr60 (BBr60) has demonstrated anti-inflammatory and antioxidant properties. Given its potential for addressing metabolic disorders, further research is needed to elucidate the mechanisms by which
Bifidobacterium brevis BBr60 intervenes in metabolic disturbances associated with overweight/obesity, as well as to explore its potential application in clinical settings.
Hence, we carried out a double-blinded, randomized placebo-controlled trial to investigate the comparative efficacy and mechanism of Bifidobacterium brevis BBr60 in modulating disrupted metabolic profiles and gut microbiota in overweight/obese young individuals in China. Seventy overweight/obese adult subjects were randomly assigned to receive either Bifidobacterium brevis BBr60 or a placebo for a duration of 12 weeks, along with brief dietary counseling emphasizing a total daily energy intake of 1800 kcal. Serum and fecal samples were collected to assess glucose and lipid levels, gut metabolomics, and microflora following treatment in order to evaluate the efficacy and mechanism of regulating metabolic disturbances in overweight/obese individuals. Ultimately, this study provides a scientific rationale for the dietary and clinical utilization of Bifidobacterium brevis BBr60 in the prevention and management of overweight/obesity.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Ethics and Informed Consent
This study utilized a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial design conducted at the School of Food and Bioengineering, Henan University of Science and Technology from March 2023 to June 2024. The protocol adhered to the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Ethics Committee of the First Affiliated Hospital of Henan University of Science and Technology (NCT06305650).
2.2. Study Design and Population
All participants in the study provided informed consent and met the designated inclusion criteria, which included being between the ages of 19 and 45, having a BMI of 28 kg/m2 or higher, and agreeing to participate after being informed about the study procedures and signing a written consent form. The exclusion criteria encompassed various factors that could potentially impact the validity of the results, such as short-term use of objects with similar functions to the test, recent administration of antibiotics, laxatives, or dietary supplements, history of alcohol or drug abuse, presence of serious medical illnesses (e.g., kidney or liver disease, neurological disorders), and pregnancy or lactation without the use of contraception. Studies were required to meet all of these criteria in order to be considered eligible for inclusion in the analysis.
2.3. Sample Size and Randomization
A total of 78 participants were screened, with 75 starting treatment and 65 completing the study. Eligible participants were randomly allocated to either the placebo group or the probiotics group using a random number table as shown in
Figure 1. The trial adhered strictly to the initial protocol without modifications. Participants in the placebo group were administered daily maltodextrin (3 g), while those in the BBr60 group consumed daily BBr60 (1×10
10 CFU, once a day, provided by Wecare Probiotics Co., Ltd.) for a duration of 12 weeks. All participants were instructed to reduce their daily energy intake by 1800 kcal and attended a nutrition information course covering topics such as the risks and causes of overweight and obesity, weight loss principles, dietary recommendations, and rest. Patients, study staff, clinical research associates, and statisticians were blinded to the randomization and study products. The residual products and medicines, and empty packing boxes were recovered.
2.4. Primary Outcome and Secondary Outcomes
The primary outcome of this study was the change in body mass index (BMI) from the baseline to 12 weeks after beginning the treatment. The key secondary outcomes were changes in waist hip ratio (WHR), and body fat rate (BFR) from the baseline to 12 weeks. Other secondary outcomes were the changes in serum biochemical indexes, fecal metabolism and gut microbiota from the baseline to 12 weeks.
2.5. Assessment of Body Composition
All subjects were weighed in light clothing without shoes. Body mass index (BMI), waist hip ratio (WHR), and body fat rate (BFR) were measured with body composition analyzer (InBody270, InBody, Tokyo, Japan).
2.6. Blood Sample Collection and Biochemical Measurements
Collection and biochemical measurements of blood were carried out at the hospital of Henan university of science and technology by clinical standard assays right after fasting blood sampling at baseline, and after 12 weeks intervention. Blood samples were collected following an overnight fast of at least 10 hours for clinical chemistry analyses. Serum samples were subsequently centrifuged and stored at -80°C until analysis. The following parameters were measured using automatic biochemical analyzer (KHB ZY-1280, Shanghai Kehua Bio-engineering Corporation, Shanghai, China): fasting blood glucose (FBG), alanine aminotransferase (ALT), aspartate aminotransferase (AST), alkaline phosphatase (ALP), total protein (TP), albumin (ALB), globular Proteins (ALP), total bilirubin (TB), blood urea nitrogen (BUN), and lipid profile including total triglycerides (TG), total cholesterol (TC), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C).
2.7. Serum and Fecal Metabolomic Analysis
Fasted serum samples were collected pre- and post-treatment, then centrifuged at 3000 g for 15 minutes. For metabolomics analysis, 100 μL of serum was mixed with 400 μL of extraction solution (MeOH: ACN, 1:1 (v/v)) containing deuterated internal standards. The mixture was vortexed for 30 s, sonicated for 10 min at 4℃, and incubated for 1 h at -40℃ to precipitate proteins. Finally, the samples were centrifuged at 12000 rpm (13800 g) for 15 min at 4℃. For analysis, the supernatant was transferred into a fresh vial of glass.
Fecal samples were mixed with beads and extraction solution, containing deuterated internal standards, and vortexed for 30 seconds.
Quality control (QC) samples were prepared by mixing an equal amount of supernatant from each sample. LC-MS/MS analysis was performed using an UHPLC system coupled to an Orbitrap MS. The mobile phase consisted of 25 mmol/L ammonium acetate and ammonia hydroxide in water. The auto-sampler was set at 4℃ with an injection volume of 2 μL. The Orbitrap Exploris 120 mass spectrometer was used in IDA mode with Xcalibur software, continuously evaluating the full scan MS spectrum. The acquisition software monitors the full scan MS spectrum continuously in this mode. ESI source conditions include sheath gas flow rate of 50 Arb, Aux gas flow rate of 15 Arb, capillary temperature of 320℃, full MS resolution of 60000, MS/MS resolution of 15000, collision energy settings of 20/30/40 SNCE, and spray voltage of 3.8 kV (positive) or -3.4 kV (negative). The raw data underwent conversion to the mzXML format through the utilization of ProteoWizard and were subsequently analyzed using a custom program developed in R and reliant on XCMS for peak detection, extraction, alignment, and integration. Metabolite identification was facilitated through the use of the R package and BiotreeDB (V3.0).
2.8. Gut Microbiota Analysis
DNA was extracted from fecal using CTAB following the manufacturer’s instructions. The reagent effectively extracted DNA from trace amounts of sample, particularly bacteria. Blank samples were prepared using nuclear-free water. The eluted DNA was stored at -80°C until PCR measurement. Primers were tagged with specific barcodes for each sample and sequencing universal primers. PCR was conducted in a 25 uL reaction mixture with 25 ng of template DNA, PCR Premix, primers, and water. The prokaryotic 16S fragments were amplified using specific PCR conditions, including denaturation, annealing, and extension steps. The PCR products were verified using agarose gel electrophoresis. During DNA extraction, ultrapure water was used as a negative control to prevent false-positive PCR results. PCR products were purified using AMPure XT beads and quantified with Qubit. Amplicon pools were prepared for sequencing and their size and quantity were assessed using Agilent 2100 Bioanalyzer and Library Quantification Kit for Illumina.
Samples were sequenced on an Illumina NovaSeq platform PE250 following manufacturer’s instructions. Paired-end reads were assigned to samples based on their unique barcode, merged using FLASH, and quality filtered using fqtrim (v0.94). Chimeric sequences were removed using Vsearch software (v2.3.4). Feature table and sequence were obtained after dereplication using DADA2. Alpha and beta diversity were calculated by randomly normalizing sequences. Feature abundance was normalized using relative abundance of each sample according to the SILVA classifier. Alpha diversity was analyzed using 5 indices in QIIME2, while beta diversity was calculated and visualized using R package. Blast was used for sequence alignment, and the feature sequences were annotated with SILVA database for each representative sequence. Other diagrams were implemented using the R package (v3.5.2). Blast was used for sequence alignment and SILVA database was used for annotation. Other diagrams were created using R package v3.5.2.
2.9. Safety Monitoring
Safety outcomes will be evaluated by monitoring vital signs and body weight at each visit. Participants will undergo blood routine tests, liver and kidney function tests, urine routine tests, and physical examinations at baseline and in the 12th week of treatment. Safety outcomes will be assessed through the evaluation of physical examinations, vital signs, hematological analyses, and reported adverse events or serious adverse events.
2.10. Statistical Analysis
Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS version 22.0 (SPSS, Chicago, IL, US) and Graphad Prism 8.0 (Graphpad Software, USA). Quantitative data following are reported as mean ± standard deviation (SD), with statistical significance assessed using a two-tailed T test for data conforming to a normal distribution. And, data not conforming to a normal distribution is analyzed using nonparametric tests such as the Mann-Whitney U test for between-group comparisons and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test for within-group comparisons. Categorical variables are presented as numbers (%) and compared using the chi-square test. Principal component analysis (PCA), orthogonal partial least-squared discriminant analysis (OPLS-DA) were conducted by the SIMCA software package (V18.0.1, Sartorius Stedim Data Analytics AB, Umea, Sweden). Pathway analysis was performed by databases including KEGG (
http://www. genome. jp/kegg/) and MetaboAnalyst (
http://www. metaboanalyst. ca/). Correlations between two variables were assessed through Spearman correlation analyses, with statistical significance defined as
p < 0.05 and an alpha level (α) established at 0.05. The obtained
p-values validate that the discrepancies observed between groups were not a result of random variation, thus bolstering the reliability of our results.
4. Discussion
Obesity is a multifaceted condition with a complex pathogenesis involving socioeconomic, hormonal, and neuronal mechanisms, as well as unhealthy lifestyle choices and genetic and epigenetic factors[
23]. The World Health Organization predicts that by 2035, 39% of the global adult population will be affected by obesity[
2]. Research suggests that obesity and related metabolic disorders are linked to changes in gut microbiota function and composition, which play a significant role in regulating the body’s energy metabolism[
24]. Furthermore, alterations in the gut microbiota composition have been linked to the onset of obesity and its related metabolic conditions[
25]. Utilizing probiotics to manipulate the gut microbiome may serve as a potential approach for managing metabolic syndrome and obesity-associated complications, such as dyslipidemia and insulin resistance[
26]. Nevertheless, the efficacy of probiotics is contingent upon the specific species and dosages employed, as well as the underlying medical condition[
27]. Therefore, the current study investigated the effectiveness of BBr60 (1×10
10 CFU, once a day) for 12 weeks on body composition, serum glucose, lipid, liver and kidney functions in overweight or obese adult population with BMI ≥ 28 kg/m
2. After a 12-week intervention, BMI was significantly decreased by BBr60 intervention, with levels in the BBr60 group being lower than that in the placebo group at week 12. Similar trends were seen for body weight, BFP, WHR, FBG, HDL-C, LDL-C and liver function indexes (ALB, GLB, ALT, AST) in the BBr60 group.
Bifidobacterium is a typical probiotic with ability of reducing intestinal lipopolysaccharide and fortifying intestinal barrier function, and have been widely used as probiotic preparations for the treatment of intestinal microecological disorders[
28,
29].
Bifidobacterium brevis BBr60 is one kind of
Bifidobacterium, have been commercialized for anti-inflammatory and antioxidant properties. In this study, BBr60 presented the effectiveness on BMI, body weight, BFP, WHR after a 12-week intervention, and scientific evidence also suggests that alterations in the gut microbiota through the use of probiotics may play a role in changes in body weight and composition[
30]. Specifically, administering
Bifidobacterium to individuals with over-weight or obesity (BMI >24.9 kg/m
2) resulted in significant reductions in body fat mass (
p = 0.006), body fat percentage (
p = 0.02), waist circumference (
p < 0.00001), and visceral fat area (
p = 0.003)[
31]. A meta-analysis of 15 studies on probiotics demonstrated significant changes in body weight and body fat among obese individuals with a BMI exceeding 25 kg/m
2, with an average weight loss of 0.6 kg and a BMI reduction of 0.27 kg/m
2[
32]. The admonition of
Bifidobacterium breve B-3 (20 billion CFU/day) for 12 weeks significantly reduced the body fat in pre-obese adults without any adverse effects[
33]. In addition, the reducing weight, BMI, BPF and WHR in placebo group, the reason may be associated with the increased awareness of weight loss by dietary recommendations once a week for all the participants during the trial, and similar results were found in many clinical study[
34,
35].
Several studies have demonstrated that probiotic intervention may be beneficial in the management of obesity, as well as various metabolic abnormalities such as dysglycemia, insulin resistance, and dyslipidemia[
36]. Additionally, probiotic supplementation has been shown to improve fasting blood glucose levels, insulin sensitivity, and hyperlipidemia[
37]. In the present study, levels of fasting blood glucose and LDL-C were significantly reduced and HDL-C was effectively increased following a 12-week intervention with BBr60. Accordingly, previous studies also presented that
Bifidobacteria supplementation (50 × 10
9 CFU/day) for 12 weeks effectively ameliorating hyperglycemia, dyslipidemia by decreasing serum LDL, TG and glycosylated hemoglobin concentration in type 2 diabetic patients[
38]. Administration
Bifidobacterium animalis IPLA R1 decreased serum insulin level with no significant variation in FGB and HOMA index in mice of a short-term diet-induced obesity[
39].
The liver plays a crucial role in regulating whole-body cholesterol levels, while the kidney is essential for maintaining overall homeostasis[
40,
41]. Impaired kidney function and liver dysfunction are commonly observed in individuals with severe obesity[
42]. Assessment of liver and kidney function serves as a valid measure for evaluating psychological states in obesity. In a study involving overweight and obese adults undergoing a 12-week BBr60 intervention, liver function indicators (TP, ALP, GLB, ALT, AST) and renal function marker (BUN) were examined to assess the impact of BBr60 supplementation. Furthermore, supplementation with BBr60 led to notable decreases in ALB, GLB, ALT, and AST levels. Previous research has shown that supplementation with
Bifidobacterium breve resulted in significant reductions in BUN and creatinine levels compared to a placebo group[
38]. Additionally, mice that were gavaged with
Bifidobacterium pseudolongum exhibited a lower liver-to-body weight ratio and reduced serum levels of ALT, AST, and hepatic triglycerides in cases of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease-associated hepatocellular carcinoma[
43]. These findings suggest the efficacy of BBr60 in improving certain clinical indicators in overweight/obese individuals.
The deep mechanism was further analyzed after the effective regulation of BBr60 on clinic indictors of obesity. The metabolic status of the organism was investigated by serum and fecal metabolism as well as gut microbiota, and the potential relationship between metabolic profiles and clinic indexes of obesity. 42 significant metabolic pathways associated with 643 serum metabolites and 25 vital metabolic pathways related to 514 fecal metabolites were obviously regulated by BBr60, and the amino acid metabolism pathways of valine, leucine and isoleucine biosynthesis, glycine, serine and threonine metabolism as well as alanine, aspartate and glutamate metabolism were regulated in serum metabolism and fecal metabolism. And significant associations between metabolites involved in three pathways and predominant genera or clinic indexes (such as LDI-C and HDL-C) of BBr60 intervention were found. Extensive research demonstrates that distinct metabolism of amino acids has long been recognized as a feature of obesity[
44,
45] and probiotics can improve intestinal flora imbalance and regulate intestinal microbial metabolites[
46,
47] to affect amino acids metabolism and other metabolic pathways[
48] to further alleviating overweight or obesity[
49]. The potential mechanism of probiotics on overweight or obesity have been discussed in previous studies[
47], more researches have focused on gut inflammation and lipid metabolism[
50]. The enhancement of glucolipid metabolism by probiotics may be linked to a reduction in bacterial lipopolysaccharides (LPSs), which are known to induce inflammation and obesity[
51,
52]. While the role of lipopolysaccharides in the regulation of obesity through amino acid metabolism remains unclear, numerous studies have identified significant associations between specific probiotic strains and particular amino acids[
53]. Host glutamate levels could be influenced by
B. thetaiotaomicron colonization increases the levels of mRNAs encoding glutamate decarboxylase and glutamate transporter in epithelial cells and the concentration of plasma glutamate reduces by gavage with
B. thetaiotaomicron in mice[
12,
54]. Also, the abundance of
B. thetaiotaomicron showed a negative correlation with the circulation of glutamate in previous study[
12]. Consistently, our study revealed that the plasma glutamate levels, which are involved in the alanine, aspartate, and glutamate metabolism pathway, exhibited significant associations with dominant bacterial strains (
Klebsiella,
Bacteroides, and
Dialister) following the BBr60 intervention, as well as with clinical indices such as fasting blood glucose (FBG) and albumin (ALB). Additionally, other amino acids, including asparagine, serine, ketoleucine, and valine, which are implicated in pathways of valine, leucine and isoleucine biosynthesis, glycine, serine and threonine metabolism, as well as alanine, aspartate and glutamate metabolism, demonstrated significant correlations with the bacterial strains
Dialister and
Bacteroides, and with specific clinical indices such as low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). Generally, the effective regulating of FBG, LDL-C, HDL-C and ALB may be attributed to the regulation of BBr60 on vital genus (
Klebsiella,
Bacteroides, and
Dialişter) to affect the vital metabolites associated with the pathways of biosynthesis pathways of valine, leucine, and isoleucine, as well as in glycine, serine, and threonine metabolism and alanine, aspartate, and glutamate metabolism.
Figure 1.
Flowchart of the study selection.
Figure 1.
Flowchart of the study selection.
Figure 2.
the effect of BBr60 on body composition in overweight or obese adult population.
Figure 2.
the effect of BBr60 on body composition in overweight or obese adult population.
Figure 3.
serum metabolic profile between BBr60-after and BBr60-before groups. (A) The OPLS-DA scores of BBr60 vs. placebo group. (B) The OPLS-DA permutation test in BBr60 vs. placebo group. (C) The PCA scores of BBr60 vs. placebo group. (D) The volcano plot of placebo vs. BBr60 group. Significantly up-regulated metabolites are represented by red points, and significantly down-regulated metabolites and nonsignificant different ones are represented by blue or gray points, respectively. (E) KEGG classification plot for BBr60 vs. placebo group. (F) Differential abundance score plot for BBr60 vs. placebo group.
Figure 3.
serum metabolic profile between BBr60-after and BBr60-before groups. (A) The OPLS-DA scores of BBr60 vs. placebo group. (B) The OPLS-DA permutation test in BBr60 vs. placebo group. (C) The PCA scores of BBr60 vs. placebo group. (D) The volcano plot of placebo vs. BBr60 group. Significantly up-regulated metabolites are represented by red points, and significantly down-regulated metabolites and nonsignificant different ones are represented by blue or gray points, respectively. (E) KEGG classification plot for BBr60 vs. placebo group. (F) Differential abundance score plot for BBr60 vs. placebo group.
Figure 4.
Fecal metabolic profile between BBr60-after and BBr60-before groups. (A) The OPLS-DA scores of BBr60 vs. placebo group. (B) The OPLS-DA permutation test in BBr60 vs. placebo group. (C) The PCA scores of BBr60 vs. placebo group. (D) The volcano plot of placebo vs. BBr60 group. Significantly up-regulated metabolites are represented by red points, and significantly down-regulated metabolites and nonsignificant different ones are represented by blue or gray points, respectively.
Figure 4.
Fecal metabolic profile between BBr60-after and BBr60-before groups. (A) The OPLS-DA scores of BBr60 vs. placebo group. (B) The OPLS-DA permutation test in BBr60 vs. placebo group. (C) The PCA scores of BBr60 vs. placebo group. (D) The volcano plot of placebo vs. BBr60 group. Significantly up-regulated metabolites are represented by red points, and significantly down-regulated metabolites and nonsignificant different ones are represented by blue or gray points, respectively.
Figure 5.
Fecal metabolic pathways between BBr60-after and BBr60-before groups. (A) KEGG classification plot for BBr60-after vs. BBr60-before groups. (B) Differential abundance score plot for BBr60-after vs. BBr60-before groups.
Figure 5.
Fecal metabolic pathways between BBr60-after and BBr60-before groups. (A) KEGG classification plot for BBr60-after vs. BBr60-before groups. (B) Differential abundance score plot for BBr60-after vs. BBr60-before groups.
Figure 6.
α and β diversity analysis of BBr60-after and BBr60-before group based on ace (A), chao1 (B), goods_coverage (C), observed_otus (D), pielou-e (E), Shannon (F), bray_curtis_distance (G), jaccard_distance (H), unweighted_unifrac_distance (I) weighted_unifrac (J) between BBr60 and placebo groups in the 12th week.
Figure 6.
α and β diversity analysis of BBr60-after and BBr60-before group based on ace (A), chao1 (B), goods_coverage (C), observed_otus (D), pielou-e (E), Shannon (F), bray_curtis_distance (G), jaccard_distance (H), unweighted_unifrac_distance (I) weighted_unifrac (J) between BBr60 and placebo groups in the 12th week.
Figure 7.
Bacterial compositions of BBr60-after and BBr60-before groups. (A) Composition of intestinal microbiota in the three groups at phylum level. (B) Composition of intestinal microbiota in the three groups at genus level. (C) Histogram of linear discriminant analysis (LDA) value distribution of intestinal microflora.
Figure 7.
Bacterial compositions of BBr60-after and BBr60-before groups. (A) Composition of intestinal microbiota in the three groups at phylum level. (B) Composition of intestinal microbiota in the three groups at genus level. (C) Histogram of linear discriminant analysis (LDA) value distribution of intestinal microflora.
Figure 8.
correlation analysis of vital metabolites, intestinal bacteria and clinic indexes before and after BBr60 intervention in overweight or obesity. (A) correlation analysis between serum metabolites associated with the top 15 changed metabolic pathways and with the top 30 intestinal bacteria before and after BBr60 intervention in overweight or obesity. The R values are represented by gradient colors, where blue and green cells indicate positive and negative correlations, respectively; *p < 0.05 and **p < 0.01. (B) correlation analysis between serum metabolites associated with the top 15 changed metabolic pathways and with the top 30 intestinal bacteria before and after BBr60 intervention in overweight or obesity. The R values are represented by gradient colors, where blue and red cells indicate positive and negative correlations, respectively; *p < 0.05 and **p < 0.01. (C) correlation analysis between serum metabolites associated with the top 15 changed metabolic pathways and clinic indexes in overweight or obesity. The R values are represented by gradient colors, where blue and red cells indicate positive and negative correlations, respectively; *p < 0.05 and **p < 0.01. Abbreviations: BMI, body mass index; BFP, body fat percentage; WHR, Waist-to-Hip Ratio; FBG, Fasting blood glucose; TC, Total cholesterol; TG, Triglyceride; HDL-C, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol; LDL-C, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol; TP, Total Protein; ALB, Albumin; GLB, Globular Proteins; ALT, Alanine aminotransferase; AST, aspartate aminotransferase; BUN, Blood urea nitrogen.
Figure 8.
correlation analysis of vital metabolites, intestinal bacteria and clinic indexes before and after BBr60 intervention in overweight or obesity. (A) correlation analysis between serum metabolites associated with the top 15 changed metabolic pathways and with the top 30 intestinal bacteria before and after BBr60 intervention in overweight or obesity. The R values are represented by gradient colors, where blue and green cells indicate positive and negative correlations, respectively; *p < 0.05 and **p < 0.01. (B) correlation analysis between serum metabolites associated with the top 15 changed metabolic pathways and with the top 30 intestinal bacteria before and after BBr60 intervention in overweight or obesity. The R values are represented by gradient colors, where blue and red cells indicate positive and negative correlations, respectively; *p < 0.05 and **p < 0.01. (C) correlation analysis between serum metabolites associated with the top 15 changed metabolic pathways and clinic indexes in overweight or obesity. The R values are represented by gradient colors, where blue and red cells indicate positive and negative correlations, respectively; *p < 0.05 and **p < 0.01. Abbreviations: BMI, body mass index; BFP, body fat percentage; WHR, Waist-to-Hip Ratio; FBG, Fasting blood glucose; TC, Total cholesterol; TG, Triglyceride; HDL-C, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol; LDL-C, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol; TP, Total Protein; ALB, Albumin; GLB, Globular Proteins; ALT, Alanine aminotransferase; AST, aspartate aminotransferase; BUN, Blood urea nitrogen.
Table 1.
Baseline characteristics in the probiotics and placebo group.
Table 1.
Baseline characteristics in the probiotics and placebo group.
Project |
Unit |
BBr60 (33)
|
Placebo (32)
|
P value
|
Woman |
- |
24 (72.7%) |
19 (59.4%) |
0.255 |
Man |
- |
9 (27.3%) |
13 (40.6%) |
Age |
year |
27.88±8.65 |
30.38±8.45 |
0.150 |
Weight |
kg |
90.86 ± 10.45 |
93.56 ± 12.04 |
0.251 |
BMI |
kg/m2
|
30.80 ± 3.21 |
31.96 ± 2.95 |
0.068 |
FP |
% |
36.57 ± 6.77 |
38.91 ± 5.69 |
0.203 |
WHR |
% |
0.99 ± 0.05 |
1.01 ± 0.05 |
0.500 |
FBG |
mg/dL |
6.27±0.87 |
5.87±0.45 |
0.120 |
TC |
mg/dL |
4.31±0.90 |
4.82±0.94 |
0.058 |
TG |
mg/dL |
2.13±1.78 |
1.62±0.71 |
0.345 |
HDL-C |
mg/dL |
1.15±0.27 |
1.29±0.31 |
0.484 |
LDL-C |
mg/dL |
2.26±0.63 |
2.62±0.62 |
0.970 |
ALT |
IU/L |
39.27±26.55 |
41.53±21.84 |
0.618 |
AST |
IU/L |
61.18±58.70 |
49.56±17.88 |
0.969 |
TP |
g/L |
74.45±9.70 |
72.47±3.46 |
0.787 |
ALB |
g/L |
47.76±3.93 |
47.41±3.07 |
0.905 |
GLB |
g/L |
26.70±7.28 |
25.06±3.05 |
0.697 |
A/G |
- |
1.90±0.41 |
1.92±0.29 |
0.273 |
TB |
mg/dL |
13.58±6.58 |
17.38±14.83 |
0.453 |
BUN |
mg/dL |
4.48±1.24 |
4.65±1.26 |
0.846 |
UA |
mg/dL |
427.09±76.69 |
433.59±103.49 |
0.069 |
CRE |
mg/dL |
76.48±14.80 |
71.16±15.77 |
0.543 |
Table 2.
Changes in Body Composition in the BBr60 and Placebo Groups after 12 Week.
Table 2.
Changes in Body Composition in the BBr60 and Placebo Groups after 12 Week.
Variables |
BBr60 (n=33) |
Placebo (n=32) |
p-Value |
Before (0 week) |
After (12 week) |
p-Value |
Before (0 week) |
After (12 week) |
p-Value |
Weight (kg) |
90.86±10.45 |
86.19±9.82 |
<0.0001 |
93.56±12.04 |
90.74±12.77 |
0.0006 |
0.114 |
Weight (12-0 week) |
-4.67±4.40 |
|
-2.82±4.17 |
|
0.047 |
BMI (kg/m²) |
30.80±3.21 |
29.32±3.63 |
<0.0001 |
31.96±2.95 |
31.03±3.49 |
0.0019 |
0.057 |
BMI (12-0 week) |
-1.49±1.37 |
|
-0.93±1.55 |
|
0.135 |
BFP (%) |
36.57±6.77 |
34.54±7.50 |
<0.0001 |
38.91±5.69 |
37.11±6.70 |
0.0003 |
0.150 |
BFP (12-0 week) |
-2.03±2.54 |
|
-1.80±2.47 |
|
0.684 |
WHR (%) |
0.99±0.05 |
0.96±0.04 |
<0.0001 |
1.01±0.05 |
0.98±0.05 |
<0.0001 |
0.149 |
WHR (12-0 week) |
-0.036±0.03 |
|
-0.038±0.03 |
|
0.821 |
Table 3.
Changes in serum glucose and lipids in the BBr60 and Placebo Groups after 12 Weeks.
Table 3.
Changes in serum glucose and lipids in the BBr60 and Placebo Groups after 12 Weeks.
Variables |
BBr60 (n=33) |
Placebo (n=32) |
p-Value |
Before (0 week) |
After (12 week) |
p-Value |
Before (0 week) |
After (12 week) |
p-Value |
FBG, mg/dL |
5.87±0.45 |
5.26±0.57 |
<0.0001 |
6.27±0.87 |
5.69±0.86 |
<0.0001 |
0.0381 |
TC, mg/dL |
4.31±0.90 |
4.38±0.75 |
0.618 |
4.82±0.94 |
4.55±0.90 |
0.0058 |
0.4181 |
TG, mg/dL |
2.13±1.78 |
1.98±1.12 |
0.8566 |
1.62±0.71 |
2.09±1.34 |
0.0984 |
0.9870 |
HDL-C, mg/dL |
1.15±0.27 |
1.45±0.28 |
<0.0001 |
1.29±0.31 |
1.47±0.26 |
0.0071 |
0.7589 |
LDL-C, mg/dL |
2.26±0.63 |
1.44±0.52 |
<0.0001 |
2.62±0.62 |
1.57±0.53 |
<0.0001 |
0.3483 |