The Effects of Synbiotic Supplementation on Pregnancy Outcomes in Gestational Diabetes
Authors: Mehri Jamilian
Maryam Tajabadi-Ebrahimi
Zatollah Asemi
Naemeh Taghavi Shavazi
Fereshteh Bahmani
Maryam Karamali
Nabiollah Nasiri
Journal: Probiotics and Antimicrobial Proteins (2018)
Discipline: MICROBIOLOGY
Keywords: Gestational diabetes; Pregnant women; Synbiotic supplementation.
Affiliations: Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, School of Medicine, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran., Endocrinology and Metabolism Research Center, Arak University of Medical Sciences, Arak, Iran., Research Center for Biochemistry and Nutrition in Metabolic Diseases, Kashan University of Medical Sciences, Kashan, I.R, Iran., Faculty member of Science department, science faculty, Islamic Azad University, Tehran Central branch, Tehran, Iran., Research Center for Biochemistry and Nutrition in Metabolic Diseases, Kashan University of Medical Sciences, Kashan, I.R, Iran. .

Abstract:  Synbiotics are known to exert multiple beneficial effects, including anti-inflammatory and antioxidative actions. This study was designed to evaluate the effects of synbiotic administration on biomarkers of inflammation, oxidative stress, and pregnancy outcomes among gestational diabetic (GDM) women. This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial was carried out among 60 subjects with GDM who were not on oral hypoglycemic agents. Patients were randomly assigned to consume either one synbiotic capsule containing Lactobacillus acidophilus strain T16 (IBRC-M10785), L. casei strain T2 (IBRC-M10783), and Bifidobacterium bifidum strain T1 (IBRC-M10771) (2 √ó 109 CFU/g each) plus 800 mg inulin (HPX) (n = 30) or placebo (n = 30) for 6 weeks. Compared with the placebo, synbiotic supplementation significantly decreased serum high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) (- 1.9 ¬± 4.2 vs. +1.1 ¬± 3.5 mg/L, P = 0.004), plasma malondialdehyde (MDA) (- 0.1 ¬± 0.6 vs. + 0.3 ¬± 0.7 Œºmol/L, P = 0.02), and significantly increased total antioxidant capacity (TAC) (+ 70.1 ¬± 130.9 vs. - 19.7 ¬± 124.6 mmol/L, P = 0.009) and total glutathione (GSH) levels (+ 28.7 ¬± 61.5 vs. - 14.9 ¬± 85.3 Œºmol/L, P = 0.02). Supplementation with synbiotic had a significant decrease in cesarean section rate (16.7 vs. 40.0%, P = 0.04), lower incidence of hyperbilirubinemic newborns (3.3 vs. 30.0%, P = 0.006), and newborns' hospitalization (3.3 vs. 30.0%, P = 0.006) compared with the placebo. Synbiotic supplementation did not affect plasma nitric oxide (NO) levels and other pregnancy outcomes. Overall, synbiotic supplementation among GDM women for 6 weeks had beneficial effects on serum hs-CRP, plasma TAC, GSH, and MDA; cesarean section; incidence of newborn's hyperbilirubinemia; and newborns' hospitalization but did not affect plasma NO levels and other pregnancy outcomes. http://www.irct.ir : www.irct.ir : IRCT201704205623N108. 

Retracted: No

PubPeer comments:
 Figs 2C, 5C.  Images are shared with Fig 2 from [Wu et al (2015)] .  Overexpression of miR-128 inhibits CRC cells proliferation and colony formation. (A) miR-128 mimic restored miR-128 expression in SW480 cells. (B) Cell proliferation was determined by CCK8 assay in SW480 cells following transfection with miR-128 mimic or miR-NC. (C) Cell colony formation was determined in SW480 cells following transfection with miR-128 mimics or miR-NC.  Fig 2 from [Hu et al (2016)] .  MiR-144 overexpression reduces proliferation and colony formation in Hep2 cells. A. qRT-PCR determined miR-144 expression in Hep2 cells transfected with miR-144 mimic or miR-NC. B. CCK8 assay were performed to determined cell proliferation in Hep2 cells transfected with miR-144 mimic or miR-NC. C. Colony formation was determined in Hep2 cells transfected with miR-144 mimic or miR-NC .  , 
 Dear Hoya Camphorifolia, Thank you very much your comment. We performed these experiments in a public lab that many doctors conduct their studies there. All images were stored in the same public computer, which caused some images misuse. We will thoroughly examine the raw data and lab records of this paper, and upload correct figures to journal and pubpeer. Thank you very much again pointing out this question. Best regards Xiaomeng Zhang April, 16,2021 , 
 #2 I am hard-pressed to understand how you can have confidence in **any** of your results, if they are stored on a public computer that allows you to access anyone else s data by mistake. , 
 Erratum, [7 September 2021] . The version of the paper at the publisher s website has indeed been revised, though without any indication of the alteration.  The following was originally published in Volume 26, Number 3, pages 411u2013420 (doi: https: doi.org 10.3727 096504017X14974343584989). In the original article there were some errors in the display of Figures 2C and 5C. We have revised the figures to correct these figures. Corrected versions of the figures are shown here and the figures have been replaced with the corrected versions in the original published article in the online site . The errors did not have an impact of the results or conclusions reported in the study. The authors apologize for any inconvenience caused. Fig 2: (http: docserver.ingentaconnect.com deliver connect cog 09650407 v28n7 or-28-823-g002.gif) Fig 5: (http: docserver.ingentaconnect.com deliver connect cog 09650407 v28n7 or-28-823-g005.gif) ,