Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2022 Oct 19;70(41):13062-13070.
doi: 10.1021/acs.jafc.2c00587. Epub 2022 Jun 15.

Impact of Beer and Nonalcoholic Beer Consumption on the Gut Microbiota: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Controlled Trial

Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Impact of Beer and Nonalcoholic Beer Consumption on the Gut Microbiota: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Controlled Trial

Cláudia Marques et al. J Agric Food Chem. .

Abstract

Gut microbiota modulation might constitute a mechanism mediating the effects of beer on health. In this randomized, double-blinded, two-arm parallel trial, 22 healthy men were recruited to drink 330 mL of nonalcoholic beer (0.0% v/v) or alcoholic beer (5.2% v/v) daily during a 4-week follow-up period. Blood and faecal samples were collected before and after the intervention period. Gut microbiota was analyzed by 16S rRNA gene sequencing. Drinking nonalcoholic or alcoholic beer daily for 4 weeks did not increase body weight and body fat mass and did not changed significantly serum cardiometabolic biomarkers. Nonalcoholic and alcoholic beer increased gut microbiota diversity which has been associated with positive health outcomes and tended to increase faecal alkaline phosphatase activity, a marker of intestinal barrier function. These results suggest the effects of beer on gut microbiota modulation are independent of alcohol and may be mediated by beer polyphenols.

Keywords: alcohol; beer; gut microbiota; nonalcoholic beer; polyphenols.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing financial interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Trial flowchart.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Gut microbiota composition at the phylum level in the two intervention groups, at baseline (initial) and 4 weeks after intervention (final). Bars represent the average of each bacterial phylum relative abundance. Each phylum is represented by a different color.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Gut microbiota composition at the genus level in the two intervention groups, at baseline (initial) and 4 weeks after intervention (final). Bars represent the average of each bacterial genus relative abundance. Each genus is represented by a different color.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Gut bacterial genera were clustered using principal component analysis (PCA). Results are plotted according to the first two principal components, which explain 65% (PC1) and 23% (PC2), 64% (PC1) and 20% (PC2) of the variation of the gut microbiota composition during the intervention (A) beer 0.0% alcohol beer and (B) beer 5.2% alcohol, respectively. Each point represents one sample. Circles combine samples collected at the same time point by their respective 95% confidence interval ellipse. No differences (p > 0.05) were observed, suggesting similarity among the groups clustered together.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Microbial diversity measured by Shannon’s diversity index in the two intervention groups, at baseline (initial) and 4 weeks after intervention (final). Values are expressed as mean ± standard deviation (n = 9–10). *P < 0.05 vs initial.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Fecal alkaline phosphatase (ALP) activity. Values are expressed as mean ± standard error of mean (n = 9–10).

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. de Gaetano G.; Costanzo S.; Di Castelnuovo A.; Badimon L.; Bejko D.; Alkerwi A.; Chiva-Blanch G.; Estruch R.; La Vecchia C.; Panico S.; et al. Effects of moderate beer consumption on health and disease: A consensus document. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis 2016, 26 (6), 443–467. 10.1016/j.numecd.2016.03.007. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Costanzo S.; Di Castelnuovo A.; Donati M. B.; Iacoviello L.; de Gaetano G. Wine, beer or spirit drinking in relation to fatal and non-fatal cardiovascular events: a meta-analysis. Eur. J. Epidemiol 2011, 26 (11), 833–850. 10.1007/s10654-011-9631-0. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Burton R.; Sheron N. No level of alcohol consumption improves health. Lancet 2018, 392 (10152), 987–988. 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31571-X. - DOI - PubMed
    2. Collaborators G. B. D. A. Alcohol use and burden for 195 countries and territories, 1990–2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. Lancet 2018, 392 (10152), 1015–1035. 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31310-2. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Magalhaes P. J.; Carvalho D. O.; Cruz J. M.; Guido L. F.; Barros A. A. Fundamentals and health benefits of xanthohumol, a natural product derived from hops and beer. Nat. Prod Commun. 2009, 4 (5), 591–610. 10.1177/1934578X0900400501. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Costa R.; Negrao R.; Valente I.; Castela A.; Duarte D.; Guardao L.; Magalhaes P. J.; Rodrigues J. A.; Guimaraes J. T.; Gomes P.; Soares R.; et al. Xanthohumol modulates inflammation, oxidative stress, and angiogenesis in type 1 diabetic rat skin wound healing. J. Nat. Prod 2013, 76 (11), 2047–2053. 10.1021/np4002898. - DOI - PubMed
    2. Nozawa H. Xanthohumol, the chalcone from beer hops (Humulus lupulus L.), is the ligand for farnesoid X receptor and ameliorates lipid and glucose metabolism in KK-A(y) mice. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 2005, 336 (3), 754–761. 10.1016/j.bbrc.2005.08.159. - DOI - PubMed
    3. Costa R.; Rodrigues I.; Guardao L.; Rocha-Rodrigues S.; Silva C.; Magalhaes J.; Ferreira-de-Almeida M.; Negrao R.; Soares R. Xanthohumol and 8-prenylnaringenin ameliorate diabetic-related metabolic dysfunctions in mice. J. Nutr Biochem 2017, 45, 39–47. 10.1016/j.jnutbio.2017.03.006. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types