# Thermally processed rice starch impacts glucose homeostasis in mice to different degrees via disturbing gut microbial structure and intestinal barrier function.
> 熱処理米デンプンがマウスの腸内細菌叢および腸管バリア機能を介してグルコース恒常性に与える影響


## Abstract

This study examined how different thermal processing methods—boiling, baking, and frying—alter the physicochemical properties of starch-based diets and subsequently affect glucose metabolism in C57BL/6J mice over a 10-week period. Boiling caused the greatest disruption to crystalline structure and intermolecular hydrogen bonding, leading to elevated random blood glucose and impaired insulin homeostasis, primarily through a marked reduction in gut microbial diversity. Baked and fried diets, by contrast, increased intestinal epithelial permeability (plasma lipopolysaccharide rose by 28.67% and 21.85%, respectively), impairing islet β-cell function and inducing glucose metabolic disturbances. All thermally processed diets enhanced postprandial glucose response and appetite. The findings establish a mechanistic link between starch processing conditions, intestinal homeostasis disruption, and adverse glucose metabolism outcomes, providing a basis for developing food processing strategies that minimize metabolic harm.

### Mechanism

Thermal processing disrupts starch crystalline structure and hydrogen bonding, reducing gut microbial diversity and increasing intestinal epithelial permeability, which in turn impairs islet β-cell function and disturbs insulin and glucose homeostasis.

## Bibliographic

- **Authors**: Lu X, Ma R, Zhan J, Pan X, Liu C, Shen W, et al.
- **Journal**: Carbohydr Polym
- **Year**: 2025 (2025-01-15)
- **PMID**: [39562071](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39562071/)
- **DOI**: [10.1016/j.carbpol.2024.122795](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2024.122795)
- **Study type**: animal study
- **Delivery route**: not specified
- **Effect reported**: not assessed

## Delivery context

The delivery route is not clearly identifiable from this paper. For hydrogen intake, inhalation is the most efficient route; inhalation, however, carries explosion risk (empirical LFL of 10%; high-concentration devices are not recommended).

## Safety notes

The delivery route is not clearly identifiable from this paper. For hydrogen intake, inhalation is the most efficient route; inhalation, however, carries explosion risk (empirical LFL of 10%; high-concentration devices are not recommended).

See also:
- [Inhalation concentration and LFL / UFL](https://h2-papers.org/en/safety-notes/inhalation-concentration)
- [Consumer Affairs Agency accident cases](https://h2-papers.org/en/safety-notes/accident-cases)

---

> **Cite as**: H2 Papers — PMID 39562071. https://h2-papers.org/en/papers/39562071
> **Source**: PubMed PMID [39562071](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39562071/)