4.5 Article

The association of type II diabetes with gut microbiota composition

Journal

MICROBIAL PATHOGENESIS
Volume 110, Issue -, Pages 630-636

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.micpath.2017.07.034

Keywords

Gut microbiota; Type 2 diabetes; Real-time PCR; Bacteroides fragilis; Bifidobacterium longum; Faecalibacterium prausnitzii

Funding

  1. Iran University of Medical Sciences
  2. Institute of Endocrinology and Metabolism Research and Training Center [IUMS/27564-122-01-95]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

It is known that type 2 diabetes (T2D) in humans could be linked to the composition of gut microbiota. The aim of this study was to evaluate three faecal bacterial species, including Bacteroides fragilis, Bifidobacterium longum and Faecalibacterium prausnitzii in patients with T2D. This case control study included 18 patients with T2D and 18 matched persons without diabetes. The concentrations of B. fragilis, B. longum and F. prausnitzii were determined by quantitative Real-Time PCR. Quantitative PCR analysis revealed that the gut bacterial composition in patients with T2D was partially different from that in the healthy individuals. Faecalibacterium prausnitzii was significantly lower in patients with T2D (P-value = 0.038). Bacteroides fragilis was under-represented in the microbiota of the group with diabetes, but its difference between two groups was not significant (P-value = 038). No difference was observed for B. longum community between the both groups (P-value = 0.99). Characterization of specific species of intestinal microbiota shows some compositional changes in patients with T2D. The results may be valuable for developing strategies to control type 2 diabetes by modifying the intestinal microbiota. Long-term studies with emphasis on other bacterial groups are suggested to clarify the association of T2D with gut microbiota. (C) 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available