4.3 Article

Diversity of the Clostridium coccoides group in human fecal microbiota as determined by 16S rRNA gene library

Journal

FEMS MICROBIOLOGY LETTERS
Volume 257, Issue 2, Pages 202-207

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1111/j.1574-6968.2006.00171.x

Keywords

Clostridium coccoides group; universal library; Clostridium coccoides group library; human fecal microbiota

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Fecal microbiota were analyzed in seven healthy individuals by 16S rRNA gene libraries (universal library) using universal primers, and the Clostridium coccoides group libraries using the universal primer 27F and the C. coccoides group-specific primer Erec482. The universal libraries were used in our previous studies. The 972 clones obtained from two different primer set libraries belonged to the C. coccoides group and were classified into 139 operational taxonomic units (OTU) (at least 98% sequence similarity). Of these, 41 OTU were detected commonly from universal libraries and C. coccoides group libraries. One hundred and ten OTU were detected from the C. coccoides group libraries. Fifteen new OTU were isolated from the C. coccoides group libraries in human gut. Most of the OTU did not correspond to known species, thus representing as-yet-uncultured bacteria. We also detected OTU that related to the butyrate-producing bacteria. The C. coccoides group consisted of an average of 35 OTU, although there were differences in the number and the type of species in each individual. When fecal microbiota were analyzed using universal libraries, the OTU belonging to the C. coccoides group detected in elderly individuals were fewer than those detected in adult individuals. When C. coccoides group libraries were used, the numbers of OTU in elderly and adult individuals were not different. Interindividual differences in the composition of OTU belonging to the C. coccoides group were also observed in fecal microbiota.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available