4.4 Article

Methanobrevibacter smithii Is the Predominant Methanogen in Patients with Constipation-Predominant IBS and Methane on Breath

Journal

DIGESTIVE DISEASES AND SCIENCES
Volume 57, Issue 12, Pages 3213-3218

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10620-012-2197-1

Keywords

Constipation IBS; Methane; Methanogens

Funding

  1. Beatrice and Samuel A. Seaver Foundation
  2. Salix Pharmaceuticals

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Among irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) patients, breath methane producers overwhelmingly have constipation predominance (C-IBS). Although the most common methanogen in humans is Methanobrevibacter smithii, incidence and type of methanogenic bacteria in C-IBS patients are unknown. By use of a questionnaire and lactulose breath testing, subjects with Rome II C-IBS and methane (> 3 ppm) were selected (n = 9). The control group included subjects with IBS who had no breath methane (n = 10). Presence of bacterial DNA was assessed in a stool sample of each subject by quantitative-PCR using universal 16S rDNA primer. M. smithii was quantified by use of a specific rpoB gene primer. M. smithii was detected in both methane and non-methane subjects. However, counts and relative proportion of M. smithii were significantly higher for methane-positive than for methane-negative subjects (1.8 x 10(7) +/- A 3.0 x 10(7) vs 3.2 x 10(5) +/- A 7.6 x 10(5) copies/g wet stool, P < 0.001; and 7.1 +/- A 6.3 % vs 0.24 +/- A 0.47 %, P = 0.02 respectively). The minimum threshold of M. smithii resulting in positive lactulose breath testing for methane was 4.2 x 10(5) copies/g wet stool or 1.2 % of total stool bacteria. Finally, area-under-curve for breath methane correlated significantly with both absolute quantity and percentage of M. smithii in stool (R = 0.76; P < 0.001 and R = 0.77; P < 0.001 respectively). M. smithii is the predominant methanogen in C-IBS patients with methane on breath testing. The number and proportion of M. smithii in stool correlate well with amount of breath methane.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available