4.8 Article

Molecular analysis of the gut microbiota of identical twins with Crohn's disease

期刊

ISME JOURNAL
卷 2, 期 7, 页码 716-727

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/ismej.2008.37

关键词

Crohn's disease; terminal-restriction fragment length polymorphism (T-RFLP); discordant twins; concordant twins; Bacteroides

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Increasing evidence suggests that a combination of host genetics and the composition of the gut microbiota are important for development of Crohn's disease (CD). Our aim was to study identical twins with CD to determine microbial factors independent of host genetics. Fecal samples were studied from 10 monozygotic twin pairs with CD (discordant n = 6 and concordant n 4) and 8 healthy twin pairs. DNA was extracted, 16S rRNA genes were PCR amplified and T-RFLP fingerprints generated using general bacterial and Bacteroides group-specific primers. The microbial communities were also profiled based on their percentage G + C contents. Bacteroides 16S rRNA genes were cloned and sequenced from a subset of the samples. The bacterial diversity in each sample and similarity indices between samples were estimated based on the T-RFLP data using a combination of statistical approaches. Healthy individuals had a significantly higher bacterial diversity compared to individuals with CD. The fecal microbial communities were more similar between healthy twins than between twins with CD, especially when these were discordant for the disease. The microbial community profiles of individuals with ileal CD were significantly different from healthy individuals and those with colonic CD. Also, CD individuals had a lower relative abundance of B. uniformis and higher relative abundances of B. ovatus and B. vulgatus. Our results suggest that genetics and/or environmental exposure during childhood, in part, determine the gut microbial composition. However, CD is associated with dramatic changes in the gut microbiota and this was particularly evident for individuals with ileal CD.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据