4.6 Article

Oral microbiota in patients with atherosclerosis

期刊

ATHEROSCLEROSIS
卷 243, 期 2, 页码 573-578

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.atherosclerosis.2015.10.097

关键词

Oral microbiota; Atherosclerosis; Pyrosequencing

资金

  1. Swedish Heart Lung Foundation
  2. AFA-insurances
  3. Swedish Research Council
  4. Swedish Foundation for Strategic Research
  5. Torsten Soderberg's Foundation
  6. Ragnar Soderberg's Foundation
  7. LUA-ALF grants from Vastra Gotalandsregionen

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and aims: Recent evidence suggests that the microbiota may be considered as an environmental factor that contributes to the development of atherosclerosis. Periodontal disease has been associated with cardio- and cerebrovascular events, and inflammation in the periodontium is suggested to increase the systemic inflammatory level of the host, which may in turn influence plaque composition and rupture. We previously showed that bacteria from the oral cavity and the gut could be found in atherosclerotic plaques. Methods: To elucidate whether the oral microbiota composition differed between patients with asymptomatic and symptomatic atherosclerosis we performed pyrosequencing of the oral microbiota of 92 individuals including patients with asymptomatic and symptomatic atherosclerosis and control individuals without carotid plaques or previous stroke or myocardial infarction. Results: The overall microbial structure was similar in controls and atherosclerosis patients, but patients with symptomatic atherosclerosis had higher relative abundance of Anaeroglobus (mean 0.040% (SD 0.049)) than the control group (0.010% (SD 0.028)) (P = 0.03). Using linear regression analysis, we found that Parvimonas associated positively with uCRP and Capnocytophaga, Catonella and Lactobacillus associated with blood lipid markers. In conclusion, abundance of Anaeroglobus in the oral cavity could be associated with symptomatic atherosclerosis. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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