4.5 Article

Increased bacterial putrescine has no impact on gut morphology and physiology in gnotobiotic adolescent mice

期刊

BENEFICIAL MICROBES
卷 4, 期 3, 页码 253-266

出版社

WAGENINGEN ACADEMIC PUBLISHERS
DOI: 10.3920/BM2012.0047

关键词

simplified human microbiota; Fusobacterium varium; polyamines; gut anatomy

资金

  1. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft [BL 257/8-1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Gut bacteria influence host anatomy and physiology. It has been proposed that bacterial metabolites including polyamines are responsible for intestinal maturation and mucosal growth. We have hypothesised that bacterially produced polyamines act as trophic factors and thereby influence large intestinal crypt depth and thickness of the different gut layers. For that purpose, germ-free mice were associated with two different microbial consortia. One group was colonised with a simplified human microbiota (SIHUMI). The second group was associated with SIHUMI + Fusobacterium varium (SIHUMI + Fv), which is known to produce high amounts of polyamines. Polyamine concentrations were measured by HPLC and morphological parameters were determined microscopically. Germfree and conventional mice served as controls. The caecal putrescine concentration of the SIHUMI + Fv was 61.8 mu M (47.6-75.5 mu M), whereas that of conventional and SIHUMI mice was 28.8 mu M (1.3-41.7 mu M) and 24.5 mu M (16.8-29.1 mu M), respectively. The caecal putrescine concentration of germ-free mice was only 0.6 mu M (0-1.0 mu M). Caecal crypt depth and thickness of the different caecal layers revealed no significant differences between SIHUMI and SIHUMI + Fv mice. However, the crypt depth in the caeca of conventional, SIHUMI and SIHUMI + Fv mice was increased by 48.6% (P <= 0.001), 39.7% (P <= 0.001) and 28.5% (P <= 0.05), respectively, compared to germ-free mice. These findings indicate that increased intestinal putrescine concentrations do not influence gut morphology in our gnotobiotic adolescent mice.

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

4.5
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