4.7 Article

Structural shifts in the intestinal microbiota of rats treated with cyclosporine A after orthotropic liver transplantation

期刊

FRONTIERS OF MEDICINE
卷 13, 期 4, 页码 451-460

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11684-018-0675-3

关键词

microbial community; liver transplantation; immunosuppressive agents; cyclosporine A

资金

  1. China Postdoctoral Science Foundation [2017M610374]
  2. Zhejiang Medical Health Technology Project [2019313269]
  3. Innovative Research Groups of the National Natural Science Foundation of China [81421062]
  4. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81470891]
  5. Science and Technology Bureau of Zhejiang Province, China [2016C33145]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Understanding the effect of immunosuppressive agents on intestinal microbiota is important to reduce the mortality and morbidity from orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT). We investigated the relationship between the commonly used immunosuppressive agent cyclosporine A (CSA) and the intestinal microbial variation in an OLT model. The rat samples were divided as follows: (1) N group (normal control); (2) I group (isograft LT, Brown Norway [BN] rat to BN); (3) R group (allograft LT, Lewis to BN rat); and (4) CSA group (R group treated with CSA). The intestinal microbiota was assayed by denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis profiles and by using real-time polymerase chain reaction. The liver histopathology and the alanine/aspartate aminotransferase ratio after LT were both ameliorated by CSA. In the CSA group, the numbers of rDNA gene copies of Clostridium cluster I, Clostridium cluster XIV, and Enterobacteriaceae decreased, whereas those of Faecalibacterium prausnitzii increased compared with the R group. Cluster analysis indicated that the samples from the N, I, and CSA groups were clustered, whereas the other clusters contained the samples from the R group. Hence, CSA ameliorates hepatic graft injury and partially restores gut microbiota following LT, and these may benefit hepatic graft rejection.

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

4.7
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