4.4 Article

Increased Fecal Lactobacillus Is Associated With a Positive Glucose Hydrogen Breath Test in Bangladeshi Children

期刊

OPEN FORUM INFECTIOUS DISEASES
卷 6, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/ofid/ofz266

关键词

environmental enteric dysfunction; fecal microbiome; hydrogen breath testing; Lactobacillus; small intestine bacterial overgrowth

资金

  1. Pediatric Scientist Development Program [5K12HD000850]
  2. National Institutes of Health [5R01 AI043596]
  3. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation [OPP1017093]
  4. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation [OPP1017093] Funding Source: Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Glucose hydrogen breath testing is a noninvasive test for small intestine bacterial overgrowth (SIBO). A positive glucose hydrogen breath test is common in children from low-income countries and has been found to be associated with malnutrition as measured by stunted growth. The microbiome associated with positive breath testing is relatively unstudied. Methods. We performed 16 S V4 rDNA microbiome analysis on the stool of 90 Bangladeshi children aged 2 years from an impoverished neighborhood who were tested at the same time for SIBO by glucose hydrogen breath testing. Data were analyzed by linear discriminant analysis effect size with SIBO as the outcome. Any selected genera were tested individually by Wilcoxon's rank-sum test to ensure that linear discriminant analysis effect size results were not outlier-skewed. Results. Linear discriminant analysis effect size analysis identified Lactobacillus (linear discriminate analysis score, 4.59; P = .03) as over-represented in 15 out of the 90 children who were SIBO positive. Conclusions. These results suggest that glucose hydrogen breath test positivity in children from low-income settings may be due to an upper intestinal Lactobacillus bloom, potentially explaining the association of SIBO with the gut damage and inflammation that leads to malnutrition.

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

4.4
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