4.6 Article

Changes in the Intestinal Microbiota of Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease with Clinical Remission during an 8-Week Infliximab Infusion Cycle

期刊

MICROORGANISMS
卷 8, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/microorganisms8060874

关键词

inflammatory bowel disease; intestinal microbiota; infliximab; mucosal healing

资金

  1. National Research Foundation (NRF) of Korea - Korea government (MSIP) [2014R1A2A11052136, 2017R1A2B4006767, 2019R1A2C2010404]
  2. National Research Foundation of Korea [2017R1A2B4006767, 2019R1A2C2010404] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated changes in the intestinal microbiota during 8-week infliximab maintenance therapy in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients in clinical remission. Microbial compositional differences were analyzed according to the trough level of infliximab (TLI) and mucosal healing (MH) status. 16S rRNA gene-based microbiome profiling was performed on 10 and 74 fecal samples from 10 healthy volunteers and 40 adult IBD patients, respectively. Fecal sampling occurred at 1-2 weeks (1W) and 7-8 weeks (7W) after infliximab infusion. TLI was measured by ELISA at 8 weeks, immediately before the subsequent infusion; MH was evaluated by endoscopy within 3 months. There were no significant changes in microbial composition, species richness, or diversity indices between 1W and 7W. However, 7W samples from the patients with TLI >= 5 mu g/mL showed an increased species richness compared with patients with TLI < 5 mu g/mL, and patients with MH showed increased diversity compared with non-MH patients. Beta-diversity analysis showed clustering between samples in the MH and non-MH groups. LEfSe analysis identified differential composition ofFaecalibacterium prausnitziigroup according to TLI and MH. In conclusion, these results suggest the potential of fecal microbiota as a response indicator.

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