4.4 Article

The Firmicutes/Bacteroidetes ratio of the human gut microbiota is associated with prostate enlargement

期刊

PROSTATE
卷 81, 期 16, 页码 1287-1293

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/pros.24223

关键词

bacteria; benign prostatic hyperplasia; microbiome

资金

  1. Japanese Urological Association
  2. Yakult Bio-Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study found a higher proportion of Firmicutes and Actinobacteria in the gut microbiota of patients with prostate enlargement, while patients without enlargement had a higher proportion of Bacteroidetes. The Firmicutes/Bacteroidetes (F/B) ratio of the gut microbiota was associated with prostate enlargement.
Background The pathophysiology of the prostate enlargement underlying lower urinary tract symptoms is unknown. Meanwhile, the gut microbiota can contribute to various host conditions. We hypothesized that the gut microbiota plays a role in prostate enlargement. Methods We included 128 patients who underwent prostate biopsies at our hospitals between December 2018 and March 2020, excluding those who had used antibiotics within the past 6 months and those who were diagnosed with prostate cancer of cT3 or higher. Patients with prostate volumes >= 30 ml were defined as the prostate-enlargement (PE) group; those with prostate volumes The PE group included 66 patients; the non-PE group included 62 patients. Age, body mass index, and prostate-specific antigen levels did not significantly differ between the groups. Linear discriminant analysis effect size analysis indicated a higher proportion of Firmicutes and Actinobacteria in the PE group and a higher proportion of Bacteroidetes in the non-PE group. The Firmicutes/Bacteroidetes (F/B) ratio was significantly higher in the PE group than in the non-PE group (2.21 +/- 0.39 vs. 1.61 +/- 0.40, p = 0.015). Conclusion The F/B ratio of the gut microbiota was associated with prostate enlargement. Although the detailed mechanisms are unclear, the gut microbiota might affect prostate enlargement.

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