4.1 Article

Comparison of the gut microbial community between obese and lean peoples using 16S gene sequencing in a Japanese population

期刊

出版社

JOURNAL CLINICAL BIOCHEMISTRY & NUTRITION
DOI: 10.3164/jcbn.15-152

关键词

165 sequence; datamining; Firmicutes; Bacteroides; SCFA

资金

  1. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan [15K08967]
  2. Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare of Japan
  3. Smoking Research Foundation
  4. MSD Co., Ltd. (Tokyo, Japan)
  5. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [15K08967, 15K08948] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Altered gut microbial ecology contributes to the development of metabolic diseases including obesity. In this study, we performed 165 rRNA sequence analysis of the gut microbiota profiles of obese and lean Japanese populations. The V3-V4 hypervariable regions of 165 rRNA of fecal samples from 10 obese and 10 lean volunteers were sequenced using the Illumina MiSeq (TM) II system. The average body mass index of the obese and lean group were 38.1 and 16.6 kg/mz, respectively (p<0.01). The Shannon diversity index was significantly higher in the lean group than in the obese group (p<0.01). The phyla Firmicutes and Fusobacteria were significantly more abundant in obese people than in lean people. The abundance of the phylum Bacteroidetes and the Bacteroidetes/Firmicutes ratio were not different between the obese and lean groups. The genera Alistipes, Anaerococcus, Corpococcus, Fusobacterium and Parvimonas increased significantly in obese people, and the genera Bacteroides, Desulfovibrio, Faecalibacterium, Lachnoanaerobaculum and Olsenella increased significantly in lean people. Bacteria species possessing anti-inflammatory properties, such as Faecalibacterium prausnitzii, increased significantly in lean people, but bacteria species possessing pro-inflammatory properties increased in obese people. Obesity-associated gut micro biota in the Japanese population was different from that in Western people.

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

4.1
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