4.6 Article

Analysis of the relationship between the gut microbiota enterotypes and colorectal adenoma

期刊

FRONTIERS IN MICROBIOLOGY
卷 14, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2023.1097892

关键词

colorectal polyps; gut microbiota; Prevotella; enterotype; adenoma

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to analyze the differences in gut microbiome composition between adenoma and control populations. The results showed that Prevotella enterotype was only present in the adenoma group and was an independent risk factor for colorectal adenoma.
IntroductionThe essence of enterotypes is to stratify the entire human gut microbiota, and dysregulation of gut microbiota is closely related to the development of colorectal adenoma. Enterotypes may therefore be a useful target for the prevention of colorectal adenoma. However, the relationship between gut microbiota and colorectal adenoma has not been fully elucidated. In this study, we aimed to analyze the differences in gut microbiome composition between adenoma and control populations. MethodsWe recruited 31 patients with colorectal adenoma and 71 non-adenoma controls. Patient demographics, risk factors, fecal samples from each subject were collected and metagenomic sequencing was performed. LEfSe analysis was used to reveal differences in intestinal microbiome composition. Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to determine the association between enterotypes and colorectal adenoma. ResultsThe results showed that Prevotella enterotype (enterotype 4) is only present in adenoma group. Logistic regression analysis showed that Prevotella enterotype was an independent risk factor for colorectal adenoma. DiscussionThe Prevotella enterotype may increase the occurrence of colorectal adenoma through inflammatory association and interference with glucose and lipid metabolism in human body. In conclusion, the differences we observed between different enterotypes add a new potential factor to the development of colorectal adenoma.

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