4.7 Article

Faecal microbiota study reveals specific dysbiosis in spondyloarthritis

期刊

ANNALS OF THE RHEUMATIC DISEASES
卷 76, 期 9, 页码 1614-1622

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2016-211064

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective Altered microbiota composition or dysbiosis is suspected to be implicated in the pathogenesis of chronic inflammatory diseases, such as spondyloarthritis (SpA) and rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods 165 ribosomal RNA gene sequencing was performed on faecal DNA isolated from stool samples in two consecutive cross-sectional cohorts, each comprising three groups of adult volunteers: SpA, RA and healthy controls (HCs). In the second study, HCs comprised a majority of aged-matched siblings of patients with known HLA-B27 status. Alpha and beta diversities were assessed using QIIME, and comparisons were performed using linear discriminant analysis effect size to examine differences between groups. Results In both cohorts, dysbiosis was evidenced in SpA and RA, as compared with HCs, and was disease specific. A restriction of microbiota biodiversity was detected in both disease groups. The most striking change was a twofold to threefold increased abundance of Ruminococcus gnavus in SpA, as compared with both RA and HCs that was significant in both studies and positively correlated with disease activity in patients having a history of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Among HCs, significant difference in microbiota composition were also detected between HLA-B27+ and HLA-B27 negative siblings, suggesting that genetic background may influence gut microbiota composition. Conclusion Our results suggest that distinctive dysbiosis characterise both SpA and RA and evidence a reproducible increase in R. gnavus that appears specific for SpA and a marker of disease activity. This observation is consistent with the known proinflammatory role of this bacteria and its association with IBD. It may provide an explanation for the link that exists between SpA and IBD.

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

4.7
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