4.6 Article

Crying Time and ROR gamma/FOXP3 Expression in Lactobacillus reuteri DSM17938-Treated Infants with Colic: A Randomized Trial

期刊

JOURNAL OF PEDIATRICS
卷 192, 期 -, 页码 171-+

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2017.08.062

关键词

-

资金

  1. Noos srl Roma (Italy)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives To evaluate crying time, retinoid-related orphan receptor-gamma (ROR gamma) and forkhead box P3 (FOXP3) messenger RNA levels (transcription factors that can modulate T cell responses to gut microbes), and to investigate gut microbiota and fecal calprotectin in infants treated with Lactobacillus reuteri for infantile colic. Study design A double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trial was conducted in primary care in Torino from August 1, 2015 to September 30, 2016. Patients suffering from infantile colic were randomly assigned to receive daily oral L reuteri (1 x 10(8) colony forming unit) or placebo for 1 month. Daily crying times were recorded in a structured diary. FOXP3 and RORg messenger RNA in the peripheral blood was assessed with real-time TaqMan reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction. Gut microbiota and fecal calprotectin were evaluated. Results After infants with colic were supplemented with L reuteri DSM 17938 for 30 days, crying times were significantly shorter among infants with colic in the probiotic group compared with infants in the placebo group (74.67 +/- 25.04 [IQR = 79] minutes /day vs 147.85 [IQR = 135] minutes /day [P =.001]). The FOXP3 concentration increased significantly (P = .009), resulting in decreased ROR gamma/FOXP3 ratios: 0.61 (IQR = 0.60) at day 0 and 0.48 (IQR = 0.28) at day 30 (P = .028). Furthermore, the probiotic increased the percentage of Lactobacillus (P = .049) and decreased fecal calprotectin (P = .0001). Conclusions Infants with colic treated with L reuteri for 30 days had a significantly decreased crying time and an increased FOXP3 concentration, resulting in a decreased RORg/FOXP3 ratio. The treatment reduced fecal calprotectin.

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