4.7 Article

Contrasting effects of Bifidobacterium breve NCIMB 702258 and Bifidobacterium breve DPC 6330 on the composition of murine brain fatty acids and gut microbiota

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NUTRITION
卷 95, 期 5, 页码 1278-1287

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.3945/ajcn.111.026435

关键词

-

资金

  1. Science Foundation of Ireland

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: We previously showed that microbial metabolism in the gut influences the composition of bioactive fatty acids in host adipose tissue. Objective: This study compared the effect of dietary supplementation for 8 wk with human-derived Bifidobacterium breve strains on fat distribution and composition and the composition of the gut microbiota in mice. Methods: C57BL/6 mice (n = 8 per group) received B. breve DPC 6330 or B. breve NCIMB 702258 (10(9) microorganisms) daily for 8 wk or no supplement (controls). Tissue fatty acid composition was assessed by gas-liquid chromatography while 16S rRNA pyrosequencing was used to investigate microbiota composition. Results: Visceral fat mass and brain stearic acid, arachidonic acid, and DHA were higher in mice supplemented with B. breve NCIMB 702258 than in mice in the other 2 groups (P < 0.05). In addition, both B. breve DPC 6330 and B. breve NCIMB 702258 supplementation resulted in higher propionate concentrations in the cecum than did no supplementation (P < 0.05). Compositional sequencing of the gut microbiota showed a tendency for greater proportions of Clostridiaceae (25%, 12%, and 18%; P = 0.08) and lower proportions of Eubacteriaceae (3%, 12%, and 13%; P = 0.06) in mice supplemented with B. breve DPC 6330 than in mice supplemented with B. breve NCIMB 702258 and unsupplemented controls, respectively. Conclusion: The response of fatty acid metabolism to administration of bifidobacteria is strain-dependent, and strain-strain differences are important factors that influence modulation of the gut microbial community by ingested microorganisms. Am J Clin Nutr 2012;95:1278-87.

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