4.7 Article

Culture-independent analyses of temporal variation of the dominant fecal microbiota and targeted bacterial subgroups in Crohn's disease

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY
卷 44, 期 11, 页码 3980-3988

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/JCM.00312-06

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Gut microbiota shows host-specific diversity and temporal stability and significantly contributes to maintenance of a healthy gut. However, in inflammatory bowel disease, this microbiota has been implicated as a contributory factor to the illness. This study compared bacterial dynamics in Crohn's disease patients to those in a control group using a culture-independent method to assess the temporal stability, relative diversity, and similarity of the dominant fecal microbiota, Clostridium spp., Bacteroides spp., Bifidobacterium spp., and lactic acid bacteria spp. (LAB) for all individuals. Fecal samples were collected over several time points from individuals with Crohn's disease who were in remission (n = 11), from Crohn's disease patients who relapsed into an active Crohn's disease state (n = 5), and from a control group (n = 18). Denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis profiles were generated for the different microbial groups by specifically targeting different regions of the 16S rRNA gene and were compared on the basis of similarity and diversity. The temporal stability of dominant species for all Crohn's disease patients was significantly lower (P < 0.005) than that for the control group. Analysis of group-specific profiles for Bifidobacterium spp. found that they were similar in all samples, while the diversity of the LAB varied significantly between the groups, but temporal stability was not significantly altered. We observed significant changes in two functionally important mutualistic groups of bacteria, viz., Clostridium and Bacteroides spp., which may have implications for the host's gut health, since some genera are involved in production of short-chain fatty acid, e.g., butyrate.

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