4.6 Article

Mucosa-associated bacteria in the human gastrointestinal tract are uniformly distributed along the colon and differ from the community recovered from feces

期刊

APPLIED AND ENVIRONMENTAL MICROBIOLOGY
卷 68, 期 7, 页码 3401-3407

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/AEM.68.7.3401-3407.2002

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The human gastrointestinal (GI) tract harbors a complex community of bacterial cells in the mucosa, lumen, and feces. Since most attention has been focused on bacteria present in feces, knowledge about the mucosa-associated bacterial communities in different parts of the colon is limited. In this study, the bacterial communities in feces and biopsy samples from the ascending, transverse, and descending colons of 10 individuals were analyzed by using a 16S rRNA approach. Flow cytometric analysis indicated that 105 to 106 bacteria were present in the biopsy samples. To visualize the diversity of the predominant and the Lactobacillus group community, denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis (DGGE) analysis of 16S rRNA gene amplicons was performed. DGGE analysis and similarity index comparisons demonstrated that the predominant mucosa-associated bacterial community was host specific and uniformly distributed along the colon but significantly different from the fecal community (P < 0.01). The Lactobacillus group-specific profiles were less complex than the profiles reflecting the predominant community. For 6 of the 10 individuals the community of Lactobacillus-like bacteria in the biopsy samples was similar to that in the feces. Amplicons having 99% sequence similarity to the 16S ribosomal DNA of Lactobacillus gasseri were detected in the biopsy samples of nine individuals. No significant differences were observed between healthy and diseased individuals. The observed host-specific DGGE profiles of the mucosa-associated bacterial community in the colon support the hypothesis that host-related factors are involved in the determination of the GI tract microbial community.

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