4.7 Article

Limited prolonged effects of rifaximin treatment on irritable bowel syndrome-related differences in the fecal microbiome and metabolome

期刊

GUT MICROBES
卷 7, 期 5, 页码 397-413

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/19490976.2016.1215805

关键词

16s rRNA sequencing; irritable bowel syndrome; metagenomics; metabolomics; rifaximin

资金

  1. National Science Center [2011/03/B/NZ5/01511]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a chronic functional disorder and its development may be linked, directly and indirectly, to intestinal dysbiosis. Here we investigated the interactions between IBS symptoms and the gut microbiome, including the relation to rifaximin (1200 mg daily; 11.2 g per a treatment). We recruited 72 patients, including 31 with IBS-D (diarrhea), 11 with IBS-C (constipation), and 30 with IBS-M (mixed constipation and diarrhea) and 30 healthy controls (HCs). Of them, 68%, 64%, and 53% patients with IBS-D, IBS-C, and IBS-M, respectively, achieved 10-12 week-term improvement after the rifaximin treatment. Stool samples were collected before and after the treatment, and fecal microbiotic profiles were analyzed by deep sequencing of 165 rRNA, while stool metabolic profiles were studied by hydrogen 1-nuclear magnetic resonance (H-1-NMR) and gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS). Of 26 identified phyla, only Bacteroidetes, Firmicutes, Proteobacteria, and Actinobacteria were consistently found in all samples. Bacteroidetes was predominant in fecal samples from HCs and IBS-D and IBS-M subjects, whereas Firmicutes was predominant in samples from IBS-C subjects. Species richness, but not community diversity, differentiated all IBS patients from HCs. Metabolic fingerprinting, using NMR spectra, distinguished HCs from all IBS patients. Thirteen metabolites identified by GC-MS differed HCs and IBS patients. However, neither metagenomics nor metabolomics analyses identified significant differences between patients with and without improvement after treatment.

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