4.3 Article

Effect of a multispecies probiotic supplement on quantity of irritable bowel syndrome-related intestinal microbial phylotypes

期刊

BMC GASTROENTEROLOGY
卷 10, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1471-230X-10-110

关键词

-

资金

  1. Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and Innovation
  2. Academy of Finland
  3. Finnish Graduate School on Applied Bioscience

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Probiotics can alleviate the symptoms of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), possibly by stabilizing the intestinal microbiota. Our aim was to determine whether IBS-associated bacterial alterations were reduced during multispecies probiotic intervention consisting of Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG, L. rhamnosus Lc705, Propionibacterium freudenreichii ssp. shermanii JS and Bifidobacterium breve Bb99. The intervention has previously been shown to successfully alleviate gastrointestinal symptoms of IBS. Methods: The faecal microbiotas of 42 IBS subjects participating in a placebo-controlled double-blind multispecies probiotic intervention were analysed using quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (qPCR). Eight bacterial targets within the gastrointestinal microbiota with a putative IBS association were measured. Results: A phylotype with 94% similarity to Ruminococcus torques remained abundant in the placebo group, but was decreased in the probiotic group during the intervention (P = 0.02 at 6 months). In addition, the clostridial phylotype, Clostridium thermosuccinogenes 85%, was stably elevated during the intervention (P = 0.00 and P = 0.02 at 3 and 6 months, respectively). The bacterial alterations detected were in accordance with previously discovered alleviation of symptoms. Conclusions: The probiotic supplement was thus shown to exert specific alterations in the IBS-associated microbiota towards the bacterial 16S rDNA phylotype quantities described previously for subjects free of IBS. These changes may have value as non-invasive biomarkers in probiotic intervention studies.

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

4.3
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