4.4 Article

Gut Bacterial Translocation May Aggravate Microinflammation in Hemodialysis Patients

期刊

DIGESTIVE DISEASES AND SCIENCES
卷 59, 期 9, 页码 2109-2117

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10620-014-3202-7

关键词

ESRD; Hemodialysis; Gut dysbacteria; Bacteria translocation; Microinflammation

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [30872457]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Bacterial translocation (BT) promotes microinflammation in predialysis patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). However, the change in BT has not been reported in ESRD patients undergoing regular hemodialysis treatment. The present study investigated whether hemodialysis promotes gut BT and microinflammation. The blood, gut, and dialysate of hemodialysis patients were analyzed using bacterial 16S rDNA amplification and DNA pyrosequencing to determine the presence of bacteria and alteration in gut microbiomes. High-sensitive C-reactive protein (hs-CRP), interleukin-6 (IL-6), and endotoxin were also determined. Plasma d-lactate was tested for gut permeability. Bacteria were present in the plasma of 12 out of 52 ESRD patients. The majority of the bacteria detected in the blood were also distributed in the gut of ESRD patients on the basis of the phylogenetics of the blood and gut microbial specimens in the patients. In patient, groups treated with and without hemodialysis, the plasma hs-CRP, IL-6, and endotoxin levels differed between the positive and negative plasma bacterial DNA. In patients who were positive in blood bacteria, the bacterial DNA concentration was positively correlated with plasma levels of CRP and IL-6. The ESRD patients who underwent hemodialysis had a different flora and showed slightly higher levels of hs-CRP, IL-6, and plasma endotoxin, compared with those in ESRD patients who did not undergo hemodialysis. ESRD, rather than hemodialysis, primarily contributes to BT and microinflammation in ESRD patients. Hemodialysis may exaggerate microinflammation in ESRD patients to some extent.

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

4.4
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