Role of Intestinal Microbiota in Ulcerative Colitis
Role of Intestinal Microbiota in Ulcerative Colitis Role of Intestinal Microbiota in Ulcerative Colitis
Figure 2. Dice cluster analysis of universal DGGE gel profiles from in vitro luminal and mucosal communities derived from healthy subjects, UC patients in remission or relapse. The luminal samples are indicated by stars (*) and the mucosal samples are indicated by full circle (•). The dendrogram can be divided into three clusters: Cluster I, luminal samples (53.89% similarity). Cluster II, mucosal samples (54.61% similarity). Cluster III, luminal samples (41.15% similarity). Metric scale indicates degree of similarity in percentage. 20
A. B. Figure 3. Principal component analysis of the quantitative PCR measurements using the first and second principal component (PC1: 25.29% and 15.77%). A) Score plot showing the luminal community indicated by triangle (Δ) and mucosal community indicated by circle (•). Sources of the communities are indicated by green for healthy subjects, blue for UC patients in remission, and red for UC patients in relapse. B) Loading plot, indicating each of the measured bacterial taxa as determined by quantitative Real‐Time PCR. 1. Bifidobacterium bifidum, 2. Bifidobacterium adolescentis, 3. Bifidobacterium pseudocatenulatum, 4. Bifidobacterium spp., 5. Lactobacillus spp., 6. Clostridium leptum subgroup, 7. Clostridium coccoides group, 8. Eubacterium rectale, 9. Faecalibacterium prausnitzii, 10. Desulfovibrio spp., 11. Akkermansia muciniphila, 12. Firmicutes, 13. Bacteroidetes, 14. Roseburia spp., 15. Bacteroides spp., 16. Alistipes spp. 21
- Page 58 and 59: Methodology part 6. Methodology, co
- Page 60 and 61: Introduction Methodology part 42 Pa
- Page 62 and 63: Abstract Background Detailed knowle
- Page 64 and 65: depending the level of disease acti
- Page 66 and 67: in 1 x TAE at 60 °C for 16 h at 36
- Page 68 and 69: Statistics PCA were generated by SA
- Page 70 and 71: The PCA of the Gram‐positive bact
- Page 72 and 73: layer of UC patients and found that
- Page 74 and 75: Acknowledgements The authors thank
- Page 76 and 77: Table 2 ‐ 16S rRNA gene and 16S
- Page 78 and 79: 1. Firmicutes phylum 2. Bacteroidet
- Page 80 and 81: Supplementary Figure S1. Dice clust
- Page 82 and 83: Reference List 1. Ahmed S, Macfarla
- Page 84 and 85: 32. Matsuki T, Watanabe K, Fujimoto
- Page 87 and 88: Methodology part Paper 2 Fecal lact
- Page 89 and 90: Fecal lactobacilli and bifidobacter
- Page 91 and 92: Introduction The mucus layer lining
- Page 93 and 94: efore enrolment and there was no si
- Page 95 and 96: (Bio‐Rad Labs, Hercules, Californ
- Page 97 and 98: Microbial community analysis using
- Page 99 and 100: difference from the luminal microbi
- Page 101 and 102: that C. coccoides group and C. lept
- Page 103 and 104: Table 1 ‐ 16S rRNA gene of phylum
- Page 105 and 106: Table 2 ‐ Preference of bacterial
- Page 107: Figure 1. A) Schematic overview of
- Page 111 and 112: 15. Fooks LJ, Gibson GR. (2002) In
- Page 113 and 114: 47. Ouwehand AC, Suomalainen T, Tol
- Page 115 and 116: Methodology part Paper 3 Paper 3 In
- Page 117 and 118: APPLIED AND ENVIRONMENTAL MICROBIOL
- Page 119 and 120: 8338 VIGSNÆS ET AL. APPL. ENVIRON.
- Page 121 and 122: 8340 VIGSNÆS ET AL. APPL. ENVIRON.
- Page 123 and 124: 8342 VIGSNÆS ET AL. APPL. ENVIRON.
- Page 125: 8344 VIGSNÆS ET AL. APPL. ENVIRON.
- Page 128 and 129: Methodology part Introduction The a
- Page 130 and 131: Journal of Agricultural and Food Ch
- Page 132 and 133: Journal of Agricultural and Food Ch
- Page 134 and 135: Journal of Agricultural and Food Ch
- Page 136 and 137: Journal of Agricultural and Food Ch
- Page 139 and 140: Methodology part Paper 5 Paper 5 Ma
- Page 141 and 142: Appl Microbiol Biotechnol (2011) 90
- Page 143 and 144: Appl Microbiol Biotechnol (2011) 90
- Page 145 and 146: Appl Microbiol Biotechnol (2011) 90
- Page 147 and 148: Appl Microbiol Biotechnol (2011) 90
- Page 149 and 150: Appl Microbiol Biotechnol (2011) 90
- Page 151 and 152: Appl Microbiol Biotechnol (2011) 90
- Page 153 and 154: Methodology part Paper 6 Tailored e
- Page 155 and 156: Process Biochemistry 46 (2011) 1039
- Page 157 and 158: Table 1 List of enzymes. Enzyme Sou
Figure 2. Dice cluster analysis <strong>of</strong> universal DGGE gel pr<strong>of</strong>iles from <strong>in</strong> vitro lum<strong>in</strong>al and mucosal<br />
communities derived from healthy subjects, UC patients <strong>in</strong> remission or relapse. The lum<strong>in</strong>al<br />
samples are <strong>in</strong>dicated by stars (*) and the mucosal samples are <strong>in</strong>dicated by full circle (•). The<br />
dendrogram can be divided <strong>in</strong>to three clusters: Cluster I, lum<strong>in</strong>al samples (53.89% similarity).<br />
Cluster II, mucosal samples (54.61% similarity). Cluster III, lum<strong>in</strong>al samples (41.15% similarity).<br />
Metric scale <strong>in</strong>dicates degree <strong>of</strong> similarity <strong>in</strong> percentage.<br />
20
Change language