Role of Intestinal Microbiota in Ulcerative Colitis

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Theoretical part 24 4. Modulation of the gut microbiota consumption of prebiotics or prebiotic candidates decreased the severity of colonic damage, increased colonic levels of lactobacilli and bifidobacteria, and decreased levels of neutrophile infiltration and pro‐inflammatory cytokines (Cherbut et al., 2003;Rumi et al., 2004;Hoentjen et al., 2005;Camuesco et al., 2005;Osman et al., 2006;Lara‐Villoslada et al., 2006;Kanauchi et al., 2008;Rodriguez‐Cabezas et al., 2010). However, discrepancies in results have been observed in the study by Geier et al. (2007), in which prebiotic consumption failed to protect rats from induced colitis, and even increased neutrophile infiltration. Generally, little is still known regarding the protective effect of prebiotics or prebiotic candidates on IBD, and only a few different prebiotic candidates have been tested in vivo with some discrepancies in results, as can be seen in Table 4 and Table 5.
Table 4: Clinical trials on the prebiotic effect in inflammatory bowel disease (Ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn’s disease (CD)) Reference Key finding Duration time Test Compound* Tiral Design* Subjects (Casellas et al., 2007) (Hanai et al., 2004) Compared with placebo, the prebiotic Reduced disease activity Reduced fecal calprotectin Compared with control, the prebiotic Reduced disease activity 2 weeks 12 months Treatment: OFI (12g/day), n=10 Placebo: Maltodextrose (12 g/day), n=9 Treatment: GBF (20 g/day), n=22 Control: No additive treatment, n=37 DBRPC UC (relapse) Open label UC (remission) (Kanauchi et al., 2003) Compared with control, the prebiotic Reduced disease activity 24 weeks Treatment: GBF (20‐30 g/day), n=21 Control: No additive treatment, n=21 Open label UC (relapse) (Faghfoori et al., 2011) Compared with control, the prebiotic Reduced levels of serum pro‐ inflammatory cytokines; TNF‐α, IL‐6 and IL‐8 2 months Treatment: GBF (30 g/day), n=20 Control: No additive treatment, n=21 Open label UC (remission) (Hafer et al., 2007) Theoretical part Compared with control, the prebiotic Did not affect disease activity in either UC or CD Did not affect immunohistochemical parameters in either UC or CD Increased quality of life in UC 4 months Treatment: UC, lactulose (10 g/day), n=7 CD, lactulose (10 g/day, n=8 Control: UC, no additive treatment, n=7 CD, no additive treatment, n=9 RPC UC (active) CD (active) 25 (Lindsay et al., 2006) Compared with baseline, the prebiotic Reduced disease activity Increased fecal bifidobacteria Increased dendritic cell IL‐10 Increased dendritic cell TLR‐2 and TLR‐4 expression 3 weeks Treatment: OFI (15 g/day), n=10 Open label CD (active) 4. Modulation of the gut microbiota (Benjamin et al., 2011) Compared with placebo, the prebiotic Did not affect disease activity Did not affect fecal bifidobacteria Increased dendritic cell IL‐10 Reduced dendritic cell IL‐6 4 weeks Treatment: OFI (15 g/day), n=54 Placebo: Maltodextrose (15 g/day), n=49 DBRPC CD (active) *Oligofructose‐enriched inulin (OFI), Germinated barley foodstuff (GBF) #Doubled‐blind randomized, placebo controlled (DBRPC), randomized, placebo controlled (RPC)
Page 1: Role of Intestinal Microbiota in Ul
Page 4 and 5: Role of Intestinal Microbiota in Ul
Page 6 and 7: Preface Preface This thesis present
Page 8 and 9: Summary Summary The microbiota of t
Page 10 and 11: Dansk sammendrag Dansk sammendrag M
Page 12 and 13: Introduction and objectives Introdu
Page 14 and 15: List of Manuscripts Not included in
Page 16 and 17: List of contents List of Centents P
Page 18 and 19: List of Centents Methodology append
Page 21 and 22: 1. The intestinal environment Theor
Page 23 and 24: Theoretical part 5 1. The intestina
Page 25 and 26: 2. The colonic environment Theoreti
Page 27 and 28: Theoretical part 9 2. The colonic e
Page 29 and 30: Table 1: The presence of glycoside
Page 31 and 32: Theoretical part Figure 3: The colo
Page 33 and 34: 3. Inflammatory Bowel disease Theor
Page 35 and 36: Theoretical part 17 3. Inflammatory
Page 37 and 38: Theoretical part 19 4. Modulation o
Page 39 and 40: Theoretical part 21 4. Modulation o
Page 41: Theoretical part 23 4. Modulation o
Page 45 and 46: Theoretical part 5. Production of p
Page 51: Methodology part
Page 54 and 55: 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 and 108:
Figure 1. A) Schematic overview of
Page 109 and 110:
A. B. Figure 3. Principal component
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:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125:
Page 128 and 129:
Methodology part Introduction The a
Page 130 and 131:
Journal of Agricultural and Food Ch
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
Page 139 and 140:
Methodology part Paper 5 Paper 5 Ma
Page 141 and 142:
Appl Microbiol Biotechnol (2011) 90
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
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
Page 159 and 160:
J. Holck et al. / Process Biochemis
Page 161 and 162:
Intensity 50 0 C1 175.05 J. Holck e
Page 163 and 164:
J. Holck et al. / Process Biochemis
Page 165:
[29] Bauer S, Vasu P, Persson S, Mo
Page 168 and 169:
Methodology part 150
Page 170 and 171:
Methodology part 152 Appendix 1 hor
Page 172 and 173:
Appendix 3 Methodology part Appendi
Page 174 and 175:
Methodology part 156 Appendix 3
Page 177 and 178:
7. Discussion and perspectives Disc
Page 179 and 180:
Discussion and conclusion 161 7. Di
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
References References Abreu,M.T., V
Page 187 and 188:
References Derrien,M., Vaughan,E.E.
Page 189 and 190:
References Haarman,M. and Knol,J. (
Page 191 and 192:
References Lantz,P.G., Matsson,M.,
Page 193 and 194:
References Matsuki,T., Watanabe,K.,
Page 195 and 196:
References Pullan,R.D., Thomas,G.A.
Page 197 and 198:
References Tannock,G.W. (2010). Ana
Page 200:
National Food Institute Technical U
show all

Role of Intestinal Microbiota in Ulcerative Colitis

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?