Role of Intestinal Microbiota in Ulcerative Colitis

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table 5: Animal studies used to demonstrate prebiotic effects in preventing colitis Reference (Osman et al., 2006) (Hoentjen et al., 2005) (Geier et al., 2007) (Lara‐Villoslada et al., 2006) Theoretical part (Cherbut et al., 2003) (Rodriguez‐ Cabezas et al., 2010) 26 (Rumi et al., 2004) 4. Modulation of the gut microbiota Key findings Compared with colitis control, the prebiotic Decreased severity of colonic damage Increased cecal and colonic lactobacilli and bifidobacteria Decreased IL‐1β Decreased neutrophile infiltration Compared with colitis control, the prebiotic Decreased severity of colonic damage Increased cecal and colonic lactobacilli and bifidobacteria Decreased IL‐1β Compared with colitis control, the prebiotic Increased neutrophile infiltration Did not result in greater reduction in colonic damage Compared with colitis control, the prebiotic Decreased severity of colonic damage Increased cecal and colonic lactobacilli and bifidobacteria Decreased neutrophile infiltration Compared with colitis control, the prebiotic Decreased severity of colonic damage Increased cecal and colonic lactobacilli and lactic acid bacteria Decreased neutrophile infiltration Compared with colitis control, the prebiotic Decreased severity of colonic damage Decreased neutrophile infiltration Increased colonic lactobacilli and bifidobacteria Did not affect the level of IL‐1β and TNF‐α Compared with colitis control, the prebiotic Decreased severity of colonic damage Decreased neutrophile infiltration Compared with colitis control, the prebiotic Decreased severity of colonic damage Decreased neutrophile infiltration Increased colonic lactobacilli and bifidobacteria Decreased colonic TNF‐α Compared with colitis control, the prebiotic Decreased severity of colonic damage Increased colonic TGF‐β Decreased colonic IL‐6 and IFN‐γ Compared with colitis control, the prebiotic Decreased severity of colonic damage Colitis inducer# DSS Study design animals Spraugue‐Dawley rats (n=6 in each group) Length of treatment * 14 days Substrate* OFI SPF HLA B27 transgenic rats (n=8 in each group) 7 weeks OFI DSS Spraugue‐Dawley rats (n=8 in each group) 14 days FOS TNBS Wistar rats (n=20 in each group) 1 month FOS TNBS Wistar rats (n=6 in each group) 14 days FOS TNBS Wistar rats (n=10 in each group) 14 days FOS DSS Wistar rats (n=6 in each group) 14 days Lactulose (Camuesco et al., 2005) TNBS Wistar rats (n=10 in each group) 3 weeks Lactulose (Kanauchi et al., 2008) CD4+CD45RB high T cells SCID mice (n=8 in each group) 9 weeks GBF (Lara‐Villostada et al., 2006) GMO 14 days Spraugue‐Dawley rats (n=10 in DSS each group) Decreased neutrophile infiltration *Oligofructose‐enriched inulin (OFI), fructo‐oligosaccharide (FOS), Germinated barley foodstuff (GBF), Oligosaccharides from goat milk (GMO) #Dextran sulfate sodium (DSS), pathogen‐free conditions (SPF), trinitrobenzene sulfonic acid (TNBS) Severe combined immunodeficiency (SCID)
Theoretical part 5. Production of prebiotics and novel prebiotic candidates 5. Production of prebiotics and novel prebiotic candidates Non‐digestible poly‐ and oligosaccharides of various types are found as natural components in fruit, vegetables, milk and honey (Crittenden and Playne, 1996). With the exception of soybean oligosaccharides (produced by direct extraction from soybean whey) and lactulose (produced by alkaline isomerisation of lactose), most prebiotic oligosaccharides are manufactured using enzymatic processes (Crittenden and Playne, 1996;Rastall, 2007). They are either synthesized from monosaccharides (such as lactose and sucrose) by transglycosylation reactions or produced by controlled hydrolysis of polysaccharides, including starch, inulin or xylan (Crittenden and Playne, 1996;Grizard and Barthomeuf, 1999). In this chapter, the production of the classified prebiotic oligosaccharide, FOS, will be described, as well as the production of novel prebiotic candidates derived from pectin. 5.1. Fructo-oligosaccharides FOS is found in several kinds of plants and vegetables such as banana, onion, asparagus roots, artichokes, shallot, and wheat (Sangeetha et al., 2005). They are industrially produced in two ways leading to different products: either from inulin (commercially recovered from chicory root and Jerusalem artichoke) by hydrolysis or from transfructosylation of sucrose (Grizard and Barthomeuf, 1999). In commercial inulin, both linear chains of α‐D‐glucopyranosyl‐[β‐D‐fructofuranosyl (linked 2→1)]n‐ 1‐D‐fructofuranoside and β‐D‐fructopyranosyl‐[β‐D‐fructofuranosyl (linked 2 →1)]n‐1‐D‐ fructofuranoside residues are included. The number (n) of β‐D‐fructofuranose units varies from two to more than seventy units (Roberfroid and Delzenne, 1998). The production of FOS from inulin is a result of partial enzymic hydrolysis using inulinase (2,1‐β‐D‐fructan fructanohydrolase (EC 3.2.1.7)). This enzyme is specific for inulin and catalyzes the breakdown of β‐D‐fructosidic linkages in inulin in an endo‐type manner. The majority of the hydrolysates (FOS: DP2–10; average DP5) are fructofuranosyl residues, but a low proportion terminates in glycosyl residues (Roberfroid and Delzenne, 1998;Grizard and Barthomeuf, 1999). The industrial production of FOS from sucrose uses mainly fructosyltransferase or β‐ fructofuranosidase from bacterial and fungal sources (Yun et al., 1997;Kim et al., 1998). FOS derived from sucrose all terminate in glucosyl residues, and are thus non‐reducing. Additionally, 27
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 43: Table 4: Clinical trials on the pre
Page 47 and 48: Theoretical part 5. Production of p
Page 49 and 50: 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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?