Role of Intestinal Microbiota in Ulcerative Colitis
Role of Intestinal Microbiota in Ulcerative Colitis Role of Intestinal Microbiota in Ulcerative Colitis
Table 2 ‐ 16S rRNA gene and 16S‐23S rRNA intergenic spacer region of species specific primers used in this study Target taxon Primer Sequence (5’‐3’) Fragment size (bp) Reference Faecalibacterium prausnitzii * Fprau 07 cca tga att gcc ttc aaa act gtt 140 [51] Fprau 02 gag cct cag cgt cag ttg gt Akkermansia muciniphila* AM1 cag cac gtg aag gtg ggg ac 327 [9] AM2 cct tgc ggt tgg ctt cag at Bifidobacterium bifidum* BiBIF‐1 cca cat gat cgc atg tga ttg 278 [33] BiBIF‐2 ccg aag gct tgc tcc caa a Bifidobacterium breve* BiBRE‐1 ccg gat gct cca tca cac 288 [33] BiBRE‐2 aca aag tgc ctt gct ccc t Bifidobacterium adolescentis* BiADO‐1 ctc cag ttg gat gca tgt c 279 [33] BiADO‐2 cga agg ctt gct ccc agt Bifidobacterium angulatum* BiANG‐1 cag tcc atc gca tgg tgg t 275 [33] Bifidobacterium pseudocatenulatum/B. catenulatum* BiANG‐2 gaa ggc ttg ctc ccc aac BiCATg‐1 cgg atg ctc cga ctc ct 289 [33] BiCATg‐2 cga agg ctt gct ccc gat Bifidobacterium longum# F_long_IS tgg aag acg tcg ttg gct tt 109 R_long_IS atc gcg cca ggc aaa a Bacteroides vulgatus* B.vulga‐F aag gga gcg tag atg gat gtt ta 192 [22] B.vulga‐R cga gcc tca atg tca gtt gc Bacteroides uniformis* B.uni F2 ata acg agc gca acc ctt atc 190 This study B.uni R2 tta ggg att agc atc acg tcg Bacteroides thetaiotaomicron* B_theta F cgt tcc att agg cag ttg gt 110 [47] B_theta R aca cgg tcc aaa ctc cta cg Bacteroides distasonis# Bdis‐F tga tcc ctt gtg ctg ct 220 [29] Bdis‐R atc ccc ctc att cgg a *Primers targeting the 16S rRNA gene #Primers targeting the 16S‐23S intergenic spacer region 16 [19]
Table 3 ‐ Relative fold change of bacteria target from UC patients compared to healthy controls (Set to 1). Bacteria taxa Remission Relapse Firmicutes phylum 1,08±0,42 0,79±0,15 Bacteroidetes phylum 0,61±0,12* 0,65±0,11# Bacteroides spp. 1,38±0,45 1,71±0,49 Prevotella spp. 1,35±0,43 1,96±0,79# Alistipes spp. 0,94±0,49 0,97±0,48 C. leptum subgroup 0,55±0,17# 0,56±0,13# C. coccoides group 1,40±0,47 0,90±0,19 Roseburia 0,77±0,16 0,71±0,23 Desulfovibrio spp. 0,84±0,15 0,73±0,08 Lactobacillus spp. 0,95±0,08 0,79±0,04* Bifidobacterium spp. 1,07±0,05 0,88±0,15 F. prausnitzii 0,87±0,12 0,84±0,11 Akk. muciniphila 0,88±0,13 0,69±0,18* Bac. fragilis group 0,86±0,35 1,11±0,32 Bac. vulgates 0,89±0,09 0,91±0,12 Bac. uniformis 0,90±0,26 1,54±0,45 Bac. thetaiotaomicron 0,85±0,15 1,25±0,24 Bac. distasonis 0,61±0,13# 0,57±0,19# All numbers are average ± SEM of the six samples in each group. Asterisks (*) designates a significant difference from the healthy control group (P < 0.05), while pound signs (#) designates a trend suggesting difference from the healthy control group (0.05< P < 0.10). 17
- 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 and 42: Theoretical part 23 4. Modulation o
- Page 43 and 44: Table 4: Clinical trials on the pre
- Page 45 and 46: Theoretical part 5. Production of p
- 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 56 and 57: Methodology part 6. Methodology, co
- 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 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: 8340 VIGSNÆS ET AL. APPL. ENVIRON.
- Page 123 and 124: 8342 VIGSNÆS ET AL. APPL. ENVIRON.
- Page 125: 8344 VIGSNÆS ET AL. APPL. ENVIRON.
Table 3 ‐ Relative fold change <strong>of</strong> bacteria target from UC patients compared to healthy controls<br />
(Set to 1).<br />
Bacteria taxa Remission Relapse<br />
Firmicutes phylum 1,08±0,42 0,79±0,15<br />
Bacteroidetes phylum 0,61±0,12* 0,65±0,11#<br />
Bacteroides spp. 1,38±0,45 1,71±0,49<br />
Prevotella spp. 1,35±0,43 1,96±0,79#<br />
Alistipes spp. 0,94±0,49 0,97±0,48<br />
C. leptum subgroup 0,55±0,17# 0,56±0,13#<br />
C. coccoides group 1,40±0,47 0,90±0,19<br />
Roseburia 0,77±0,16 0,71±0,23<br />
Desulfovibrio spp. 0,84±0,15 0,73±0,08<br />
Lactobacillus spp. 0,95±0,08 0,79±0,04*<br />
Bifidobacterium spp. 1,07±0,05 0,88±0,15<br />
F. prausnitzii 0,87±0,12 0,84±0,11<br />
Akk. muc<strong>in</strong>iphila 0,88±0,13 0,69±0,18*<br />
Bac. fragilis group 0,86±0,35 1,11±0,32<br />
Bac. vulgates 0,89±0,09 0,91±0,12<br />
Bac. uniformis 0,90±0,26 1,54±0,45<br />
Bac. thetaiotaomicron 0,85±0,15 1,25±0,24<br />
Bac. distasonis 0,61±0,13# 0,57±0,19#<br />
All numbers are average ± SEM <strong>of</strong> the six samples <strong>in</strong> each group.<br />
Asterisks (*) designates a significant difference from the healthy control group (P < 0.05), while pound signs (#)<br />
designates a trend suggest<strong>in</strong>g difference from the healthy control group (0.05< P < 0.10).<br />
17
Change language