Role of Intestinal Microbiota in Ulcerative Colitis
Role of Intestinal Microbiota in Ulcerative Colitis Role of Intestinal Microbiota in Ulcerative Colitis
luminal samples (Table 3). Relative quantities of Bifidobacterium spp. and Lactobacillus spp. in mucus was significantly lower (P
difference from the luminal microbiota, it is crucial to apply an in vitro model that accounts for the study of the mucosal microbiota. We have demonstrated that the ability to colonize the mucus was significantly lower for bifidobacteria and lactobacilli originating from UC patients when compared to those derived from healthy subjects (Table 3). In consistence with our observations, lower levels of bifidobacteria in the mucus layer of biopsy specimens from UC patients have previously been described [39,43]. Bifidobacteria and lactobacilli are believed to play an important role in promoting intestinal health, due to their ability to inhibit colonization of pathogenic bacteria by lowering of colonic pH [15], produce antimicrobial compounds [34,54], and compete for adhesion sites [7,9,35,54]. Additionally, they have shown to stimulate immune regulatory responses [21,66]. Hence, a depletion of bifidobacteria and lactobacilli in UC patients could have a consequence for colonic health and favor inflammation. Stimulation of these groups through pre‐ or probiotics could be an approach in prevention of flare ups in UC. In previous literature, the glycosylation patterns in UC patients in relapse has shown to differ compared to control subjects and UC patients in remission, however, the aberrant profile is reversible upon remission [33] and the microbiota has shown to be altered in UC patients in relapse compared to controls but only to some extent in UC patients in remission [57,58,64]. It is not well understood how changes in mucus composition can affect adhesion and colonization of gut microorganisms, however, a changed mucus niche in UC patients in relapse may select a different microbiota community and upon remission the level may not be reversed for all bacteria, even though the mucus structure is back to “normal” [33]. Species or strain specific mucus adhesion promoting proteins have been found in several bifidobacteria and lactobacilli. This includes among others fimbriae (L. rhamnosus GG, L. Johnsonii NCC533, B. animalis subsp. lactis, B. bifidum)[17,24,50], Msa, mannose‐specific adhesin protein (L. plantarum) [49], MucBP domain containing proteins (lactic acid bacteria) [26], and adhesion‐like factor EF‐Tu (L. plantarum, B. animalis subsp. lactis) [17,63]. The expression of adhesion molecules may be changed in the lactic acid bacteria from UC patients, hence their inability to colonize the mucus in vitro, however, to our knowledge, no species of bifidobacteria or lactobacilli have be isolated from UC patients to identify adhesion molecules. 11
- 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 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: Microbial community analysis using
- 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.
- 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
lum<strong>in</strong>al samples (Table 3). Relative quantities <strong>of</strong> Bifidobacterium spp. and Lactobacillus spp. <strong>in</strong><br />
mucus was significantly lower (P
Change language