AIM： To investigate the effect of probiotic bacterium, Clostridium butyricum MIYAIRI 588 strain （CBM） on the changes of the fecal flora in Helicobacter pylori （H pylon） treatment. METHODS： Thirty-five patients w...AIM： To investigate the effect of probiotic bacterium, Clostridium butyricum MIYAIRI 588 strain （CBM） on the changes of the fecal flora in Helicobacter pylori （H pylon） treatment. METHODS： Thirty-five patients with gastric or duodenal ulcers positive for H pylori were randomized either to 1 wk amoxicillin, clarithromycin, lansoprazole （Group 1） or to the same regimen supplemented with CBM 7 d ahead of the triple therapy （Group 2）. Stool samples were collected before and 2, 4, 7, 15, and 22 d after the starting eradication therapy, and were examined intestinal flora. Patients were required to keep a diary record of their condition. RESULTS： Obligate anaerobes decreased significantly on d 2, 4, 8 and 15 in Group 1. On the other hand, they did not decrease significantly in Group 2. The Escherichia coli was dominant bacterium in Enterobacteriaceae, but that was replaced by other species such as Klebsiella and Enterobacter after eradication in Group 1. The change was suppressed in Group 2. Abdominal symptoms were less frequent in Group 2 than in Group 1. CONCLUSION： The combined use of CBM reduced the changes in the intestinal flora and decreased the incidence of gastrointestinal side effects.展开更多
AIM:To compare quantities of predominant and pathogenic bacteria in mucosal and faecal samples.METHODS:Twenty patients undergoing diagnostic colonoscopy with endoscopically and histologically normal mucosa were recrui...AIM:To compare quantities of predominant and pathogenic bacteria in mucosal and faecal samples.METHODS:Twenty patients undergoing diagnostic colonoscopy with endoscopically and histologically normal mucosa were recruited to the study,14 subjects of which also supplied faecal(F) samples between 15 d to 105 d post colonoscopy.Mucosal biopsies were taken from each subject from the midportion of the ascending colon(right side samples,RM) and the sigmoid(left side samples,LM).Predominant intestinal and mucosal bacteria including clostridial 16S rRNA gene clusters Ⅳ and ⅩⅣab,Bacteroidetes,Enterobacteriaceae,Bifidobacterium spp.,Akkermansia muciniphila(A.muciniphila),Veillonella spp.,Collinsella spp.,Faecalibacterium prausnitzii(F.prausnitzii) and putative pathogens such asEscherichia coli(E.coli),Clostridium difficile(C.difficile),Helicobacter pylori(H.pylori) and Staphylococcus aureus(S.aureus) were analysed by quantitative polymerase chain reaction(qPCR).Host DNA was quantified from the mucosal samples with human glyceraldehyde 3-phosphate dehydrogenase gene targeting qPCR.Paired t tests and the Pearson correlation were applied for statistical analysis.RESULTS:The most prominent bacterial groups were clostridial groups Ⅳ and ⅩⅣa+b andBacteroidetes and bacterial species F.prausnitzii in both sample types.H.pylori and S.aureus were not detected and C.difficile was detected in only one mucosal sample and three faecal samples.E.coli was detected in less than half of the mucosal samples at both sites,but was present in all faecal samples.All detected bacteria,except Enterobacteriaceae,were present at higher levels in the faeces than in the mucosa,but the different locations in the colon presented comparable quantities(RM,LM and F followed byP 1 for RMvs F,P 2 for LMvs F andP 3 for RM vs LM:4.17 ± 0.60 log 10 /g,4.16 ± 0.56 log 10 /g,5.88 ± 1.92 log 10 /g,P 1 = 0.011,P 2 = 0.0069,P 3 = 0.9778 forA.muciniphila;6.25 ± 1.3 log 10 /g,6.09 ± 0.81 log 10 /g,8.84 ± 1.38 log 10 /g,P 1 < 0.0001,P 2 = 0.0002,P 3 = 0.6893 forBacteroidetes;5.27 ± 1.68 log 10 /g,5.38 ± 2.06 log 10 /g,8.20 ± 1.14 log 10 /g,P 1 < 0.0001,P 2 ≤ 0.0001,P 3 = 0.7535 forBifidobacterium spp.;6.44 ± 1.15 log 10 /g,6.07 ±1.45 log 10 /g,9.74 ±1.13 log 10 /g,P 1 < 0.0001,P 2 ≤ 0.0001,P 3 = 0.637 forClostridium cluster Ⅳ;6.65 ± 1.23 log 10 /g,6.57 ± 1.52 log 10 /g,9.13 ± 0.96 log 10 /g,P 1 < 0.0001,P 2 ≤ 0.0001,P 3 = 0.9317 forClostridium cluster ⅩⅣa;4.57 ± 1.44 log10/g,4.63 ± 1.34 log10/g,7.05 ± 2.48 log 10 /g,P 1 = 0.012,P 2 = 0.0357,P 3 = 0.7973 for Collinsella spp.;7.66 ± 1.50 log 10 /g,7.60 ± 1.05 log 10 /g,10.02 ± 2.02 log 10 /g,P 1 ≤ 0.0001,P 2 = 0.0013,P 3 = 0.9919 forF.prausnitzsii;6.17 ± 1.3 log 10 /g,5.85 ± 0.93 log 10 /g,7.25 ± 1.01 log 10 /g,P 1 = 0.0243,P 2 = 0.0319,P 3 = 0.6982 for Veillonella spp.;4.68 ± 1.21 log 10 /g,4.71 ± 0.83 log 10 /g,5.70 ± 2.00 log 10 /g,P 1 = 0.1927,P 2 = 0.0605,P 3 = 0.6476 forEnterobacteriaceae).TheBifidobacterium spp.counts correlated significantly between mucosal sites and mucosal and faecal samples(Pearson correlation coefficients 0.62,P = 0.040 and 0.81,P = 0.005 between the right mucosal sample and faeces and the left mucosal sample and faeces,respectively).CONCLUSION:Non-invasive faecal samples do not reflect bacterial counts on the mucosa at the individual level,except for bifidobacteria often analysed in probiotic intervention studies.展开更多
文摘AIM： To investigate the effect of probiotic bacterium, Clostridium butyricum MIYAIRI 588 strain （CBM） on the changes of the fecal flora in Helicobacter pylori （H pylon） treatment. METHODS： Thirty-five patients with gastric or duodenal ulcers positive for H pylori were randomized either to 1 wk amoxicillin, clarithromycin, lansoprazole （Group 1） or to the same regimen supplemented with CBM 7 d ahead of the triple therapy （Group 2）. Stool samples were collected before and 2, 4, 7, 15, and 22 d after the starting eradication therapy, and were examined intestinal flora. Patients were required to keep a diary record of their condition. RESULTS： Obligate anaerobes decreased significantly on d 2, 4, 8 and 15 in Group 1. On the other hand, they did not decrease significantly in Group 2. The Escherichia coli was dominant bacterium in Enterobacteriaceae, but that was replaced by other species such as Klebsiella and Enterobacter after eradication in Group 1. The change was suppressed in Group 2. Abdominal symptoms were less frequent in Group 2 than in Group 1. CONCLUSION： The combined use of CBM reduced the changes in the intestinal flora and decreased the incidence of gastrointestinal side effects.
基金Supported by Grants from the Swedish Cancer Society and the Swedish State under the LUA-ALF Agreement
文摘AIM:To compare quantities of predominant and pathogenic bacteria in mucosal and faecal samples.METHODS:Twenty patients undergoing diagnostic colonoscopy with endoscopically and histologically normal mucosa were recruited to the study,14 subjects of which also supplied faecal(F) samples between 15 d to 105 d post colonoscopy.Mucosal biopsies were taken from each subject from the midportion of the ascending colon(right side samples,RM) and the sigmoid(left side samples,LM).Predominant intestinal and mucosal bacteria including clostridial 16S rRNA gene clusters Ⅳ and ⅩⅣab,Bacteroidetes,Enterobacteriaceae,Bifidobacterium spp.,Akkermansia muciniphila(A.muciniphila),Veillonella spp.,Collinsella spp.,Faecalibacterium prausnitzii(F.prausnitzii) and putative pathogens such asEscherichia coli(E.coli),Clostridium difficile(C.difficile),Helicobacter pylori(H.pylori) and Staphylococcus aureus(S.aureus) were analysed by quantitative polymerase chain reaction(qPCR).Host DNA was quantified from the mucosal samples with human glyceraldehyde 3-phosphate dehydrogenase gene targeting qPCR.Paired t tests and the Pearson correlation were applied for statistical analysis.RESULTS:The most prominent bacterial groups were clostridial groups Ⅳ and ⅩⅣa+b andBacteroidetes and bacterial species F.prausnitzii in both sample types.H.pylori and S.aureus were not detected and C.difficile was detected in only one mucosal sample and three faecal samples.E.coli was detected in less than half of the mucosal samples at both sites,but was present in all faecal samples.All detected bacteria,except Enterobacteriaceae,were present at higher levels in the faeces than in the mucosa,but the different locations in the colon presented comparable quantities(RM,LM and F followed byP 1 for RMvs F,P 2 for LMvs F andP 3 for RM vs LM:4.17 ± 0.60 log 10 /g,4.16 ± 0.56 log 10 /g,5.88 ± 1.92 log 10 /g,P 1 = 0.011,P 2 = 0.0069,P 3 = 0.9778 forA.muciniphila;6.25 ± 1.3 log 10 /g,6.09 ± 0.81 log 10 /g,8.84 ± 1.38 log 10 /g,P 1 < 0.0001,P 2 = 0.0002,P 3 = 0.6893 forBacteroidetes;5.27 ± 1.68 log 10 /g,5.38 ± 2.06 log 10 /g,8.20 ± 1.14 log 10 /g,P 1 < 0.0001,P 2 ≤ 0.0001,P 3 = 0.7535 forBifidobacterium spp.;6.44 ± 1.15 log 10 /g,6.07 ±1.45 log 10 /g,9.74 ±1.13 log 10 /g,P 1 < 0.0001,P 2 ≤ 0.0001,P 3 = 0.637 forClostridium cluster Ⅳ;6.65 ± 1.23 log 10 /g,6.57 ± 1.52 log 10 /g,9.13 ± 0.96 log 10 /g,P 1 < 0.0001,P 2 ≤ 0.0001,P 3 = 0.9317 forClostridium cluster ⅩⅣa;4.57 ± 1.44 log10/g,4.63 ± 1.34 log10/g,7.05 ± 2.48 log 10 /g,P 1 = 0.012,P 2 = 0.0357,P 3 = 0.7973 for Collinsella spp.;7.66 ± 1.50 log 10 /g,7.60 ± 1.05 log 10 /g,10.02 ± 2.02 log 10 /g,P 1 ≤ 0.0001,P 2 = 0.0013,P 3 = 0.9919 forF.prausnitzsii;6.17 ± 1.3 log 10 /g,5.85 ± 0.93 log 10 /g,7.25 ± 1.01 log 10 /g,P 1 = 0.0243,P 2 = 0.0319,P 3 = 0.6982 for Veillonella spp.;4.68 ± 1.21 log 10 /g,4.71 ± 0.83 log 10 /g,5.70 ± 2.00 log 10 /g,P 1 = 0.1927,P 2 = 0.0605,P 3 = 0.6476 forEnterobacteriaceae).TheBifidobacterium spp.counts correlated significantly between mucosal sites and mucosal and faecal samples(Pearson correlation coefficients 0.62,P = 0.040 and 0.81,P = 0.005 between the right mucosal sample and faeces and the left mucosal sample and faeces,respectively).CONCLUSION:Non-invasive faecal samples do not reflect bacterial counts on the mucosa at the individual level,except for bifidobacteria often analysed in probiotic intervention studies.
