| Literature DB >> 24402126 |
Federica Del Chierico1, Daniela Gnani2, Pamela Vernocchi3, Andrea Petrucca4, Anna Alisi5, Bruno Dallapiccola6, Valerio Nobili7, Putignani Lorenza8.
Abstract
Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24402126 PMCID: PMC3907832 DOI: 10.3390/ijms15010684
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Mol Sci ISSN: 1422-0067 Impact factor: 5.923
Figure 1.The “bioreactor” colon model. Diet triggers “bioreactor”-colon and “factory”-liver reactions through a concerted action, leading to single chemical components. These components form the entire combined host and gut microbial metabolome.
Figure 2.Culturomics-based investigations of gut microbiota. Scheme of pre-analytical and analytical steps of the matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight (MALDI-TOF)-based approach for culturomics investigations. Samples from the gut or other microbiota (e.g., feces and saliva) are assayed on solid media selective for axenic cultivation. Isolated microbial colonies are subjected to peptide extraction before MALDI-TOF MS processing and species identification (ID) by peptide fingerprinting.
Figure 3.Genomics- and metagenomics-based investigations of gut microbiota. After standardized DNA extraction and quality control (QC) protocols, which are included in the workflow for assaying DNA purity and concentration, metagenomic sequences from the gut or other microbiota (e.g., feces and saliva) are generated by pyrosequencing selected 16S rRNA regions from microbial genomes.
Figure 4.Metabolomics- and metabonomics-based investigations of gut microbiota. Samples, such as feces, urine, blood, plasma and saliva, can be studied using metabolomic approaches to detect metabolites, which are further analyzed within an integrated biocomputing framework. The metabolomic platforms include gas-chromatography mass spectrometry (GC-MS), proton nuclear magnetic spectroscopy (1H-NMR) and liquid chromatography mass spectrometry (LC-MS). The 1H-NMR and MS profiles are integrated, and the data are explored by multivariate statistical analyses (e.g., PCA, heat maps, scatter plots, and ANOVA) to describe the pathways of both the microbial and host metabolism and to correlate alterations in these pathways with disease-related phenotypes.
Figure 5.Proteomics- and metaproteomics-based investigations of gut microbiota. Microbial axenic cultures or direct stool samples are analyzed by MALDI-TOF MS or LC-MS/MS, providing fingerprinting profiles associated with the peptidome (proteomics) or the proteome (proteomics and metaproteomics). The two complementary analyses can be used to identify the OTU catalog of the gut microbiota. The full description is achieved through operational workflows that identify peptide OTUs or peptide protein OTUs.
Figure 6.Bioinformatics pipelines for meta-omics data integration from gut microbiota data.
Gut microbiota modifications under NAFLD and specific-diet induced factors compared to healthy controls.
| Animal models: induced disease and ameliorating factors | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disease | Model | Induced | Controls | Age range | Technology and experimental pipeline | Main bacterial phyla tendency | References | |||
| Firmicutes | Proteobacteria | Bacteroidetes | Actinobacteria | |||||||
| Mouse | AF + HFD fed | isocaloric maltose dextrin HFD fed | 8–10 week old | V3–V5 16S rRNA pyrosequencing | ↓ Lachnospiraceae, Ruminococcaceae; ↑ | ↑ (particularly | ↓ | ↑ (particularly | [ | |
| AF + LGG | AF | ↑ | ↓ | ↓ | ↓ | |||||
| Mouse | RR 3 weeks HFD fed | NRR 3 weeks HFD fed | 8 week old | V3–V4 16S rRNA pyrosequencing | ↑ | Stable | ↓ | ↓ | [ | |
| Rat | HFD fed for 6 weeks | normal chow fed for 6 weeks | Not reported | PCR-DGGE and V3 16S rRNA pyrosequencing | ↓ | ↑ | ↓ | ↑ | [ | |
| HFD + QHF | control-HFD | Stable | Stable | Stable | ↑ | |||||
| Mouse | HFD fed | control chow fed | 8–12 weeks | qRT-PCR and pyrosequencing | ↑ | Stable | ↓ | slight ↑ | [ | |
| HFD + BDL | Control + BDL | ↓ | ↑ | ↓ | ↓ | |||||
| Mouse | DEF fed | HFD fed | 9 weeks | PCR-DGGE | ↑ | Not reported | Stable | slight ↓ | [ | |
| DEF + FOS | DEF fed | ↓ | Not reported | Stable | ↑ | |||||
| Humans | 30 | 30 | Adults | 16S rRNA pyrosequencing | ↑ Lactobacillaceae, Veillonellaceae and Lachnospiraceae; ↓ Ruminococcaceae | ↑ Kiloniellaceae and Pasteurellaceae | ↓ Porphyromonadaceae | Not reported | [ | |
| Humans | 16 | 22 | 18–70 years | 16S rRNA pyrosequencing | ↓ Clostridia and unclassified Firmicutes | ↑ Succinivibrionaceae | ↑ Porphyromonadaceae | ↓ | [ | |
| Humans | 22 | 16 | Children and adolescents | 16S rRNA pyrosequencing | ↓ | ↑ | ↑ | ↓ | [ | |
| Humans | 22 NASH + 11 SS | 17 | Adults | qPCR | ↑ | Equivalent presence of | ↓ | Stable | [ | |
FL: fatty liver; AF: alcohol-fed; HFD: high-fat diet; LGG: Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG; RR: responder receiver; NRR: not responder receiver; QHF: Qushi Huayu Fang, Chinese herbal formula; BDL: bile duct ligation; DEF: n-3 PUFA-depleted diet; FOS: fructo-oligosaccharides; qRT-PCR: quantitative real-time reverse-transcription PCR; PCR-DGGE: polymerase chain reaction in denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis; SS: simple steatosis; qPCR: quantitative polymerase chain reaction.