Gopanandan Parthasarathy1, Jun Chen2, Xianfeng Chen3, Nicholas Chia2, Helen M O'Connor4, Patricia G Wolf5, H Rex Gaskins5, Adil E Bharucha6. 1. Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. 2. Division of Biomedical Statistics and Informatics, Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota; Center for Individualized Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. 3. Division of Biomedical Statistics and Informatics, Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. 4. Clinical Research and Trials Unit, Center for Clinical and Translational Science, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. 5. Department of Animal Sciences, Department of Pathobiology, Division of Nutritional Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Illinois. 6. Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. Electronic address: bharucha.adil@mayo.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIMS: In fecal samples from patients with chronic constipation, the microbiota differs from that of healthy subjects. However, the profiles of fecal microbiota only partially replicate those of the mucosal microbiota. It is not clear whether these differences are caused by variations in diet or colonic transit, or are associated with methane production (measured by breath tests). We compared the colonic mucosal and fecal microbiota in patients with chronic constipation and in healthy subjects to investigate the relationships between microbiota and other parameters. METHODS: Sigmoid colonic mucosal and fecal microbiota samples were collected from 25 healthy women (controls) and 25 women with chronic constipation and evaluated by 16S ribosomal RNA gene sequencing (average, 49,186 reads/sample). We assessed associations between microbiota (overall composition and operational taxonomic units) and demographic variables, diet, constipation status, colonic transit, and methane production (measured in breath samples after oral lactulose intake). RESULTS: Fourteen patients with chronic constipation had slow colonic transit. The profile of the colonic mucosal microbiota differed between constipated patients and controls (P < .05). The overall composition of the colonic mucosal microbiota was associated with constipation, independent of colonic transit (P < .05), and discriminated between patients with constipation and controls with 94% accuracy. Genera from Bacteroidetes were more abundant in the colonic mucosal microbiota of patients with constipation. The profile of the fecal microbiota was associated with colonic transit before adjusting for constipation, age, body mass index, and diet; genera from Firmicutes (Faecalibacterium, Lactococcus, and Roseburia) correlated with faster colonic transit. Methane production was associated with the composition of the fecal microbiota, but not with constipation or colonic transit. CONCLUSIONS: After adjusting for diet and colonic transit, the profile of the microbiota in the colonic mucosa could discriminate patients with constipation from healthy individuals. The profile of the fecal microbiota was associated with colonic transit and methane production (measured in breath), but not constipation.
BACKGROUND & AIMS: In fecal samples from patients with chronic constipation, the microbiota differs from that of healthy subjects. However, the profiles of fecal microbiota only partially replicate those of the mucosal microbiota. It is not clear whether these differences are caused by variations in diet or colonic transit, or are associated with methane production (measured by breath tests). We compared the colonic mucosal and fecal microbiota in patients with chronic constipation and in healthy subjects to investigate the relationships between microbiota and other parameters. METHODS:Sigmoid colonic mucosal and fecal microbiota samples were collected from 25 healthy women (controls) and 25 women with chronic constipation and evaluated by 16S ribosomal RNA gene sequencing (average, 49,186 reads/sample). We assessed associations between microbiota (overall composition and operational taxonomic units) and demographic variables, diet, constipation status, colonic transit, and methane production (measured in breath samples after oral lactulose intake). RESULTS: Fourteen patients with chronic constipation had slow colonic transit. The profile of the colonic mucosal microbiota differed between constipatedpatients and controls (P < .05). The overall composition of the colonic mucosal microbiota was associated with constipation, independent of colonic transit (P < .05), and discriminated between patients with constipation and controls with 94% accuracy. Genera from Bacteroidetes were more abundant in the colonic mucosal microbiota of patients with constipation. The profile of the fecal microbiota was associated with colonic transit before adjusting for constipation, age, body mass index, and diet; genera from Firmicutes (Faecalibacterium, Lactococcus, and Roseburia) correlated with faster colonic transit. Methane production was associated with the composition of the fecal microbiota, but not with constipation or colonic transit. CONCLUSIONS: After adjusting for diet and colonic transit, the profile of the microbiota in the colonic mucosa could discriminate patients with constipation from healthy individuals. The profile of the fecal microbiota was associated with colonic transit and methane production (measured in breath), but not constipation.
Authors: G C Parkes; N B Rayment; B N Hudspith; L Petrovska; M C Lomer; J Brostoff; K Whelan; J D Sanderson Journal: Neurogastroenterol Motil Date: 2011-11-09 Impact factor: 3.598
Authors: Brendan J Kelly; Robert Gross; Kyle Bittinger; Scott Sherrill-Mix; James D Lewis; Ronald G Collman; Frederic D Bushman; Hongzhe Li Journal: Bioinformatics Date: 2015-03-29 Impact factor: 6.937
Authors: Rodolphe Soret; Julien Chevalier; Pierre De Coppet; Guillaume Poupeau; Pascal Derkinderen; Jean Pierre Segain; Michel Neunlist Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2010-02-10 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Lixin Zhu; Wensheng Liu; Razan Alkhouri; Robert D Baker; Jonathan E Bard; Eamonn M Quigley; Susan S Baker Journal: Physiol Genomics Date: 2014-07-29 Impact factor: 3.107
Authors: Gary D Wu; Jun Chen; Christian Hoffmann; Kyle Bittinger; Ying-Yu Chen; Sue A Keilbaugh; Meenakshi Bewtra; Dan Knights; William A Walters; Rob Knight; Rohini Sinha; Erin Gilroy; Kernika Gupta; Robert Baldassano; Lisa Nessel; Hongzhe Li; Frederic D Bushman; James D Lewis Journal: Science Date: 2011-09-01 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Magnus Simrén; Giovanni Barbara; Harry J Flint; Brennan M R Spiegel; Robin C Spiller; Stephen Vanner; Elena F Verdu; Peter J Whorwell; Erwin G Zoetendal Journal: Gut Date: 2012-06-22 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Cemal Yazici; Patricia G Wolf; Hajwa Kim; Tzu-Wen L Cross; Karin Vermillion; Timothy Carroll; Gaius J Augustus; Ece Mutlu; Lisa Tussing-Humphreys; Carol Braunschweig; Rosa M Xicola; Barbara Jung; Xavier Llor; Nathan A Ellis; H Rex Gaskins Journal: Gut Date: 2017-02-02 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Samuel T Westreich; Jaime Salcedo; Blythe Durbin-Johnson; Jennifer T Smilowitz; Ian Korf; David A Mills; Daniela Barile; Danielle G Lemay Journal: J Nutr Biochem Date: 2020-01-17 Impact factor: 6.048