G Parthasarathy1, J Chen2,3, N Chia2,3, H M O'Connor4, H R Gaskins5, A E Bharucha1. 1. Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA. 2. Division of Biomedical Statistics and Informatics, Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA. 3. Center for Individualized Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA. 4. Clinical Research and Trials Unit, Center for Clinical and Translational Science, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA. 5. Carl R. Woese Institute for Genomic Biology, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, IL, 61801, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While limited data suggest that the fecal microbiota in healthy people is stable over time, the intraindividual variability of the fecal microbiota in constipated patients is unknown. METHODS: This study evaluated the intraindividual reproducibility of fecal microbiota analyzed with 16S rRNA gene sequencing in two stool samples collected without and after a laxative, respectively, in 25 healthy people and 25 constipated women. Participants completed a food record for 3 d before the stool collection. Colonic transit was measured with scintigraphy. KEY RESULTS: The constipated patients were older (48±15 vs 39±10 y, P=.02) than healthy participants but had a similar BMI. The total daily caloric intake was less (P=.005) in constipated (1265±350 kcal) than healthy participants (1597±402 kcal). Fourteen patients but only two controls (P<.005), had delayed colonic transit. For most measures of alpha (eg, Observed OTU number, Shannon index) and beta diversity (eg, Bray-Curtis dissimilarity, UniFrac, phyla level abundance), the ICCs between two stool samples were high, indicating moderate or strong agreement, and similar in healthy people and constipated patients. The ICC for the weighted UniFrac distance, which is weighted by abundance, was lower than its unweighted counterpart, indicating that the unweighted measure is more robust and reproducible. CONCLUSIONS AND INFERENCES: The intraindividual reproducibility of fecal microbiota in constipated patients is high and comparable to healthy participants. For most purposes, evaluating the fecal microbiota in a single stool sample should generally suffice in adequately powered studies of healthy and constipated patients.
BACKGROUND: While limited data suggest that the fecal microbiota in healthy people is stable over time, the intraindividual variability of the fecal microbiota in constipated patients is unknown. METHODS: This study evaluated the intraindividual reproducibility of fecal microbiota analyzed with 16S rRNA gene sequencing in two stool samples collected without and after a laxative, respectively, in 25 healthy people and 25 constipated women. Participants completed a food record for 3 d before the stool collection. Colonic transit was measured with scintigraphy. KEY RESULTS: The constipated patients were older (48±15 vs 39±10 y, P=.02) than healthy participants but had a similar BMI. The total daily caloric intake was less (P=.005) in constipated (1265±350 kcal) than healthy participants (1597±402 kcal). Fourteen patients but only two controls (P<.005), had delayed colonic transit. For most measures of alpha (eg, Observed OTU number, Shannon index) and beta diversity (eg, Bray-Curtis dissimilarity, UniFrac, phyla level abundance), the ICCs between two stool samples were high, indicating moderate or strong agreement, and similar in healthy people and constipated patients. The ICC for the weighted UniFrac distance, which is weighted by abundance, was lower than its unweighted counterpart, indicating that the unweighted measure is more robust and reproducible. CONCLUSIONS AND INFERENCES: The intraindividual reproducibility of fecal microbiota in constipated patients is high and comparable to healthy participants. For most purposes, evaluating the fecal microbiota in a single stool sample should generally suffice in adequately powered studies of healthy and constipated patients.
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: Emily Vogtmann; Jun Chen; Amnon Amir; Jianxin Shi; Christian C Abnet; Heidi Nelson; Rob Knight; Nicholas Chia; Rashmi Sinha Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2016-12-16 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Eric A Franzosa; Katherine Huang; James F Meadow; Dirk Gevers; Katherine P Lemon; Brendan J M Bohannan; Curtis Huttenhower Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2015-05-11 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Jonna Jalanka; Anne Salonen; Jarkko Salojärvi; Jarmo Ritari; Outi Immonen; Luca Marciani; Penny Gowland; Caroline Hoad; Klara Garsed; Ching Lam; Airi Palva; Robin C Spiller; Willem M de Vos Journal: Gut Date: 2014-12-19 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Johanna Maukonen; Reetta Satokari; Jaana Mättö; Hans Söderlund; Tiina Mattila-Sandholm; Maria Saarela Journal: J Med Microbiol Date: 2006-05 Impact factor: 2.472
Authors: Elizabeth K Costello; Christian L Lauber; Micah Hamady; Noah Fierer; Jeffrey I Gordon; Rob Knight Journal: Science Date: 2009-11-05 Impact factor: 47.728
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