| Literature DB >> 28861740 |
Ji Yeon Kang1, Han-Na Kim2, Yoosoo Chang3, Yeojun Yun2, Seungho Ryu3, Hocheol Shin4, Hyung-Lae Kim5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We investigated the association between physiologic bowel FDG uptake and gut microbiota. FDG uptake in the normal large and small intestine is widely variable both in distribution and intensity. The etiology of physiologic bowel 18F-FDG activity remains unknown.Entities:
Keywords: 18F-FDG PET; Gut microbiota; Intestinal; Permeability; Physiologic
Year: 2017 PMID: 28861740 PMCID: PMC5578947 DOI: 10.1186/s13550-017-0318-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: EJNMMI Res ISSN: 2191-219X Impact factor: 3.138
Fig. 1Intestinal 18F-FDG uptakes classified by visual analysis
Demographic, laboratory and TBR data by visual grade of intestinal FDG uptake
| Group 1 ( | Group 2 ( | Group 3 ( |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 43.8 ± 4.5 | 45.5 ± 3.8 | 45.2 ± 5.4 |
|
| BMI (kg/m2) | 24.8 ± 1.8 | 23.7 ± 2.4 | 25.2 ± 2.6 |
|
| Fasting Glucose (mg/dl) | 92.3 ± 9.3 | 90.8 ± 6.1 | 95.4 ± 6.8 |
|
| HbA1c(%) | 5.47 ± 0.18 | 5.36 ± 0.16 | 5.39 ± 0.19 |
|
| Cholesterol (mg/dl) | 210.5 ± 31.2 | 189.9 ± 29.5 | 208 ± 38.3 |
|
| Triglyceride (mg/dl) | 131.8 ± 72.7 | 132.7 ± 94.2 | 150.8 ± 73.3 |
|
| HDL (mg/dl) | 53.9 ± 9.8 | 49.5 ± 11.3 | 52.9 ± 12.2 |
|
| LDL (mg/dl) | 134.4 ± 26.5 | 116.7 ± 25.6 | 130.2 ± 30.4 |
|
| CRP (mg/dl) | 0.065 ± 0.083 | 0.045 ± 0.031 | 0.129 ± 0.156 |
|
| Uric Acid (mg/dl) | 5.77 ± 1.03 | 6.28 ± 0.96 | 6.61 ± 1.17 |
|
| Free T4 (ng/dl) | 1.31 ± 0.15 | 1.34 ± 0.11 | 1.18 ± 0.17 |
|
| Free T3 (pg/dl) | 3.09 ± 0.32 | 3.21 ± 0.28 | 3.05 ± 0.25 |
|
| TSH (uIU/ml) | 1.59 ± 0.53 | 1.38 ± 0.7 | 1.94 ± 1.18 |
|
| TBRmax | 16.2 ± 1.6 | 18.6 ± 1.8 | 20.9 ± 3.1 |
|
| TBRmean | 11.5 ± 1.6 | 13.5 ± 1.3 | 15.1 ± 2.3 |
|
| Library size mean | 22,331 ± 12,250 | 23,923 ± 13,767 | 30,636 ± 25,333 |
|
Data are mean ± standard deviation
BMI body mass index, HDL high-density lipoprotein, LDL low-density lipoprotein, CRP C-reactive protein, TSH thyroid-stimulating hormone
*p < 0.05
Fig. 2Relative abundances of microbial phyla in each subject (a) and group (b) (group 1; n = 26, group 2; n = 20, group 3; n = 17) (Most abundant eight phyla were demonstrated according to the phylum Bacteriodetes)
Fig. 3Relative abundances of the ten most genera in each group. * This genus Prevotella belongs to the family Paraprevotellaceae
Differing abundance of specific populations of gut microbiota among groups for intestinal 18F-FDG uptake at the level of genus
| Group | Genus | Relative Abundance (%)a | Log2FoldChange (SE) |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 vs. 2 | Unclassified Leuconostocaceae | 0.14 | 5.29 (0.91) | 6.27 × 10−9 | 4.02 × 10−7 |
|
| 0.24 | 4.46 (1.14) | 8.91 × 10−5 | 2.85 × 10−3 | |
|
| 0.36 | −3.00 (0.90) | 8.49 × 10−4 | 1.81 × 10−2 | |
| 1 vs. 3 |
| 0.24 | 4.84 (1.26) | 1.24 × 10−4 | 3.85 × 10−2 |
|
| 0.20 | 5.74 (1.49) | 1.19 × 10−4 | 3.85 × 10−2 | |
| 1 vs. 2 + 3 | Unclassified Leuconostocaceae | 0.14 | 4.73 (0.81) | 4.39 × 10−9 | 2.85 × 10−7 |
|
| 0.24 | 4.35 (1.01) | 1.73 × 10−5 | 5.62 × 10−4 | |
|
| 0.36 | −2.41 (0.76) | 1.57 × 10−3 | 3.40 × 10−2 | |
| 1 + 2 vs. 3 |
| 0.20 | 4.68 (1.07) | 1.25 × 10−5 | 8.10 × 10−4 |
| Unclassified Clostridiales | 4.10 | −1.11 (0.31) | 3.88 × 10−4 | 1.26 × 10−2 | |
| Unclassified Leuconostocaceae | 0.14 | −2.83 (0.87) | 1.17 × 10−3 | 2.53 × 10−2 |
The results of between group 2 and group 3 were not shown because there is no taxon with significant difference (q value <0.05)
aRelative abundance in total 63 samples
b q value <0.05, the q values were calculated using Benjamini-Hochberg correction (FDR)
Fig. 4Relative abundances of the genera showing significant difference between groups; (a)Unclassified Leuconostocaceaeand Mitsuokella, (b) Klebsiella and Fusobacterium, (c) unclassified clostridiales (Data are demonstrated according to TBRmax)
Association gut microbiota and TBRmax and TBRmean at the level of genus
| Genus | Relative abundance (%)a | Log2 foldchange (SE) |
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TBRmean | Unclassified Enterobacteriaceae | 1.26 | −0.47 (0.12) | 6.75 × 10−5 | 4.38 × 10−3 |
| Unclassified Enterobacteriaceae | 0.33 | −0.47 (0.13) | 2.60 × 10−4 | 8.44 × 10−3 | |
| TBRmax | Unclassified Enterobacteriaceae | 1.26 | −0.35 (0.09) | 5.48 × 10−5 | 3.56 × 10−3 |
| Unclassified Enterobacteriaceae | 0.33 | −0.34 (0.09) | 3.45 × 10−4 | 1.12 × 10−2 |
aRelative abundance in total 63 samples
b q value <0.05, q-values were calculated using Benjamini-Hochberg correction (FDR)
Fig. 5The association between the unclassified Enterobacteriaceae and TBRmax