| Literature DB >> 30669509 |
Jonna Jalanka1,2, Giles Major3, Kathryn Murray4, Gulzar Singh5, Adam Nowak6, Caroline Kurtz7, Inmaculada Silos-Santiago8, Jeffrey M Johnston9, Willem M de Vos10, Robin Spiller11.
Abstract
Psyllium is a widely used treatment for constipation. It traps water in the intestine increasing stool water, easing defaecation and altering the colonic environment. We aimed to assess the impact of psyllium on faecal microbiota, whose key role in gut physiology is being increasingly recognised. We performed two randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blinded trials comparing 7 days of psyllium with a placebo (maltodextrin) in 8 healthy volunteers and 16 constipated patients respectively. We measured the patients' gastrointestnal (GI) transit, faecal water content, short-chain fatty acid (SCFA) and the stool microbiota composition. While psyllium supplement had a small but significant effect on the microbial composition of healthy adults (increasing Veillonella and decreasing Subdoligranulum), in constipated subjects there were greater effects on the microbial composition (increased Lachnospira, Faecalibacterium, Phascolarctobacterium, Veillonella and Sutterella and decreased uncultured Coriobacteria and Christensenella) and alterations in the levels of acetate and propionate. We found several taxa to be associated with altered GI transit, SCFAs and faecal water content in these patients. Significant increases in three genera known to produce butyrate, Lachnospira, Roseburia and Faecalibacterium, correlated with increased faecal water. In summary, psyllium supplementation increased stool water and this was associated with significant changes in microbiota, most marked in constipated patients.Entities:
Keywords: constipation; ispaghula; microbiome; prebiotics; transit
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30669509 PMCID: PMC6358997 DOI: 10.3390/ijms20020433
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Mol Sci ISSN: 1422-0067 Impact factor: 5.923
The patient demographics and amount of short chain fatty acids and microbial content at baseline. The standard deviations for each number show in brackets.
| Demographics | Healthy | Constipated | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (y) | 25.75 (4.16) | 41.00 (15.75) | 0.02 |
| Gender (m/f) | 6/2 | 2/14 | 1.50 × 10−9 |
| Weight (kg) | 73.05 (12.49) | 72.16 (15.65) | 0.76 |
| Stool water content (%) | 71.13 (5.99) | 65.16 (6.55) | 0.07 |
| Acetate (µM/g wet faeces) | 6.90 (3.72) | 21.65 (3.64) | 1.5 × 10−5 |
| Propanoate (µM/g wet faeces) | 5.49 (4.24) | 4.70 (3.44) | 0.58 |
| Butyrate (µM/g wet faeces) | 5.88 (4.39) | 5.32 (4.78) | 0.78 |
| Total bacterial load (per µL of template log10) | 10.47 (0.12) | 10.37 (0.28) | 0.36 |
| Methanogenic archaea (per µL of template, log10) | 4.66 (2.5) | 6.21 (2.05) | 0.16 |
| Microbial richness | 177.75 (74.82) | 201.19 (57.35) | 0.35 |
| Microbial diversity | 8.26(2.71) | 10.25 (6.23) | 0.40 |
Figure 1Principal co-ordinate analysis (PCoA) of the baseline microbial differences between the two study populations.
Relative abundance of bacterial taxa showing a statistical difference between healthy and constipated patients at baseline. Fc—fold change of taxa in constipated versus healthy subjects.
| Taxa | Constipated | Healthy | Fc | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Actinobacteria; Actinobacteria; Actinomycetales; Actinomycetaceae; | 0.14% | 0.02% | 5.65 | 0.01 |
| Actinobacteria; Actinobacteria; Corynebacteriales; Nocardiaceae; | 0.03% | 0.00% | 6.44 | 0.03 |
| Actinobacteria; Coriobacteriia; Coriobacteriales; Coriobacteriaceae; | 0.10% | 0.01% | 9.44 | 0.00 |
| Actinobacteria; Coriobacteriia; Coriobacteriales; Coriobacteriaceae; | 0.79% | 0.17% | 4.52 | 0.04 |
| Firmicutes; Clostridia; Clostridiales; Christensenellaceae; | 0.13% | 0.02% | 6.55 | 0.0002 |
| Firmicutes; Clostridia; Clostridiales; Family XIII; | 0.58% | 0.16% | 3.52 | 0.01 |
| Firmicutes; Clostridia; Clostridiales; Lachnospiraceae; | 0.13% | 0.58% | 0.22 | 0.01 |
| Firmicutes; Erysipelotrichia; Erysipelotrichales; Erysipelotrichaceae; | 0.46% | 0.06% | 7.15 | 0.01 |
| Proteobacteria; Betaproteobacteria; Burkholderiales; Alcaligenaceae; | 0.03% | 0.23% | 0.15 | 0.00 |
| Proteobacteria; Deltaproteobacteria; Desulfovibrionales; Desulfovibrionaceae; | 0.11% | 0.01% | 14.00 | 0.01 |
Bold: effected genus level taxon.
Figure 2Microbial changes introduced by the psyllium supplementation to the intestinal microbiota of healthy adults.
Bacterial taxa affected by the psyllium treatment of constipated patients. Entries represent average relative abundance. Those time points with statistically significantly different bacterial abundance from the psyllium supplementation are indicated in bold (q-values below 0.05).
| Taxa | Baseline | Psyllium | Wash-Out | Maltodextrin |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Actinobacteria; Coriobacteriia; Coriobacteriales; Coriobacteriaceae; |
| 0.34% | 0.56% | 0.88% |
| Firmicutes; Clostridia; Clostridiales; Christensenellaceae; |
| 0.07% | 0.08% | 0.08% |
| Firmicutes; Clostridia; Clostridiales; Lachnospiraceae; |
| 0.20% | 0.09% | 0.13% |
| Firmicutes; Clostridia; Clostridiales; Ruminococcaceae; |
| 9.43% | 8.53% | 7.47% |
| Firmicutes; Negativicutes; Selenomonadales; Acidaminococcaceae; |
| 1.95% |
| 0.60% |
| Firmicutes; Negativicutes; Selenomonadales; Veillonellaceae; |
| 0.11% |
| 0.06% |
| Proteobacteria; Betaproteobacteria; Burkholderiales; Alcaligenaceae; |
| 0.07% |
| 0.03% |
Bold: Time points with statistically significantly different bacterial abundance from the psyllium supplementation are indicated in bold.
Figure 3Associations between whole gut transit time and bacterial abundance measured from all available data points: (A) relative abundance of genus Sutterella and transit time measure (weighted average position score, Weighted Average Position Score (WAPS) measure 24 h after ingestion of transit markers, smaller number indicates longer transit) in healthy subjects; (B) relative abundance of genus Sutterella and transit (WAPS) measured 48 h after ingestion of transit markers in constipated subjects.
Figure 4Associations between faecal water content and intestinal genera in constipated subjects at all data points.
Figure 5Significant associations between acetate and the abundance of microbial taxa in constipated patients.
Figure 6Study outline. The arrows indicate faecal sample collection points.