| Literature DB >> 30948911 |
Endang Sutriswati Rahayu1, Tyas Utami2, Mariyatun Mariyatun2, Pratama Nur Hasan2, Rafli Zulfa Kamil2, Ryan Haryo Setyawan2, Fathyah Hanum Pamungkaningtyas2, Iskandar Azmy Harahap2, Devin Varian Wiryohanjoyo2, Putrika Citta Pramesi2, Muhammad Nur Cahyanto2, I Nengah Sujaya3, Mohammad Juffrie4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recently, gut microbiota has been associated with various diseases other than intestinal disease. Thus, there has been rapid growth in the study of gut microbiota. Considering the numerous factors influencing gut microbiota such as age, diet, etc., area-based research is required. Indonesia has numerous different tribes and each of these tribes have different lifestyles. Hence, it is expected that each tribe has a specific gut microbiota. A deeper insight into the composition of gut microbiota can be used to determine the condition of gut microbiota in Indonesians and to consider which treatment may be suitable and effective to improve health status. AIM: To investigate the gut microbiota of Indonesian subjects represented by Javanese and Balinese tribes by analyzing fecal samples.Entities:
Keywords: Elderly; Enterotype; Gut microbiota; Indonesian; Young people
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30948911 PMCID: PMC6441913 DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v25.i12.1478
Source DB: PubMed Journal: World J Gastroenterol ISSN: 1007-9327 Impact factor: 5.742
General characteristics of the subjects (n = 80)
| Gender | |
| Male | 30 (37.50) |
| Female | 50 (62.50) |
| Ethnicity | |
| Javanese | 34 (42.50) |
| Balinese | 40 (50.00) |
| Chinese | 3 (3.75) |
| Ambonese | 1 (1.25) |
| Bugis | 1 (1.25) |
| Melayu | 1 (1.25) |
| Weight (kg) (mean ± SD) | 55.65 (14.35) |
| Height (cm) (mean ± SD) | 156.07 (10.54) |
| Body mass index (kg/m2) (mean ± SD) | 22.57 (4.54) |
Figure 1Data on stool frequency in young and elderly subjects from Bali and Yogyakarta.
Figure 2Data on stool consistency in young and elderly subjects from Bali and Yogyakarta.
Microbiota profile comparison (based on Yakult intestinal flora-scan)
| Phylum Firmicutes | |||||
| 1 | 9.9 ± 0.5 (100) | 9.3 ± 1.2 | 9.9 ± 0.5 (100) | 9.4 ± 0.5 | |
| 2 | 9.7 ± 0.4 (100) | 9.3 ± 1.1 (100) | 9.6 ± 0.5 (100) | 9.4 ± 0.6 | |
| 3 | 5.6 ± 0.9 (100) | 5.0 ± 1.1 (85) | 6.7 ± 1.2 | 6.9 ± 1.4 | |
| 4 | - (0) | - (0) | - (0) | - (0) | |
| 5 | Total | 6.7 ± 1.1 (95) | 7.2 ± 1.2 (95) | 6.8 ± 1.1 (100) | 7.1 ± 1.2 (100) |
| 6 | 5.0 ± 1.0 (100) | 4.1 ± 0.8 | 5.1 ± 1.1 (100) | 4.8 ± 0.8 | |
| 7 | 5.4 ± 1.1 (100) | 6.4 ± 1.6 | 5.5 ± 1.2 (100) | 5.6 ± 1.7 (90) | |
| 8 | 4.6 ± 0.8 (95) | 5.3 ± 1.4 | 4.5 ± 0.9 (90) | 4.9 ± 1.3 (100) | |
| 9 | 6.8 ± 1.6 (45) | 7.6 ± 0.9 (35) | 6.4 ± 1.7 (80 | 7.4 ± 1.3 | |
| 10 | 3.7 ± 0.6 (40) | 4.9 ± 1.0 | 3.8 ± 0.8 (40) | 3.6 ± 000.8 | |
| 11 | 3.6 ± 0.5 (35) | 0 | 3.1 ± 0.6 (55) | 3.0 ± 0.6 (30 | |
| 12 | 5.3 ± 0.8 (75) | 5.9 ± 1.1 (80) | 5.3 ± 0.8 (55) | 5.1 ± 0.8 | |
| 13 | 3.9 ± 0.8 (50) | 4.0 ± 0.9 (15 | 4.7 ± 0.9 (35) | 3.7 ± 0.8 (40) | |
| 14 | - (0) | - (0) | - (0) | - (0) | |
| 15 | 7.4 ± 0.7 (90) | 7.1 ± 1.0 (90) | 7.4 ± 0.9 (95) | 7.9 ± 1.1 | |
| 16 | 8.4 ± 0.5 (95) | 7.5 ± 1.6 | 8.0 ± 0.7 (95) | 8.2 ± 0.7 (45 | |
| 17 | 5.3 ± 0.5 (100) | 5.1 ± 1.1 (90) | 5.0 ± 0.6 (100) | 5.2 ± 1.0 (100) | |
| Phylum Bacteroidetes | |||||
| 18 | 8.9 ± 0.7 (100) | 8.3 ± 1.1 (100) | 9.3 ± 0.6 (100) | 7.9 ± 1.1 | |
| 19 | 10.0 ± 1.2 (85) | 9.1 ± 1.6 | 9.4 ± 1.9 (80) | 9.0 ± 1.1 | |
| Phylum Actinobacteria | |||||
| 20 | 9.1 ± 0.6 (100) | 8.9 ± 0.7 (100) | 8.9 ± 0.7 (100) | 9.0 ± 0.5 (100) | |
| 21 | 9.4 ± 0.6 (100) | 8.4 ± 1.3 | 8.6 ± 0.9 | 8.4 ± 1.2 (100) | |
| Phylum Proteobacteria | |||||
| 22 | 7.3 ± 0.8 (100) | 7.8 ± 1.6 (100) | 7.6 ± 0.9 (100) | 8.4 ± 0.8 | |
| 23 | 4.1 ± 0.6 (25) | 4.7 ± 1.0 (30) | 3.1 ± 0.0 (10) | 4.2 ± 0.8 (55 | |
| 24 | Total Bacteria | 10.6 ± 0.4 (100) | 10.0 ± 1.0 | 10.5 ± 0.5 (100) | 10.1 ± 0.5 |
P < 0.05 Yogyakarta Young vs Yogyakarta Elderly.
P < 0.01 Yogyakarta Young vs Yogyakarta Elderly.
P < 0.05 Bali Young vs Bali Elderly.
P < 0.01 Bali Young vs Bali Elderly.
P < 0.05 Yogyakarta Young vs Bali Young.
P < 0.05 Yogyakarta Elderly vs Bali Elderly.
Mann-Whitney U-test for bacterial cells/g feces, chi-square test for detection rate.
Figure 3Comparison of gut microbiota composition in young and elderly subjects from Bali and Yogyakarta.
Microbiota profile (culture method) in young and elderly subjects
| Coliform | 6.80 ± 0.83 (100) | 7.20 ± 0.73 (100) | 0.028 |
| 6.87 ± 0.74 (100) | 7.29 ± 0.78 (100) | 0.016 | |
| Yeast | 4.17 ± 0.51 (53) | 4.28 ± 0.50 (43) | 0.411 |
| Mold | 0,0 ± 0,0 (0) | 3.68 ±0.27 (8) | - |
| 4.16 ± 0.85 (8) | 4.16 ± 0.03 (5) | 1.000 | |
| Total LAB | 7.03 ± 0.83 (100) | 7.67 ± 1.23 (100) | 0.008 |
Comparison of continuous variable was carried out using the Independent T test for normally distributed data and the Mann Whitney test for non-normally distributed data.
Figure 4Populations of Prevotella, Bifidobacterium, Bacteroides and Enterobacteriaceae in young and elderly subjects from Yogyakarta and Bali.
Comparison between qPCR and culture method
| Bali | Yogyakarta | Bali | Yogyakarta | |
| Culture method | 7.04 ± 0.87 (100) | 7.01 ± 0.81 (100) | 8.17 ± 0.99 | 7.17 ± 1.33 |
| Yakult intestinal flora-scan | 6.7 ± 1.1 (95) | 7.2 ± 1.2 (95) | 6.8 ± 1.1 (100) | 7.1 ± 1.2 (100) |
P < 0.05 Yogyakarta Elderly vs Bali Elderly;
P < 0.01 Bali Young vs Bali Elderly.