Chikara Iino1, Tetsu Endo2, Kenichiro Mikami3, Takuma Hasegawa2, Masayo Kimura2, Naoya Sawada2, Shigeyuki Nakaji4, Shinsaku Fukuda2. 1. Department of Gastroenterology, Hirosaki University Graduate School of Medicine, 5 Zaifu-cho, Hirosaki, 036-8562, Japan. chikaran0601@yahoo.co.jp. 2. Department of Gastroenterology, Hirosaki University Graduate School of Medicine, 5 Zaifu-cho, Hirosaki, 036-8562, Japan. 3. Department of Internal Medicine, Owani Hospital, 5-3 Hagurokan, Owani, 038-0292, Japan. 4. Department of Social Medicine, Hirosaki University Graduate School of Medicine, 2-2 Nanto-cho, Hirosaki, 036-8562, Japan.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Compositional changes of the gut microbiota are known to occur in patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD); however, the changes did not corroborate between the studies. We evaluated the gut microbiota between NAFLD and non-NAFLD participants, excluding the influence of obesity and sex in this study involving a large number of participants. METHODS: In total, 1148 adults participated in the health survey. NAFLD was defined as fatty liver by ultrasonography in the absence of other causes of steatosis. To exclude the influence of obesity and sex, NAFLD participants were matched to non-NAFLD participants based on BMI and sex. The relative abundance of each bacterial taxa in fecal samples was calculated using 16S ribosomal RNA amplification and was compared between NAFLD and non-NAFLD participants. RESULTS: There were 205 (23.5%) participants defined as having NAFLD. Before matching, there were significant differences in the relative abundance of more than 1% in two classes, two orders, three families, and three genera including Faecalibacterium between NAFLD and non-NAFLD participants. After matching, 153 matched pairs were obtained. In terms of the relative abundance of more than 1%, the relative abundance of two taxa, including the family Ruminococcaceae and the genus Faecalibacterium, was significantly lower in NAFLD participants than in non-NAFLD participants (p = 0.016 and p = 0.018). CONCLUSIONS: The significant decrease in Faecalibacterium is a remarkable characteristic on BMI- and sex-matched analysis in NAFLD participants in a large study population. The decrease in Faecalibacterium is related to the pathogenesis of NAFLD.
BACKGROUND: Compositional changes of the gut microbiota are known to occur in patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD); however, the changes did not corroborate between the studies. We evaluated the gut microbiota between NAFLD and non-NAFLD participants, excluding the influence of obesity and sex in this study involving a large number of participants. METHODS: In total, 1148 adults participated in the health survey. NAFLD was defined as fatty liver by ultrasonography in the absence of other causes of steatosis. To exclude the influence of obesity and sex, NAFLD participants were matched to non-NAFLD participants based on BMI and sex. The relative abundance of each bacterial taxa in fecal samples was calculated using 16S ribosomal RNA amplification and was compared between NAFLD and non-NAFLD participants. RESULTS: There were 205 (23.5%) participants defined as having NAFLD. Before matching, there were significant differences in the relative abundance of more than 1% in two classes, two orders, three families, and three genera including Faecalibacterium between NAFLD and non-NAFLD participants. After matching, 153 matched pairs were obtained. In terms of the relative abundance of more than 1%, the relative abundance of two taxa, including the family Ruminococcaceae and the genus Faecalibacterium, was significantly lower in NAFLD participants than in non-NAFLD participants (p = 0.016 and p = 0.018). CONCLUSIONS: The significant decrease in Faecalibacterium is a remarkable characteristic on BMI- and sex-matched analysis in NAFLD participants in a large study population. The decrease in Faecalibacterium is related to the pathogenesis of NAFLD.
Entities:
Keywords:
Faecalibacterium; Gut microbiota; Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease
Authors: S Miquel; R Martín; O Rossi; L G Bermúdez-Humarán; J M Chatel; H Sokol; M Thomas; J M Wells; P Langella Journal: Curr Opin Microbiol Date: 2013-07-03 Impact factor: 7.934
Authors: Antonio González-Sarrías; María Romo-Vaquero; Rocío García-Villalba; Adrián Cortés-Martín; María Victoria Selma; Juan Carlos Espín Journal: Mol Nutr Food Res Date: 2018-05-17 Impact factor: 5.914
Authors: Rohit Loomba; Victor Seguritan; Weizhong Li; Tao Long; Niels Klitgord; Archana Bhatt; Parambir Singh Dulai; Cyrielle Caussy; Richele Bettencourt; Sarah K Highlander; Marcus B Jones; Claude B Sirlin; Bernd Schnabl; Lauren Brinkac; Nicholas Schork; Chi-Hua Chen; David A Brenner; William Biggs; Shibu Yooseph; J Craig Venter; Karen E Nelson Journal: Cell Metab Date: 2017-05-02 Impact factor: 27.287
Authors: Evelyne M Dewulf; Patrice D Cani; Sandrine P Claus; Susana Fuentes; Philippe G B Puylaert; Audrey M Neyrinck; Laure B Bindels; Willem M de Vos; Glenn R Gibson; Jean-Paul Thissen; Nathalie M Delzenne Journal: Gut Date: 2012-11-07 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Sonja Lang; Anna Martin; Xinlian Zhang; Fedja Farowski; Hilmar Wisplinghoff; Maria J G T Vehreschild; Marcin Krawczyk; Angela Nowag; Anne Kretzschmar; Claus Scholz; Philipp Kasper; Christoph Roderburg; Raphael Mohr; Frank Lammert; Frank Tacke; Bernd Schnabl; Tobias Goeser; Hans-Michael Steffen; Münevver Demir Journal: Liver Int Date: 2021-05-07 Impact factor: 8.754
Authors: Mara P H van Trijp; Sophie Schutte; Diederik Esser; Suzan Wopereis; Femke P M Hoevenaars; Guido J E J Hooiveld; Lydia A Afman Journal: J Nutr Date: 2021-03-11 Impact factor: 4.798