| Literature DB >> 32393255 |
Beibei Gao1, Mengdan Zhong1, Qiong Shen1, Ying Wu1, Mengdie Cao1, Songwen Ju2, Lei Chen3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recent studies suggest that there is a link between the gut microbiota and glucose metabolism. This study aimed to compare the gut microbiota during early pregnancy of women with hyperglycymia to those with normal blood glucose.Entities:
Keywords: 16S rDNA; Gut microbiota; Hyperglycaemia in early pregnancy; Next generation sequencing
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32393255 PMCID: PMC7216510 DOI: 10.1186/s12884-020-02961-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth ISSN: 1471-2393 Impact factor: 3.007
Characteristics of the study population
| HIP ( | Control ( | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 29 (27.00–33.5) | 28 (25–30) | 0.082 |
| Pre-BMI (kg/m2) | 24.28 (22.33–28.38) | 20.49 (19.14–22.48) | 0.000 |
| Pre-weight (kg) | 62.75 (55–73.5) | 52.5 (49.00–58.5) | 0.001 |
| Waist (cm) | 92.5 (86–106.5) | 83.5 (76.0–86.5) | 0.000 |
| Hip (cm) | 101.5(93.5–105.25) | 92.5 (88.0–96.75) | 0.002 |
| SBP (mmHg) | 134 (117.75–142.75) | 119 (106.25–126.75) | 0.002 |
| DBP (mmHg) | 83 (72–92) | 69.5 (61.0–80.5) | 0.004 |
| FBG (mmol/L) | 5.64 (5.2–7.9) | 4.36 (4.05–4.56) | 0.000 |
| TC (mmol/L) | 4.17 (3.97–4.68) | 4.45 (3.83–4.85) | 0.83 |
| TGs (mmol/L) | 1.77 (1.45–3.23) | 1.18 (1.03–1.61) | 0.000 |
| HDL (mmol/L) | 1.25 (1.09–1.53) | 1.86 (1.61–2.04) | 0.000 |
| LDL (mmol/L) | 2.71 (2.27–3.12) | 2.32 (1.89–2.67) | 0.047 |
| HbA1c (mmol/L) | 6.55 (6.1–7.88) | 5.1 (4.93–5.3) | 0.000 |
| CRP (mmol/L) | 4.75 (2.68–9.43) | 2.09 (0.95–3.49) | 0.002 |
| FINS (mIU/L) | 9.15 (6.7–16.55) | – | – |
Values are represented as medians (interquartile range). Differences were analysed using Mann-Whitney U tests. BMI Body mass index; SBP Systolic blood pressure; DBP Diastolic blood pressure; TC, total cholesterol; TGs, triglycerides; HDL, high-density lipoprotein; LDL Low-density lipoprotein; GLU Fasting blood glucose; FINS Fasting insulin
Fig. 1PCoA of the bacterial community composition based on Bray Curtis analysis. Dots represent individuals (women with HIP = red, controls = blue). Cluster 1 and Cluster 2 are represented as Bacteroides and Prevotella enterotypes, respectively
Fig. 2Decreased gut microbial richness and diversity in women with HIP
Richness and α-diversity (Chao1 and Shannon index) of the two cohorts at the OTU level. Boxplots showing both richness and diversity values. *P < 0.05; **P < 0.01; ***P < 0.001.
Fig. 3Phylum-level differences in bacteria in the faecal samples of controls and women with HIP. Boxplot shows the phyla that differed significantly between the women with HIP (red) and healthy controls (blue). The percentage of the phylum is indicated on the y axis. Boxplots showing the 25th and 75th percentiles with a line at the median
Fig. 4Families that differed significantly between women with HIP and healthy controls. The relative abundance of the bacterial families was significantly different between women with HIP (red) and healthy pregnant women (blue) (top 10). The percentage of microbiota is indicated on the y axis. Boxplots showing the 25th and 75th percentile with a line at the median
Fig. 5Correlation of clinical characteristics with microbial abundance
Correlation analysis results of all samples at the family level (a) and the genus level (b). Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients and P-values for the correlations are shown. *P < 0.05; **P < 0.01; ***P < 0.001
Fig. 6Bacterial abundance and its associations with HbA1c and CRP profile a. Positive correlation between HbA1c concentration and the Enterobacteriaceae family. b, c. Negative correlation between the Ruminococcaceae and Christensenllaceae families with HbA1c. d: Positive correlation between the Fusobacterium genus and CRP concentration