| Literature DB >> 32443684 |
Mireille Castanet1, Christos Costalos2, Nadja Haiden3, Jean-Michel Hascoet4, Bernard Berger5, Norbert Sprenger5, Dominik Grathwohl5, Harald Brüssow5, Nanda De Groot6, Philippe Steenhout7, Sophie Pecquet6, Jalil Benyacoub5,7, Jean-Charles Picaud8,9.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Post-natal gut maturation in infants interrelates maturation of the morphology, digestive, and immunological functions and gut microbiota development. Here, we explored both microbiota development and markers of gut barrier and maturation in healthy term infants during their early life to assess the interconnection of gut functions during different infant formulae regimes.Entities:
Keywords: early gut maturation; infant microbiota; prebiotics; probiotics
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32443684 PMCID: PMC7284641 DOI: 10.3390/nu12051481
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutrients ISSN: 2072-6643 Impact factor: 5.717
Figure 1Flowchart of infants participating in the study (Intention To Treat, ITT) and 16S (Per Protocol, PP) analysis. * 203 infants were enrolled; one was excluded due to a randomization error. The total number of infants enrolled was 202. GI is gastrointestinal symptoms, w2 and w4 means week 2 and week 4.
Baseline characteristics of the 202 healthy term infants included in the study.
| BF ( | F ( | FLP ( | FLPP ( | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
| Weight, kg (range) | 58.0 (52; 65) | 61.0 (54.2; 69.2) | 64 (55.5; 69.5) | 61.0 (55.0; 71.2) |
| Height, cm (range) | 166 (160; 169) | 165 (162; 170) | 165 (162; 170) | 164 (160; 170) |
| Age, years (range) | 30.0 (27.0; 33.0) | 30.0 (25.8; 33.2) | 28.5 (24.2; 30.0) | 28.5 (24.2; 33.8) |
| Former smoker, % | 11 | 20 | 27 | 14 |
|
| ||||
| Male gender, % | 52 | 57.5 | 38.6 | 48.8 |
| Age at enrolment, days | 1.45 ± 0.76 | 1.45 ± 0.71 | 1.52 ± 0.63 | 1.4 ± 073 |
| Weight, kg | 3.45 ± 0.37 | 3.49 ± 0.36 | 3.33 ± 0.43 | 3.24 ± 0.38 |
| Crown-heel length, cm | 50.6 ± 1.7 | 50.5 ± 1.8 | 50.0 ± 1.6 | 49.6 ± 2.0 |
| Head circumference, cm | 34.7 ± 1.2 | 34.9 ± 1.1 | 34.6 ± 1.0 | 34.5 ± 1.1 |
| Body mass index, kg/m2 | 13.5 ± 1.1 | 13.7 ± 1.0 | 13.3 ± 1.0 | 13.1 ± 1.2 |
B, breast fed; F, control formula; FLP, formula lactoferrin probiotic; FLPP, formula lactoferrin probiotic prebiotic.
Fecal Calprotectin concentrations (mean at 2 and 4 weeks). PP data set.
| BF ( | F ( | FLP ( | FLPP ( | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean (range) faecal calprotectin concentrations (µg/g of faeces) | 386 | 321 | 346 | 205 |
| 0.338 | 0.686 | 0.014 |
Figure 2Fecal calprotectin z-scores compared to breastfed group set as zero line (PP population).
Gut maturation parameters at week 4.
| BF | F | FLP | FLPP | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Calprotectin | 444 | 289 | 352 | 152 |
| Elastase | 725 | 1084 | 1129 | 631 |
| Alpha 1-AT | 0.175 | 0.273 | 0.239 | 0.133 |
| Neopterin | 597 | 849 | 973 | 948 |
| IgA | 619 | 78 | 132 | 117( |
| Permeability | 0.774 | 0.635 | 0.647 | 0.783 |
†: significantly different from BF, ∆: significantly different from F, □: significantly different from FLP. PP data set.
Figure 3Gut microbiota composition in infants from the four nutritional intervention groups (PP data set). Determination by 16S rRNA gene sequence analysis: bubble plot of bacteria determined at species level (identified at the right ordinate) for the intervention groups and time points specified on the top abscissa. The proportion of the specified bacterium in the specified sample is indicated by the size of the square (key at top right of the figure).
Statistical analyses of the differences of median between groups at genus and species levels.
| Time | Genus/Species | B | F | FLP | FLPP | Significance of Differences | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Median | Mean | Median | Mean | Median | Mean | Median | Mean | ALL | B vs. F | B vs. FLP | B vs. FLPP | F vs. FLPP | FLP vs. FLPP | ||
|
| Bifidobacterium | 28.3 | 36.7 | 3.0 | 7.2 | 5.3 | 14.1 | 54.2 | 46.7 | *** | *** | * | NS | *** | ** |
| Staphylococcus | 0.1 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 1.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | *** | * | NS | *** | NS | * | |
| Klebsiella | 0.0 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 9.3 | 0.0 | 0.7 | 0.0 | 0.1 | *** | ** | NS | NS | ** | NS | |
| unclassified Enterobacteriaceae | 0.0 | 0.8 | 0.2 | 5.1 | 0.0 | 3.1 | 0.0 | 0.9 | * | ** | NS | NS | ** | NS | |
| unclassified Klebsiella | 0.0 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 9.3 | 0.0 | 0.7 | 0.0 | 0.1 | *** | ** | NS | NS | ** | NS | |
| Staphylococcus aureus | 0.0 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 1.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | *** | NS | NS | *** | NS | * | |
| Bifidobacterium animalis | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 3.3 | 0.0 | 7.4 | ** | NS | * | * | ** | NS | |
| Streptococcus parasanguinis | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.4 | 0.0 | 0.3 | ** | NS | ** | * | NS | NS | |
| 4w | Enterococcus | 0.0 | 0.1 | 1.6 | 3.7 | 3.4 | 6.3 | 0.5 | 1.7 | *** | *** | *** | ** | NS | NS |
| Bifidobacterium | 81.0 | 61.7 | 34.5 | 32.5 | 16.0 | 23.8 | 77.1 | 61.5 | ** | * | ** | NS | ** | ** | |
| Staphylococcus | 0.2 | 0.6 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.1 | ** | NS | ** | NS | NS | NS | |
| Clostridium | 0.0 | 0.4 | 1.0 | 9.8 | 2.5 | 14.4 | 0.0 | 4.0 | * | NS | ** | NS | NS | * | |
| unclassified Enterococcus | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.6 | 3.7 | 2.4 | 5.6 | 0.5 | 1.7 | *** | *** | *** | ** | NS | NS | |
| Bifidobacterium breve | 35.3 | 33.7 | 0.0 | 5.0 | 0.0 | 1.1 | 0.0 | 0.2 | ** | * | ** | * | NS | NS | |
| Clostridium perfringens | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.6 | 9.3 | 2.0 | 12.0 | 0.0 | 1.3 | ** | * | ** | NS | NS | * | |
| Staphylococcus aureus | 0.0 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.1 | * | NS | * | NS | NS | NS | |
Rank test for all groups and paired comparison (PP—population). Significance: NS—non-significant; *, p-value > 0.05; **, p-value > 0.01; ***, p-value > 0.001; B, breast fed; F, control formula; FLP, formula lactoferrin probiotic; FLPP, formula lactoferrin probiotic prebiotic.
Figure 4Canonical correspondence analysis at genus level for the nutritional intervention groups (PP data set). Ellipses indicates the 95% confidence intervals around the centroids. BF, breast fed; F, control formula; FLP, formula lactoferrin probiotic; FLPP, formula lactoferrin probiotic prebiotic.
Figure 5Anthropometric data. z-scores for body weight, length, head circumference, and BMI (PP data set).