| Literature DB >> 34484131 |
Linzheng Lyu1, Xiaohong Zhou2, Meng Zhang3, Li Liu3, Haiyue Niu1, Jiliang Zhang1, Shiwei Chen1, Pimin Gong4, Shilong Jiang5, Jiancun Pan5, Yuanyuan Li5, Xue Han1, Dayou Cheng1, Lanwei Zhang4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The infant's intestine contains diverse microbiota, which play an important role in an infant's health.Entities:
Keywords: bacterial screening; cell proliferation; delivery modes; infant intestinal epithelial cells; intestinal microbiota
Year: 2021 PMID: 34484131 PMCID: PMC8414977 DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2021.626144
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Microbiol ISSN: 1664-302X Impact factor: 5.640
Semi-selective medium.
| Putatively common strains | Additive> | Semi-selective medium ( |
|
| Nalidixic acid and X-gal | MRS-Cys/LBS-Cys |
|
| Nalidixic acid and X-gal | MRS-Cys/LBS-Cys |
Intervention treatment.
| Groups | Intervention treatment |
| Blank control group | Normal lactation and intragastric administration of PBS |
| Positive control group | Normal lactation and intragastric administration of LGG PBS suspension (109 CFU/mL) |
| Experimental group | Normal lactation and intragastric administration of the FL-228.1 strain in a PBS suspension (109 CFU/mL) |
Basic information of participants.
| Characteristics | Delivery modes | |||
| C-section | Vaginal | |||
| Median or No. | Interquartile ranges or percentage | Median or No. | Interquartile ranges or percentage | |
| Mother’s age (y) | 31 | 22–38 | 29 | 23–35 |
| Father’s age (y) | 33 | 25–43 | 29 | 24–37 |
| Mother’s pregnancy weight (kg) | 74.2 | 57–96 | 69.75 | 60.6–92.5 |
| Gestation age (d) | 277 | 266–284 | 279 | 266–288 |
| Birth weight (g) | 3725 | 3,000–4,800 | 3400 | 2,700–3,900 |
| Birth length (cm) | 52 | 49–55.6 | 50 | 49–51 |
| Infant sex | ||||
| Male | 18 | 69.23% | 14 | 56.00% |
| Female | 8 | 30.77% | 11 | 44.00% |
| Feeding patterns | ||||
| Exclusive breastfeeding | 16 | 61.54% | 12 | 48.00% |
| Mixed feeding | 10 | 38.46% | 13 | 52.00% |
FIGURE 1Alpha diversity of the stool microbiota of infant born via different delivery modes. (A) The Chao1 index of infant stool. (B) The Shannon index of infant stool. (C) Changes in Chao1 index in the stool samples of infants in different stages. (D) Changes in Shannon index in the stool samples of infants in different stages.
FIGURE 2Characteristics of the infant stool microbiota between the two different delivery modes at the phylum and family levels. (A) Phylum level characteristics of infant stool microbiota between the two different delivery modes. (B) Family level characteristics of infant stool microbiota between the two different delivery modes.
FIGURE 3Comparison of the different microbiota in the stool samples of infants born via different delivery modes. (A) LEfSe analysis of the different microbiota in stool samples of vaginal delivery and C-section infants. Microbial communities in the samples of the vaginal delivery infants via their LDA value statistics are shown in green; C-section samples with a negative LDA score are shown in red. LDA value is absolute. (B) Cladogram derived from LEfSe analysis of the metagenomic sequences from the stool samples of C-section and vaginal delivery infants. Green areas indicate a significant effect on the microbial groups in the vaginal delivery group. Red areas indicate a significant effect on the microbial groups in the C-section group. LDA values were obtained via linear regression analysis. (C) Analysis of KEGG differential pathways via LEfSe.
FIGURE 4Properties of strains. (A) Surface hydrophobicity. (B) Viability in simulated gastric fluid. (C) Viability in simulated intestinal juice. (D) Adhesion ability. (E) Relative growth rate. Black dots represent strains from infant stool samples and red dots represent those from LGG.
FIGURE 5The intestinal morphological characteristics of the different groups based on hematoxylin–eosin (H&E) staining (all scale bar, 100 μm). (A) Morphology of the large intestine of the pups in the blank control group. (B) Morphology of the large intestine of the pups fed with the LGG strain. (C) Morphology of the large intestine of the pups fed with the FL-228.1 strain. (D) Morphology of the small intestine of the pups in the blank control group. (E) Morphology of the small intestine of the pups fed with the LGG strain. (F) Morphology of the small intestine of the pups fed with the FL-228.1 strain.
FIGURE 6Intestinal cell development in the different groups based on immunostaining for Ki67 (all scale bar, 100 μm). (A) Morphology of the large intestine of the pups in the blank control group. (B) Morphology of the large intestine of the pups fed with the LGG strain. (C) Morphology of the large intestine of the pups fed with the FL-228.1 strain. (D) Morphology of the small intestine of the pups in the blank control group. (E) Morphology of the small intestine of the pups fed with the LGG strain. (F) Morphology of the small intestine of the pups fed with the FL-228.1 strain.
FIGURE 7The mean density of the small and large intestines of the different groups. (A) The mean density of the large intestine of the different groups. (B) The mean density of the small intestine of the different groups. *P < 0.05.