Recent evidence has shown that gut microbiota dysbiosis is associated with a wide variety
of metabolic diseases, including type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) [1]. Some studies have also reported the importance of the gut microbiota
composition in the development of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM), a transient form of
glucose intolerance in pregnant women [2, 3]. GDM is characterized by an imbalance between insulin
secretion and insulin resistance during pregnancy. Obese women already have elevated levels
of insulin resistance before conception, and they develop relative insulin deficiency due to
the physiologically increased in insulin resistance caused by pregnancy. On the other hand,
there are also GDM women incapable of producing enough insulin to meet even the
physiological insulin demand during pregnancy, possibly because of impairment of their
ability to secrete insulin [4]. According to a
previous report, there is a high proportion of non-obese women with poor insulin secretion
ability among Japanese GDM women [5]. Most of the
previous reports on the gut microbiota of GDM women have mainly included the overweight or
obese women [6,7,8,9,10]. Therefore, the significance of gut
microbiota in the development of GDM in the non-obese women with impaired insulin secretion
has been poorly investigated.In the current study, we aimed to reveal the characteristics of gut microbiota of Japanese
pregnant women with GDM, especially focusing on the non-obese cases.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Study population and sample collection
We conducted a prospective observational study on Japanese pregnant women who received
prenatal care and delivered at Kyorin University Hospital, a tertiary perinatal center in
Tokyo, Japan, from April 2018 to November 2019. We enrolled pregnant women who underwent
75 g oral glucose tolerance tests (OGTTs) before 27 weeks of gestation for GDM diagnosis.
The patients were diagnosed with GDM based on International Association of the Diabetes
and Pregnancy Study Groups criteria [11], whereas
those who were diagnosed as negative were categorized as having normal glucose tolerance
(NGT). Women who met the following criteria were excluded from the study: multiple
pregnancy, use of antibiotics during pregnancy, and any pathological intestinal conditions
which required medication, such as inflammatory bowel diseases. Participants with a
pre-pregnancy body mass index (BMI) ≥25.0 kg/m2 were categorized as OW/OB
(overweight/obese); the rest were categorized as non-OW/OB. This study was approved by the
institutional review board of Kyorin University School of Medicine (No. 712), and all
included women provided a written informed consent.Stool samples were collected from all participants a total of three times, at the time of
GDM diagnosis (T1), at 35–37 weeks of gestation (T2), and at 4 weeks postpartum period
(T3). The stool samples were self-collected by the participants at home using a specimen
collection kit (TechnoSuruga Laboratory, Shizuoka, Japan) and brought to the hospital
within 2 days.Blood samples were collected at the time of admission for delivery and centrifuged at
1,500 × g for 10 min at room temperature. The serum was collected and stored at −80°C.
Fecal DNA extraction and 16S rRNA amplicon target sequencing
DNA extraction from stool samples was carried out using NucleoSpin® DNA Stool
kit (MACHEREY-NAGEL GmbH & Co., UK MACHEREY-NAGEL, Fisher Scientific UK, Loughborough,
UK) based on the manufacturer’s instructions. The DNA concentration and quality of
purified DNA were analyzed with a Qubit fluorometer (Life Technologies) and TapeStation
(Agilent). A 16S library was constructed according to the “16S Metagenomic Sequencing
Library Preparation” protocol recommended by Illumina. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was
performed with a TaKaRa Cycler Dice Touch (TaKaRa) and 2 × KAPA HiFi HotStart ReadyMix
(Kapa Biosystems, Wilmington, MA, USA) under the following conditions: initial
denaturation at 95°C for 3 min, followed by 25 cycles of 95°C for 30 sec, 55°C for 30 sec,
and 72°C for 30 sec, and finally an extension step at 72°C for 5 min. DNA concentration
and size distribution of ready libraries were analyzed with a Qubit fluorometer and
TapeStation. PCR products were purified using AMPure XP magnetic beads (Beckman Coulter
Inc., Carlsbad, CA, USA) diluted into an equimolar concentration and pooled according to
their unique barcode sequences, which enabled multiplexing. Next, Illumina dual-index
barcodes were added to the pooled PCR products with a Nextera XT Index Kit (Illumina, San
Diego, CA, USA). Indexed PCR products were purified and pooled in equimolar amounts prior
to paired-end sequencing with MiSeq Reagent Kit v3 (600 – cycles; Illumina) following the
manufacturer’s directions.
Sequence data analysis
For microbial sequence analysis, the assembled reads were processed using the QIIME2
platform (v. 2019.10). Sequence reads were imported into QIIME2 with quality assessment,
filtering, barcode trimming, and chimera detection performed using the DADA2 pipeline. A
taxonomic classification was assigned to amplicon sequence variants using the SILVA
release 132 with taxonomic classification at >99% confidence. Sequencing data for
phyla, family, and genus amplicon sequence variants were calculated by dividing the number
of reads for each taxon by the number of reads in the sample. All amplicon sequence
variants with an average of >0.5% relative abundance were included for data analysis.
Alpha-diversity indices calculations including the Shannon index, Faith’s phylogenic
diversity (PD), and observed operational taxonomic units (OTUs), were calculated and
visualized with QIIME scripts. The cross-sectional difference in beta diversity between
the groups was assessed by permutational analysis of variance (PERMANOVA) of un-weighted
and weighted UniFrac distances and illustrated by PCoA models.
ELISA
The concentrations of adiponectin and IL-6 in the serum samples were assayed by ELISA
kits (R & D Systems, Minneapolis, MN, USA) according to the manufacturer’s
instructions. The sensitivities of the assays for adiponectin and IL-6 were 0.989 ng/mL
and 0.7 pg/mL, respectively. Based on the previous reports on the cytokines in GDM women
[12,13,14,15,16], the levels of adiponectin and
IL-6 were categorized as follows: high adiponectin, ≥5.0 ng/mL; low adiponectin, <5.0
ng/mL; high IL-6, >5.0 pg/mL; and low IL-6, ≤5.0 pg/mL.
Statistical analysis
Statistical analysis was performed in R version 3.6.3 (The R Foundation, Vienna, Austria;
http://www.r-project.org). All results are presented as medians (ranges).
Maternal characteristics were compared between groups using χ2 (or Fisher’s
exact) or Mann–Whitney U tests. Differences in the gut microbiota analysis were tested
with the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Bonferroni’s correction was applied for multiple
comparisons, and a p-value <0.05 was considered as statistically significant. For beta
diversity, the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure was applied in QIIME2.
RESULTS
Clinical characteristics
We ultimately enrolled 20 GDM and 16 NGT pregnant women. The demographic data of the
participants are shown in Table 1. There were only two OW/OB cases in the NGT group. Non-OW/OB women accounted
for 40% of the GDM group (8/20). All GDM patients maintained good glycemic control with
HbA1c <6.0% at 36 weeks of gestations. There was no difference in maternal age or
proportion of primipara between the GDM and NGT groups overall. The T3 postpartum period
was shorter than in the NGT group, but the difference in mean numbers of days was only two
days (NGT, 33 days; GDM, 35 days).
Table 1.
Clinical characteristics of the participants
NGT
GDM
p-value†
All
Non-OW/OB
All
Non-OW/OB
OW/OB
All
Non-OW/OB
N
16
14
20
8
12
Age (years)
40 (24–43)
40 (24–43)
38 (29–45)
39 (29–45)
38 (29–45)
0.77
0.94
Primipara
11 (69%)
9 (64%)
7 (35%)
4 (50%)
3 (25%)
0.09
0.66
BMI (kg/m2)
21.3 (16.2–37.2)
20.7 (16.2–24.4)
24.3 (17.8–34.4)
20.0 (27.8–23.5)
28.4 (25.0–34.4)
0.06
0.87
OGTT (weeks)
14 (12–18)
14 (12–18)
15 (12–26)
16 (14–26)
14 (12–26)
0.15
0.03
T1 (weeks)
16 (13–24)
17.5 (13–24)
17.5 (15–22)
17.5 (15–20)
18 (15–22)
0.96
0.35
T2 (weeks)
35 (35–37)
35.5 (35–37)
35 (35–37)
35.5 (35–37)
35 (35–37)
0.99
0.99
T3 (days)
33 (27–42)
33 (27–42)
35 (29–45)
35 (29–43)
38 (32–45)
0.02
0.06
Delivery weeks
39 (36–41)
39 (36–41)
38 (33–41)
38.5 (37–40)
38 (33–41)
0.44
0.24
Cesarean section
7 (44%)
5 (36%)
8 (40%)
1 (13%)
7 (58%)
0.99
0.35
Weight gain (kg)
9.1 (1.3–18.2)
9.3 (5.9–18.2)
7 (–4.2–13.9)
8.5 (5.3–13.9)
5.2 (–4.2–13.8)
0.11
0.34
Data are presented as medians (range) or numbers (%).
BMI, pre-pregnancy body mass index; OGTT, 75 g oral glucose tolerance test; T1,
test at the time of diagnosis; T2, test at 35–37 weeks of gestation; T3, test in the
postpartum period. † NGT vs GDM.
Data are presented as medians (range) or numbers (%).BMI, pre-pregnancy body mass index; OGTT, 75 g oral glucose tolerance test; T1,
test at the time of diagnosis; T2, test at 35–37 weeks of gestation; T3, test in the
postpartum period. † NGT vs GDM.There was no major difference in the maternal backgrounds of the non-OW/OB patients
between the GDM and NGT groups. The timing of the OGTTs was earlier in the NGT group, with
the mean difference being only two weeks (non-OW/OB NGT, 14 weeks; non-OW/OB GDM, 16
weeks), and there was no difference in the number of gestational weeks for T1.
Differential abundance analysis
The gut microbiota compositions of three groups (NGT, non-OW/OB GDM, and OW/OB GDM) are
shown in Fig. 1. The gut microbiota composition of each group showed longitudinal changes from the
pregnancy to postpartum periods. Differences in gut microbiota composition were observed
in the non-OW/OB GDM group compared with the NGT group and OW/OB GDM group, especially in
late pregnancy (T2).
Fig. 1.
Relative abundance of taxa in fecal microbiota.
Pie charts show the phylum (pie) and genus (outer ring) level distribution. In this
analysis, only phyla and genera with relative abundances of more than 0.5% were
included. The data of NGT is from all samples.
Relative abundance of taxa in fecal microbiota.Pie charts show the phylum (pie) and genus (outer ring) level distribution. In this
analysis, only phyla and genera with relative abundances of more than 0.5% were
included. The data of NGT is from all samples.Initially, we compared the relative abundances of OTUs for all subjects between the NGT
and GDM groups (Table 2). No significantly different OTUs were detected at the phylum or family
level. At the genus level, the relative abundance of Romboutsia was
significantly higher in the GDM group during pregnancy (T1, p=0.008; T2, p=0.047) (Fig. 2). Prevotella 9 was more abundant in the NGT group in T3 (p=0.03);
however, only 4 of 30 samples had relative abundances >0.5. Furthermore, the genus was
not detected in 23 samples.
Table 2.
Relative abundance of differentially enriched genera between the NGT and GDM
women (all subjects)
All
NGT (n=16)
GDM (n=20)
Taxon
Median (%)
Min–Max (%)
Median (%)
Min–Max (%)
p-value
T1
Peptostreptococcaceae;
Romboutsia
0.04
0.00–1.29
0.76
0.01–4.28
0.01
Lachnospiraceae; Lachnospira
0.15
0.00–1.78
0.45
0.00–5.94
0.11
Lachnospiraceae; Blautia
3.72
1.36–16.41
2.94
0.06–9.49
0.12
Prevotellaceae; Prevotella 9
0.00
0.00–20.94
0.00
0.00–0.02
0.14
Lachnospiraceae;
Lachnoclostridium
0.49
0.13–1.91
0.93
0.08–2.57
0.14
T2
Peptostreptococcacea;
Romboutsia
0.09
0.00–2.03
0.32
0.00–12.47
0.04
Enterobacteriaceae;_
0.02
0.00–7.35
2.93
0.00–17.12
0.05
Veillonellaceae; Megamonas
0.00
0.00–1.70
0.00
0.00–21.33
0.11
Prevotellaceae ; Prevotella 9
0.00
0.00–16.00
0.00
0.00–0.01
0.11
Lachnospiraceae; Agathobacter
0.00
0.00–4.16
0.52
0.00–3.86
0.11
Lachnospiraceae;_
1.04
0.00–2.33
0.74
0.28–2.14
0.13
Ruminococcaceae; Ruminococcus
2
0.00
0.00–4.29
0.62
0.00–4.89
0.13
T3
Prevotellacea; Prevotella 9
0.00
0.00–18.27
0.00
0.00–0.01
0.03
Ruminococcaceae; Ruminococcus
1
0.18
0.00–5.57
0.01
0.00–1.52
0.06
Veillonellaceae; Megasphaera
0.00
0.00–7.23
0.00
0.00–1.92
0.09
Lachnospiraceae; Blautia
0.00
0.00–10.43
2.69
0.63–10.33
0.10
Ruminococcaceae;
Subdoligranulum
1.93
0.00–8.03
0.52
0.00–4.34
0.13
Enterobacteriaceae;_
0.00
0.00–31.21
0.42
0.00–21.25
0.14
Taxa with a p-value <0.15 are shown.
Fig. 2.
Representative genera identified as differentially abundant in GDM women.
Box plots show the relative abundances of (a) genus Romboutsia at
T1, (b) genus Collinsella at T1, (c) genus
Akkermansia at T2, and (d) genus Ruminococcus1
at T2. They also show the 25th and 75th percentiles with a line at the median. Blank
boxes represent NGT women. Light gray boxes represent non-OW/OB GDM women. Dark gray
boxes represent OW/OB GDM women. *p<0.05.
Taxa with a p-value <0.15 are shown.Representative genera identified as differentially abundant in GDM women.Box plots show the relative abundances of (a) genus Romboutsia at
T1, (b) genus Collinsella at T1, (c) genus
Akkermansia at T2, and (d) genus Ruminococcus1
at T2. They also show the 25th and 75th percentiles with a line at the median. Blank
boxes represent NGT women. Light gray boxes represent non-OW/OB GDM women. Dark gray
boxes represent OW/OB GDM women. *p<0.05.We also compared OTUs between the NGT and GDM women in the non-OW/OB subgroups. At the
phylum level, the relative abundance of Verrucomicrobia was significantly
higher in the GDM women (p=0.04). At the family level, Coriobacteriaceae
(Test1, p=0.03) and Akkermansiaceae (Test2, p=0.04) were significantly
more abundant in the GDM women. At genus level (Table
3, Fig. 2), the GDM women showed a
significantly lower abundance of Collinsella in T1 (p=0.03). The relative
abundance of Ruminococcus1 in the GDM women was significantly lower in T2
(p=0.04) and T3 (p=0.02). Akkermansia was more abundant in the GDM women
in T2 (p=0.04).
Table 3.
Relative abundances of differentially enriched genera between the NGT and GDM
women (non-OW/OB)
Non-OW/OB
NGT (n=16)
GDM (n=20)
Taxon
Median (%)
Min–Max (%)
Median (%)
Min–Max (%)
p-value
T1
Coriobacteriaceae; Collinsella
0.50
0.00–2.05
0.00
0.00–0.085
0.03
Peptostreptococcaceae;
Romboutsia
0.13
0.00–1.29
0.67
0.01–4.28
0.06
T2
Ruminococcaceae; Ruminococcus 1
0.16
0.00–3.03
0.00
0.00–0.38
0.04
Akkermansiaceae; Akkermansia
0.00
0.00–4.52
3.18
0.00–12.73
0.04
Tannerellaceae;
Parabacteroides
2.10
0.00–4.52
3.75
1.61–7.41
0.05
Veillonellaceae; Megamonas
0.00
0.00–1.70
0.00
0.00–3.52
0.06
Lachnospiraceae; Anaerostipes
0.34
0.01–2.74
1.47
0.05–3.87
0.08
Enterobacteriaceae;_
0.02
0.00–7.35
6.89
0.00–17.21
0.12
T3
Ruminococcaceae; Ruminococcus 1
0.26
0.00–5.57
0.00
0.00–0.35
0.02
Prevotellacea; Prevotella 9
0.00
0.00–18.27
0.00
0.00–0.001
0.13
Ruminococcaceae;
Faecalibacterium
4.86
0.00–17.59
1.62
0.01–10.32
0.13
Taxa with p-value <0.15 were shown.
Taxa with p-value <0.15 were shown.
Association between maternal cytokines and gut microbiota
The participants with low adiponectin (<5.0 ng/mL) showed higher abundances of
Romboutsia during pregnancy, although the differences did not reach
statistical significance (T1, p=0.07; T2, p=0.15; Supplementary Table 1, Fig. 3). There was no association between serum adiponectin and the abundances of
Collinsella, Ruminococcus1, or
Akkermansia. The participants with low IL-6 (≤5.0 ng/mL) showed a
higher abundance of Romboutsia in T3 (p=0.03; Supplementary Table 4).
Fig. 3.
Relation between serum adiponectin and Romboutsia.
Box plots show the relative abundances of genus Romboutsia of the
groups. They show the 25th and 75th percentiles with a line at the median. Light
gray boxes represent the subjects with serum adiponectin ≥5.0 ng/mL. Gray boxes
represent the subjects with serum adiponectin <5.0 ng/mL.
Relation between serum adiponectin and Romboutsia.Box plots show the relative abundances of genus Romboutsia of the
groups. They show the 25th and 75th percentiles with a line at the median. Light
gray boxes represent the subjects with serum adiponectin ≥5.0 ng/mL. Gray boxes
represent the subjects with serum adiponectin <5.0 ng/mL.
Alpha-diversity
In the GDM group, the Shannon index was significantly lower in T3, and there were no
significant differences at other time points (p=0.008; Fig. 4, Supplementary Table 3). While the Shannon indices of the NGT group did not change
from T1 to T3, those of the GDM group were decreased in the postpartum period compared
with the decreased from pregnancy to postpartum periods (T1 vs. T3, p=0.06; T2 vs. T3,
p=0.02). Among the non-OW/OB patients, the Shannon index of those in the GDM group was
also significantly lower in T3 (p=0.03). Faith’s PD and observed OTUs showed the similar
trends, but without statistical significance.
Fig. 4.
Shannon index of the gut microbiota.
Box plots show the values of Shannon indices calculated based on the sequencing
data (T1–T3). They show the 25th and 75th percentiles with a line at the median.
Blank boxes represent NGT women. Gray boxes represent GDM women. *p<0.05.
Shannon index of the gut microbiota.Box plots show the values of Shannon indices calculated based on the sequencing
data (T1–T3). They show the 25th and 75th percentiles with a line at the median.
Blank boxes represent NGT women. Gray boxes represent GDM women. *p<0.05.
Beta-diversity
In the analysis of the bacterial community structure based on the unweighted (Fig. 5, Supplementary Table 4) and weighted UniFrac distances (Supplementary Fig. 1, Supplementary Table 4), no significant differences
were detected among the groups.
Fig. 5.
PCoA models of the bacterial community composition.
The cross-sectional difference in beta diversity between the groups was assessed by
permutational analysis of variance (PERMANOVA) of the un-weighted UniFrac distance
and illustrated by PCoA models. No significant difference was detected among the
groups.
PCoA models of the bacterial community composition.The cross-sectional difference in beta diversity between the groups was assessed by
permutational analysis of variance (PERMANOVA) of the un-weighted UniFrac distance
and illustrated by PCoA models. No significant difference was detected among the
groups.
DISCUSSION
The present study revealed that Japanese GDM women showed the different gut microbiota
profiles compared with NGT women.The relative abundances of OTUs were compared to identify the general characteristics for
GDM in Japanese women. At the genus level, Peptostreptococcaceae Romboutsia
was enriched in the GDM women during the pregnancy periods (T1, T2). The genus
Romboutsia was created to classify the newly isolated species
Romboutsia ilealis as well as Romboutsia lituseburensis,
which was previously named Clostridium lituseburense [17]. Romboutsia is a member of the order
Clostridiales along with the Lachnospiraceae and
Ruminococcaceae families. Although they did not reach statistical significance,
differences in abundance were also found for some genera of the
Lachnospiraceae and Ruminococcaceae families (Table 2). Romboutsia has not been
previously reported to be a genus associated with diabetic disease. There are some studies
that have reported the increased abundances of Lachnospiraceae and
Ruminococcaceae in subjects with an insulin resistant status, such as
diabetic disease and obesity [7,8,9,10, 18,19,20]. Our results showed that the women
with lower serum adiponectin levels tended to have more Romboutsia and that
Romboutsia was more abundant in OW/OB GDM women than non-OW/OB women
(Fig. 2). These results suggest the potential
association of Romboutsia with an insulin resistant status. Another
characteristic result of Romboutsia in the present study was its
predominance in the GDM women only in the pregnancy periods, which suggests the possible
role of Romboutsia in pregnancy-related insulin resistance. Based on our
study, we believed that Peptostreptococcaceae Romboutsia comprises novel
candidates for the pathobionts of GDM, in addition to other
Clostridiales.The enrichment of Prevotella in GDM women has been also reported during
both the pregnancy and postpartum periods [9, 10]. In contrast, our results showed a higher abundance
of Prevotella9 in postpartum NGT women. However, the detection rate of the
genus was extremely low and, therefore, the clinical significance of the results is
unknown.Our study further revealed that the gut microbiota of the non-obese GDM women showed
different characteristics from those of the obese GDM women when they were compared with the
NGT women.The relative abundance of Akkermansia was significantly higher in the
non-OW/OB GDM subgroup in late pregnancy (T2). Contrary to our results, a reduction of
Akkermansia has been previously reported in the gut microbiota of
subjects with T2DM and obesity has been previously reported [1, 2, 6, 19, 21], and the supplementation with
Akkermansia rather contributed to the improvement of insulin resistance
[22, 23].
The richness of Akkermansia in the gut is highly influenced by the dietary
interventions. According to the previous reports, a calory restriction diet [24] and the supplementation with dietary fibers [25] or polyphenols [26, 27] increased the abundance of
Akkermansia. At our institution, all GDM patients were educated about
their individualized diabetic diets by dieticians according to the national guidelines for
obstetric practice in Japan. A calory-controlled diet comprised of vegetable-rich Japanese
food may have contributed to the enrichment of Akkermansia in the non-OW/OB
GDM women in the present study. The OW/OB GDM women with low insulin sensitivity were
probably more resistant to the dietary therapy, as the calorie restriction of the diet
during pregnancy was relatively mild.A significantly reduced abundance of Coriobacteriaceae Collinsella was
found in the non-OW/OB GDM women in the second trimester (T1). Collinsella
is one of the representative genera enriched in GDM and has been reported to be correlated
with insulin secretion [6, 7, 18, 28]. As previously reported [4],
most of the Japanese non-OW/OB GDM women in the current study probably had the type of GDM
with impaired insulin secretion, which reflected reduced Collinsella.
Insulin secretion is usually enhanced in obese women in response to increased insulin
resistance. It is speculated that GDM women in previous studies showed an enriched abundance
of Collinsella because the studies included mostly obese cases [6, 7, 10].In the present study, the results for the gut microbiota of the non-obese GDM women showed
distinctive characteristics from those previously reported for GDM gut microbiota. Non-obese
women develop GDM with a different pathophysiology from that of obese women, which possibly
reflects the difference in the gut microbiota profiles.No significant difference in alpha diversity was found between the GDM and NGT women during
pregnancy. The alpha diversity of the NGT women did not significantly change from the
pregnancy to postpartum periods. Koren et al. reported that the gut
microbiota richness was reduced as pregnancy progressed and that GDM women showed less alpha
diversity than NGT women [29]. One of the possible
reasons for these contradictions is that most of the pregnant women in this study gained a
small amount of weight during pregnancy. Approximately 60% of the subjects (NGT women,
10/16; GDM women, 13/20) were categorized as having “poor weight gain” according to the IOM
criteria [30]. Weight gain can be one of the factors
associated with a reduction of alpha diversity during pregnancy. Therefore, poor weight gain
may have abrogated the physiological change in gut microbiota richness. Furthermore, the GDM
women received a dietary intervention, which also possibly eliminated the difference between
GDM and NGT during pregnancy. It is speculated that most of the GDM women no longer adhered
to the diet therapy after delivery and that the alpha diversity was reduced in the
postpartum period. There was no difference in alpha diversity between the OW/OB and
non-OW/OB GDM women, and it is suggested that some factors other than insulin resistance are
responsible for the gut microbiota richness.We acknowledge that the current study had the several limitations. One of the limitations
was the lack of the detailed data about the dietary intervention. The dietary education was
individualized, and the extent of the adherence to the recommended diet was not precisely
known. However, the glycemic control of the GDM patients was basically good, and the weight
gain during pregnancy was not excessive throughout the whole study. Another limitation of
the present study was the relatively small number of the subjects included in the present
study compared with the previous reports. The lack of statistical significance in the
correlation between the serum adiponectin levels and the abundance of
Romboutsia was presumably due to the limited number of the subjects. A
study with a larger population size would provide more precise evidence about the gut
microbiota of Japanese pregnant women. However, the proportion of non-obese women in the GDM
group was consistent with a previous report [5], and
we believe that the patients in the present study sufficiently represented Japanese pregnant
women. In addition, the influence of the drugs other than antibiotics cannot be ruled out,
since we could not completely control the medication taken by subjects in this study,
especially OTC drugs and the commercially available supplements. The gut microbiota could be
also altered by the use of other drug, such as proton pump inhibitors [31].In conclusion, some genera associated with insulin resistance, including
Romboutsia, were differentially identified in the guts of Japanese GDM
women. Non-obese GDM women showed a distinctive gut microbiota profile compared with the
previously reported microbiota of obese GDM women, including the abundance of
Collinsella and Akkermansia. Our study has provided, for
the first time, the important data for gut microbiota in Japanese GDM women. Furthermore,
the present study has revealed a novel insight about the distinctive gut microbiota of
non-obese GDM women, which possibly reflected the difference in pathophysiology. Asians are
relatively lean and known to have high insulin sensitivity with low insulin secretion
ability [32]. We should be aware of the differences
according to ethnicity and race, which can affect how patients are classified into patient
types, when investigating the gut microbiota of GDM women.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
G. Harata, K. Miyazawa, and F. He are employees of Takanashi Milk Products Co., Ltd.; K.
Tanaka, S. Tanigaki and Y. Kobayashi declare no conflicts of interest.
Authors: Dominika Salamon; Agnieszka Sroka-Oleksiak; Przemysław Kapusta; Magdalena Szopa; Sandra Mrozińska; Agnieszka H Ludwig-Słomczyńska; Paweł P Wołkow; Małgorzata Bulanda; Tomasz Klupa; Maciej T Małecki; Tomasz Gosiewski Journal: Pol Arch Intern Med Date: 2018-04-15
Authors: Maria Carlota Dao; Amandine Everard; Judith Aron-Wisnewsky; Nataliya Sokolovska; Edi Prifti; Eric O Verger; Brandon D Kayser; Florence Levenez; Julien Chilloux; Lesley Hoyles; Marc-Emmanuel Dumas; Salwa W Rizkalla; Joel Doré; Patrice D Cani; Karine Clément Journal: Gut Date: 2015-06-22 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Jacoline Gerritsen; Susana Fuentes; Wieke Grievink; Laura van Niftrik; Brian J Tindall; Harro M Timmerman; Ger T Rijkers; Hauke Smidt Journal: Int J Syst Evol Microbiol Date: 2014-01-30 Impact factor: 2.747
Authors: P Šimják; A Cinkajzlová; K Anderlová; J Kloučková; H Kratochvílová; Z Lacinová; P Kaválková; H Krejčí; M Mráz; A Pařízek; M Kršek; M Haluzík Journal: Physiol Res Date: 2018-11-28 Impact factor: 1.881
Authors: Omry Koren; Julia K Goodrich; Tyler C Cullender; Aymé Spor; Kirsi Laitinen; Helene Kling Bäckhed; Antonio Gonzalez; Jeffrey J Werner; Largus T Angenent; Rob Knight; Fredrik Bäckhed; Erika Isolauri; Seppo Salminen; Ruth E Ley Journal: Cell Date: 2012-08-03 Impact factor: 41.582
Authors: Luisa F Gomez-Arango; Helen L Barrett; H David McIntyre; Leonie K Callaway; Mark Morrison; Marloes Dekker Nitert Journal: Diabetes Date: 2016-05-23 Impact factor: 9.461
Authors: Zubaidah Hasain; Norfilza Mohd Mokhtar; Nor Azmi Kamaruddin; Nor Azlin Mohamed Ismail; Nurul Huda Razalli; Justin Vijay Gnanou; Raja Affendi Raja Ali Journal: Front Cell Infect Microbiol Date: 2020-05-15 Impact factor: 5.293