| Literature DB >> 35434041 |
Changliang Zhang1, Yu Zhang2, Kai Ma3, Guangxian Wang3, Min Tang4, Runxin Wang3, Ziyue Xia1,5, Zhiyan Xu1,5, Miao Sun1, Xiaofeng Bao1, Hongxing Gui6, Hui Wang1.
Abstract
Background: Functional constipation (FC) is a common gastrointestinal (GI) disorder characterized by symptoms of constipation without a clear physiologic or anatomic cause. Gut microbiome dysbiosis has been postulated to be a factor in the development of FC, and treatment with probiotic regimens, including strains of Lactobacillus plantarum (L. plantarum), has demonstrated efficacy in managing symptoms. To further understand the role of L. plantarum in GI health, we conducted an animal study and a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial to evaluate the effect of a specific sub-strain, Lp3a, on FC.Entities:
Keywords: Functional constipation (FC); Lactobacillus plantarum; gut microbiota; whole genome sequencing (WGS)
Year: 2022 PMID: 35434041 PMCID: PMC9011319 DOI: 10.21037/atm-22-458
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ann Transl Med ISSN: 2305-5839
The effects of probiotics on intestinal motion in mice
| Groups | Ink propulsion rate (%) | P value |
|---|---|---|
| High-dose group | 64.00±17.36 | 0.012* |
| Middle-dose group | 61.39±16.51 | 0.037* |
| Low-dose group | 65.39±18.77 | 0.009* |
| CCG | 41.08±9.74 | 0.000# |
| NCG | 87.05±8.59 | – |
*, compared to CCG; #, compared to NCG. CCG, constipation control group; NCG, negative (healthy) control group.
The effects of probiotics on defecation in mice
| Groups | Time to first defecation (min) | P value | Grains in stool | P value | Weight of stool (g) | P value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| High-dose group | 111.9±36.8 | 0.765* | 13.7±4.2 | 0.045* | 0.332±0.081 | 0.010* |
| Middle-dose group | 113.9±43.0 | 0.833* | 10.6±3.2 | 0.770* | 0.251±0.099 | 0.618* |
| Low-dose group | 125.3±48.8 | 0.999* | 10.1±4.1 | 0.916* | 0.233±0.097 | 0.904* |
| CCG | 128.7±43.3 | 0.030# | 8.9±2.4 | 0.004# | 0.206±0.066 | 0.001# |
| NCG | 78.6±29.5 | – | 15.4±6.0 | – | 0.365±0.099 | – |
*, compared to CCG; #, compared to NCG. CCG, constipation control group; NCG, negative (healthy) control group.
Figure 1Flow chart demonstrating the design of the clinical trial.
Baseline characteristics between the treatment and control groups
| Variables | Placebo (n=58) | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Female/male | 43/16 | 35/23 | 0.150# |
| Age (years) | 45.80±12.03 | 43.07±9.36 | 0.174* |
| Stool frequency (times/week) | 1.61±0.49 | 1.62±0.49 | 0.908* |
| Defecation condition | 1.64±1.06 | 1.66±1.07 | 0.955* |
| Stool form (Bristol scale) | 0.93±0.76 | 0.97±0.82 | 0.820* |
| Daily fiber intake (%) | 27.99±4.52 | 28.56±3.56 | 0.447* |
*, data compared by t-test; #, data compared by chi-square test.
Comparison of constipation symptoms and diet before and after treatment
| Variables | Placebo (n=58) | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stool frequency (#/week) | |||
| Before trial | 1.61±0.49 | 1.62±0.49 | 0.908* |
| After trial | 2.75±0.94 | 1.66±0.55 | 0.000* |
| Margin | –1.14±0.75 | –0.03±0.53 | 0.000* |
| Comparison within group ( | –11.579, 0.000# | –0.497, 0.621# | |
| Defecation condition | |||
| Before trial | 1.64±1.06 | 1.66±1.07 | 0.955* |
| After trial | 1.03±0.96 | 1.66±1.12 | 0.002* |
| Margin | 0.61±0.49 | 0.00±0.50 | 0.000* |
| Comparison within group ( | 9.528, 0.000# | 0.000, 1.000# | |
| Stool form (Bristol scale) | |||
| Before trial | 0.93±0.76 | 0.97±0.82 | 0.820* |
| After trial | 0.53±0.57 | 0.95±0.83 | 0.002* |
| Margin | 0.41±0.56 | 0.02±0.40 | 0.000* |
| Comparison within group ( | 5.572, 0.000# | 0.331, 0.742# | |
| Daily fiber intake (%) | |||
| Before trial | 27.99±4.52 | 28.56±3.56 | 0.447* |
| After trial | 28.10±4.07 | 27.74±4.19 | 0.643* |
| Margin | –0.11±5.86 | 0.82±4.72 | 0.347* |
| Comparison within group ( | –0.150, 0.881# | 1.314, 0.194# |
*, data compared by independent t-test; #, data compared by paired t-test.
Figure 2Analyses of microbiome composition in pre- and post-treatment fecal samples by 16S rRNA sequencing: (A) The principal component analysis (PCA) revealed no difference in composition between the pre- and post-treatment fecal samples at the phylum level (P=0.479, ANOSIM). (B) The PCA analysis revealed no difference in composition between the pre- and post-treatment fecal samples at the genus level (P=0.841, ANOSIM). (C) The relative abundance of microbial phyla between the pre- and post-treatment samples was indistinguishable (P=0.479, ANOSIM analysis). (D) The relative abundance of microbial genera between the pre- and post-treatment samples was indistinguishable (P=0.841, ANOSIM).
Figure 3Analyses of microbiome composition differences in major genera and species between the pre- and post-treatment fecal samples by the Wilcoxon rank-sum test: (A) bar plots demonstrating no significant changes in major genera abundance between the pre- and post-treatment (red and blue, respectively) fecal samples (all P>0.05, Wilcoxon rank-sum test); (B) bar plots demonstrating no significant difference in abundance of major species between the pre- and post-treatment fecal samples (all P>0.05, Wilcoxon rank-sum test).
Figure 4Clusters of Orthologous Group (COG) and Gene Ontology (GO) classifications of functional proteins in the genome of L. plantarum L p3a: (A) protein-coding genes were clustered into 20 COG functional categories, including general function prediction only (484 unigenes), function unknown (352 unigenes), carbohydrate transport and metabolism (235 unigenes), amino acid transport (199 unigenes), and metabolism and transcription (198 unigenes); (B) protein-coding genes were clustered into 31 major GO subclasses, including molecular function (10 unigenes), biological process (11 unigenes), and cellular component (10 unigenes).