| Literature DB >> 35846747 |
Chenxia Lu1, Hui Zhu1, Dan Zhao1, Jia Zhang2, Kai Yang3, Yi Lv2, Miao Peng2, Xi Xu2, Jingjing Huang2, Zuoyu Shao1,2,4,5, Mingzhong Xiao1,2,4,5, Xiaodong Li1,2,4,5.
Abstract
Objective: The objective of this study was to identify the biological correlation between the tongue coating color and oral and gut micro-characteristics in metabolic-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) patients. Method: The characteristics of the tongue coating were examined using an automatic tongue diagnosis system. Tongue coating and stool samples were collected from 38 MAFLD patients, and 16S rDNA full-length assembly sequencing technology (16S-FAST) was used for bioinformatic analysis.Entities:
Keywords: 16S rDNA full-length assembly sequencing technology analysis; lab color mode; metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease; oral-intestinal microbiome; tongue coating
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35846747 PMCID: PMC9277304 DOI: 10.3389/fcimb.2022.787143
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Cell Infect Microbiol ISSN: 2235-2988 Impact factor: 6.073
Recent research about L*a*b* values.
| References | Variables | |
|---|---|---|
|
| ||
|
| The | |
|
| ||
|
| The |
Figure 1Program flowchart.
Characteristics of the two groups.
| Group | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| White Coating Group | 66.73 ± 7.76 | 9.15 ± 3.32 | 1.80 ± 3.45 |
| Yellow Coating Group | 48.32 ± 9.52 | 16.88 ± 2.94 | 9.53 ± 3.81 |
| 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | |
Figure 2Images of the two groups. (A) Female with an a* value of 7.46 and b* value of 3.65. (B) Male with an a* value of 8.46 and b* value of 3.71. Both (A) and (B) are in the White Coating Group. (C) Female with an a* value of 15.82 and b* value of 10.72. (D) Male with an a* value of 13.83 and b* value of 13.28. Both (C, D) are in the Yellow Coating Group.
Characteristics of MAFLD patients in the two groups.
| Characteristic | White Coating Group | Yellow Coating Group | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age in years, median (min–max) | 30 (22–34) | 30 (21–38) | 0.756 |
| Gender | |||
| Male n (%) | 16 (72.73) | 8 (50) | 0.187 |
| Female n (%) | 6 (27.27) | 8 (50) | |
| Severity of fatty liver | |||
| Mild fatty liver, n (%) | 7 (31.82) | 6 (37.50) | 0.120 |
| Moderate fatty liver, n (%) | 10 (45.45) | 10 (62.50) | |
| Severe fatty liver, n (%) | 5 (22.73) | 0 (0.00) | |
| ALT, U/L, median (min–max) | 46.5 (20.75, 71) | 33.50 (24.00, 95.25) | 0.976 |
| AST, U/L, median (min–max) | 28 (20.75, 39.25) | 26.00 (20.00, 41.25) | 0.745 |
| CHOL, mmol/L, median (min–max) | 4.88 (4.16, 5.66) | 4.51 (4.08, 5.36) | 0.383 |
| TG, mmol/L, median (min–max) | 1.69 (1.10, 2.32) | 1.69 (1.27, 2.29) | 0.894 |
| HDL-C, mmol/L, median (min–max) | 1.06 (0.95, 1.15) | 1.00 (0.99, 1.21) | 0.756 |
| LDL-C, mmol/L, median (min–max) | 3.12 (2.48, 3.94) | 2.66 (2.33, 3.36) | 0.132 |
| HOMA-IR, mmol/L, median (min–max) | 3.83 (2.38, 7.14) | 4.69 (3.34, 7.61) | 0.533 |
| MONO%, median (min–max) | 5.5 (4.93, 6.55) | 7.15 (6.43, 8.38) | 0.010 |
| MHR (MONO%/HDL-C) | 5.01 (4.27, 6.36) | 6.34 (5.60, 9.55) | 0.019 |
| Weight (kg) | 97.46 ± 19.89 | 92.50 ± 12.17 | 0.383 |
| Protein (kg) | 12.02 ± 1.95 | 11.17 ± 2.05 | 0.206 |
| Minerals (kg) | 4.15 ± 0.64 | 3.89 ± 0.66 | 0.235 |
| BFM (kg) | 36.78 ± 13.54 | 35.89 ± 6.79 | 0.810 |
| SLM (kg) | 57.24 ± 9.42 | 53.37 ± 9.56 | 0.222 |
| FFM (kg) | 60.67 ± 9.93 | 56.60 ± 10.10 | 0.224 |
| SMM (kg) | 34.29 ± 5.91 | 31.75 ± 6.22 | 0.209 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 32.93 ± 5.66 | 32.65 ± 3.09 | 0.856 |
| Overweight n (%) | 4 (18.18) | 0 (0) | 0.124 |
| Obesity n (%) | 18 (81.82) | 16 (100) | |
| PBF (%) | 36.94 ± 8.07 | 38.90 ± 6.06 | 0.418 |
| BMR (kJ/m2·h) | 1681 ± 214 | 1593 ± 218 | 0.224 |
| WHR | 0.98 ± 0.08 | 0.97 ± 0.05 | 0.566 |
| VFA (cm2) | 165.09 ± 61.69 | 166.05 ± 35.27 | 0.956 |
| Circumference of the neck (cm) | 40.40 ± 3.38 | 39.80 ± 2.85 | 0.563 |
AST, aspartate aminotransferase; ALT, alanine aminotransferase; CHOL, cholesterol; TG, triglyceride; HDL-C, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol; LDL-C, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol; MONO, monocytes; HOMA-IR, homeostasis model assessment-insulin resistance; BFM, body fat mass; SLM, soft lean mass; FFM, fat-free mass; SMM, skeletal muscle mass.
Figure 3Tongue coating and intestinal microbial information from MAFLD patients. Microbial diversity, which was calculated by the Shannon index (A) and Simpson index (B), showed no significant differences between the two groups (p > 0.05). (C, D) showed a statistically different flora at the class level. (E, F) showed a statistically different flora at the genus level.
Figure 4Heat map of the correlation between tongue coating bacteria and the tongue image parameters. Red represents positive correlation and blue represents negative correlation; the darker the color, the stronger the correlation. (A) Four genera in the White Coating Group that were significantly related to L*a*b* values. (B) Thirteen genera in the Yellow Coating Group significantly related to L*a*b* values. (C) Tongue flora in both groups significantly related to L*a*b* values.
Figure 5Distribution of intestinal flora. (A) The distribution of different groups at the genus level is shown in the bar chart. (B) Bacterial communities with statistical differences between the two groups are shown in the boxplot. In (C, D), the correlation between tongue coating bacteria and intestinal bacteria in the White Coating Group and Yellow Coating Group, respectively, are shown in the heatmap.
Figure 6Histogram of functional prediction for different groups of bacteria.