Renata Rodrigues Teixeira1, Laila Santos de Andrade1, Natalia Barros Ferreira Pereira1, Horacio Montenegro2, Christian Hoffmann3, Lilian Cuppari4,5. 1. Nutrition Program, Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP), São Paulo, Brazil. 2. NGS Soluções Genômicas, São Paulo, Brazil. 3. Food Research Center, School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of São Paulo (USP), São Paulo, Brazil. 4. Nutrition Program, Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP), São Paulo, Brazil. lcuppari@uol.com.br. 5. Division of Nephrology, Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP), São Paulo, Brazil. lcuppari@uol.com.br.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Differences in patients gut microbiota composition with the potential for dysbiosis have been associated with chronic kidney disease (CKD). However, factors other than the disease itself, such as diet and cohabitation, have not been evaluated when gut microbiota of CKD patients was compared with that of healthy controls. The aim of this study was to compare the gut microbiota composition between patients on peritoneal dialysis (PD) and age-matched household contacts with normal renal function. METHODS: Fecal samples were collected from 20 patients [men: 70%; age: 53.5 years (48.2-66; median and interquartile range); length on PD: 14 months (5.2-43.5) and 20 controls. The region V4 of the 16S ribosomal RNA gene was PCR-amplified and sequenced on Illumina MiSeq platform. Dietary intake and diet quality were assessed by a 3-day food record and a diet quality index, respectively. RESULTS: No difference was found between the gut microbiota composition of patients and controls, assessed by alpha and beta diversities (p > 0.05) and genera differential abundance (p > 0.05). The most abundant phyla in both groups were Firmicutes (PD = 45%; Control: 47%; p = 0.65) and Bacteroidetes (PD = 41%; Control: 45%; p = 0.17). The phylum Proteobacteria, known as a potential marker of gut dysbiosis, was not different in proportions between groups (p > 0.05). No difference was observed regarding diet quality and dietary intake of fiber, protein and other nutrients (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Gut microbiota of patients on PD did not differ from household contacts. This result suggests that cohabitation and dietary intake might have outweighed the disease influence on gut microbiota composition of our PD patients.
BACKGROUND: Differences in patients gut microbiota composition with the potential for dysbiosis have been associated with chronic kidney disease (CKD). However, factors other than the disease itself, such as diet and cohabitation, have not been evaluated when gut microbiota of CKD patients was compared with that of healthy controls. The aim of this study was to compare the gut microbiota composition between patients on peritoneal dialysis (PD) and age-matched household contacts with normal renal function. METHODS: Fecal samples were collected from 20 patients [men: 70%; age: 53.5 years (48.2-66; median and interquartile range); length on PD: 14 months (5.2-43.5) and 20 controls. The region V4 of the 16S ribosomal RNA gene was PCR-amplified and sequenced on Illumina MiSeq platform. Dietary intake and diet quality were assessed by a 3-day food record and a diet quality index, respectively. RESULTS: No difference was found between the gut microbiota composition of patients and controls, assessed by alpha and beta diversities (p > 0.05) and genera differential abundance (p > 0.05). The most abundant phyla in both groups were Firmicutes (PD = 45%; Control: 47%; p = 0.65) and Bacteroidetes (PD = 41%; Control: 45%; p = 0.17). The phylum Proteobacteria, known as a potential marker of gut dysbiosis, was not different in proportions between groups (p > 0.05). No difference was observed regarding diet quality and dietary intake of fiber, protein and other nutrients (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Gut microbiota of patients on PD did not differ from household contacts. This result suggests that cohabitation and dietary intake might have outweighed the disease influence on gut microbiota composition of our PD patients.
Authors: Paul B Eckburg; Elisabeth M Bik; Charles N Bernstein; Elizabeth Purdom; Les Dethlefsen; Michael Sargent; Steven R Gill; Karen E Nelson; David A Relman Journal: Science Date: 2005-04-14 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Gary D Wu; Jun Chen; Christian Hoffmann; Kyle Bittinger; Ying-Yu Chen; Sue A Keilbaugh; Meenakshi Bewtra; Dan Knights; William A Walters; Rob Knight; Rohini Sinha; Erin Gilroy; Kernika Gupta; Robert Baldassano; Lisa Nessel; Hongzhe Li; Frederic D Bushman; James D Lewis Journal: Science Date: 2011-09-01 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Tanya Yatsunenko; Federico E Rey; Mark J Manary; Indi Trehan; Maria Gloria Dominguez-Bello; Monica Contreras; Magda Magris; Glida Hidalgo; Robert N Baldassano; Andrey P Anokhin; Andrew C Heath; Barbara Warner; Jens Reeder; Justin Kuczynski; J Gregory Caporaso; Catherine A Lozupone; Christian Lauber; Jose Carlos Clemente; Dan Knights; Rob Knight; Jeffrey I Gordon Journal: Nature Date: 2012-05-09 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Kimberly A Dill-McFarland; Zheng-Zheng Tang; Julia H Kemis; Robert L Kerby; Guanhua Chen; Alberto Palloni; Thomas Sorenson; Federico E Rey; Pamela Herd Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2019-01-24 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Peter J Turnbaugh; Micah Hamady; Tanya Yatsunenko; Brandi L Cantarel; Alexis Duncan; Ruth E Ley; Mitchell L Sogin; William J Jones; Bruce A Roe; Jason P Affourtit; Michael Egholm; Bernard Henrissat; Andrew C Heath; Rob Knight; Jeffrey I Gordon Journal: Nature Date: 2008-11-30 Impact factor: 49.962