Comparison of the gut microbiome composition among individuals with acute or long-standing spinal cord injury vs. able-bodied controls.

The Journal of Spinal Cord Medicine Pub Date : 2022-01-01 Epub Date: 2020-06-04 DOI:10.1080/10790268.2020.1769949
Jia Li, William Van Der Pol, Mualla Eraslan, Amie McLain, Hatice Cetin, Baris Cetin, Casey Morrow, Tiffany Carson, Ceren Yarar-Fisher
{"title":"Comparison of the gut microbiome composition among individuals with acute or long-standing spinal cord injury vs. able-bodied controls.","authors":"Jia Li, William Van Der Pol, Mualla Eraslan, Amie McLain, Hatice Cetin, Baris Cetin, Casey Morrow, Tiffany Carson, Ceren Yarar-Fisher","doi":"10.1080/10790268.2020.1769949","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Objective</b>: Compare the gut microbiome composition among individuals with acute spinal cord injury (A-SCI), long-standing SCI (L-SCI), vs. able-bodied (AB) controls.<b>Design</b>: Cross-sectional study.<b>Setting</b>: The University of Alabama at Birmingham.<b>Participants</b>: Seven adults with A-SCI (36 ± 12 years, 2F/5M, C4-T10, and American Spinal Injury Association Impairment Scale [AIS] A-D), 25 with L-SCI (46 ± 13 years, 6F/19M, C4-L1, and AIS A-D), and 25 AB controls (42 ± 13 years, 9F/16M).<b>Methods</b>: Stool samples were collected after a median of 7 days and 18 years after injury in the A-SCI and L-SCI groups, respectively. Gut microbiome composition was analyzed using the 16S rRNA sequencing technique and QIIME software. The abundances of bacteria communities among groups were compared using the Kruskal-Wallis test adjusted for age.<b>Results</b>: Several alpha diversity indices were different among groups (Chao1, Observed species, and Phylogenetic Diversity), but not others (Shannon and Simpson). Beta diversity differed among each pair of groups (<i>P</i> < 0.05). A number of microbial communities were differentially abundant among the groups (<i>P</i> < 0.05).<b>Conclusion</b>: Our results revealed differences in the gut microbiome composition among groups. Compared to the AB controls, the SCI groups demonstrated microbiome profiles that shared features linked to metabolic syndrome, inflammation-related bowel disorders, depressive disorders, or antibiotics use, whereas the L-SCI group's microbiome included features linked to reduced physical activity compared to the A-SCI and AB controls. Our results provided preliminary data and a scientific foundation for future studies investigating the impact of the gut microbiome composition on long-term health in individuals with SCI.</p>","PeriodicalId":501560,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Spinal Cord Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"91-99"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8890582/pdf/YSCM_45_1769949.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of Spinal Cord Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10790268.2020.1769949","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/6/4 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Compare the gut microbiome composition among individuals with acute spinal cord injury (A-SCI), long-standing SCI (L-SCI), vs. able-bodied (AB) controls.Design: Cross-sectional study.Setting: The University of Alabama at Birmingham.Participants: Seven adults with A-SCI (36 ± 12 years, 2F/5M, C4-T10, and American Spinal Injury Association Impairment Scale [AIS] A-D), 25 with L-SCI (46 ± 13 years, 6F/19M, C4-L1, and AIS A-D), and 25 AB controls (42 ± 13 years, 9F/16M).Methods: Stool samples were collected after a median of 7 days and 18 years after injury in the A-SCI and L-SCI groups, respectively. Gut microbiome composition was analyzed using the 16S rRNA sequencing technique and QIIME software. The abundances of bacteria communities among groups were compared using the Kruskal-Wallis test adjusted for age.Results: Several alpha diversity indices were different among groups (Chao1, Observed species, and Phylogenetic Diversity), but not others (Shannon and Simpson). Beta diversity differed among each pair of groups (P < 0.05). A number of microbial communities were differentially abundant among the groups (P < 0.05).Conclusion: Our results revealed differences in the gut microbiome composition among groups. Compared to the AB controls, the SCI groups demonstrated microbiome profiles that shared features linked to metabolic syndrome, inflammation-related bowel disorders, depressive disorders, or antibiotics use, whereas the L-SCI group's microbiome included features linked to reduced physical activity compared to the A-SCI and AB controls. Our results provided preliminary data and a scientific foundation for future studies investigating the impact of the gut microbiome composition on long-term health in individuals with SCI.

Abstract Image

急性或长期脊髓损伤个体与健全对照组肠道微生物组成的比较
目的:比较急性脊髓损伤(A-SCI)、长期脊髓损伤(L-SCI)和健全(AB)对照者肠道微生物组的组成。设计:横断面研究。环境:阿拉巴马大学伯明翰分校。参与者:7名成人A-SCI(36±12岁,2F/5M, C4-T10,和美国脊髓损伤协会损伤量表[AIS] A-D), 25名L-SCI(46±13岁,6F/19M, C4-L1,和AIS A-D), 25名AB对照组(42±13岁,9F/16M)。方法:a - sci组和L-SCI组分别在伤后7天和18年收集粪便样本。采用16S rRNA测序技术和QIIME软件分析肠道微生物组组成。各组间细菌群落的丰度采用经年龄调整的Kruskal-Wallis检验进行比较。结果:不同类群的α多样性指数(Chao1、Observed species和Phylogenetic diversity)不同,而Shannon和Simpson类群的α多样性指数不同。结论:我们的研究结果揭示了各组之间肠道微生物组组成的差异。与AB对照组相比,SCI组显示出与代谢综合征、炎症相关肠道疾病、抑郁症或抗生素使用相关的微生物组特征,而与A-SCI和AB对照组相比,L-SCI组的微生物组包含与体力活动减少相关的特征。我们的研究结果为进一步研究肠道微生物组对脊髓损伤患者长期健康的影响提供了初步数据和科学基础。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信