The three groups of children under study were matched by age cons

The three Mocetinostat mw groups of children under study were matched by age considering the variability of the composition of human microbiota during the first years of life. Total Gram-positive bacterial populations were the highest in healthy controls and the lowest in untreated CD patients, while it reached intermediate values in treated CD. These differences were statistically significant (P = 0.004) between untreated CD patients and controls (Figure 2A). Gram-positive bacterial levels did not normalize completely after a long-term GFD in treated CD patients, although the differences did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.203) when

compared with controls. AZD5363 Total Gram-negative bacteria reached similar values (ranging from 27.5 to 32.7%) in faeces from the three population groups (P = 0.323-0.650; Figure 2A).

The ratio of total Gram-positive to Gram-negative bacteria was the highest in healthy controls and significantly reduced in treated CD patients (P = 0.045) and even more in untreated CD patients (P = 0.006). Figure 2 General composition of the faecal microbiota of untreated (white bars) and treated CD patients (grey bars) and healthy controls (black bars) as assessed by FISH and FCM. Data are expressed as proportions of bacterial cells hybridising with group-specific probes to total bacteria hybridising with EUB probe 338. Total Gram-negative bacteria and Gram-positive bacteria were MI-503 order calculated by adding the relative proportions of the corresponding groups detected by using group-specific probes. Median values and ranges are Histamine H2 receptor given. *Significant differences were established at P < 0.05 by

applying the Mann-Whitney U-test. Table 1 Faecal microbiota composition of untreated and treated CD patients and age-matched healthy controls assessed by FISH and FCM Microbial groups Specific group-probed cells/EUB-388 cells (%)1   Untreated CD (n = 24) Treated CD (n = 18) Control (n = 20)   Median Range Median Range Median Range Bifidobacterium 7.73 22.08-3.27 9.20 33.82-1.58 12.54 33.68-6.94 C. histolyticum 5.26 27.61-0.71 9.41 39.60-2.95 11.61 35.69-0.16 C. lituseburense 3.23 27.24-0.17 4.41 29.85-0.28 6.83 19.56-1.05 Lactobacillus-Enterococcus 1.94 10.93-0.14 1.12 9.30-0.22 1.76 16.47-0.25 Staphylococcus 10.36 37.38-0.89 16.49 42.91-0.51 18.04 41.32-0.19 Bacteroides-Prevotella 3.54 20.85-0.80 2.61 15.07-0.25 2.32 5.53-0.33 E. coli 5.20 23.42-0.48 6.39 28.77-0.55 7.32 28.26-1.10 F. prausnitzii 6.03 37.50-1.07 11.09 37.84-2.95 13.88 37.08-2.32 Sulphate-reducing bacteria 9.58 38.02-2.84 9.82 41.74-2.09 10.02 36.92-2.92 1 Data were expressed as proportions of bacterial cells hybridising with group-specific probes to total bacteria hybridising with EUB probe 338. * Statistical significant differences were calculated using the Mann-Whitney U-test and established at P < 0.050.

Related posts:

  1. In other words, adaptation measures of low-income groups are cons
  2. In this study, most of the rotavirus positive children were from
  3. In three groups a nerve defect of 20 mm was bridged with a vein g
  4. In this preliminary study, the results showed that there was an u
  5. 8%

    versus 216 6, P = 0 048 CD25high cells formed about 7
This entry was posted in Antibody. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>