| Title |
Analysis of fecal microbiota in patients with functional constipation undergoing treatment with synbiotics
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases, January 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10096-017-3149-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lin Sheng Huang, Cheng Kong, Ren Yuan Gao, Xuebing Yan, Hong Jing Yu, Bin Wen, Qi Zhu, Tong Yi Shen, Zhen Liang Sun, Huan Long Qin |
| Abstract |
This study was performed to identify changes to microbial composition after treatment with synbiotics in patients with functional constipation and to define the key microbiota in the pathogenesis of functional constipation. Fecal samples from 53 patients diagnosed with chronic functional constipation according to the Rome III criteria were analyzed using 16S rRNA sequencing. After treatment with synbiotics for 1 month, fecal samples were collected from 36 patients; after a total of 3 months, fecal samples were collected from 15 patients. The outcomes were compared with the intestinal microbiota profiles of 53 healthy community volunteers. The microbiota in the constipation group differed from that in the treatment group and healthy group. After synbiotic treatment for 1 and 3 months, the abundance of Escherichia/Shigella decreased, whereas that of Prevotella_9 and Lactococcus increased. Comparison of the microbiota among the three groups showed that Prevotella_9 was the characteristic bacteria that decreased in the constipation group and increased in the treatment group. Synbiotic treatment can improve the microbiota in patients with constipation. Identification of the key bacterial genus is important to reveal the mechanism and provide a reliable theoretical basis of synbiotic treatment. It will also promote relevant research of microbiota treatment and individualized treatments. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 35 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 10 | 29% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 11% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 3 | 9% |
| Unknown | 8 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Immunology and Microbiology | 6 | 17% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 17% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 14% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 11% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Unknown | 10 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 September 2018.
All research outputs
#3,758,399
of 23,567,034 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases
#305
of 2,820 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#81,864
of 444,374 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases
#12
of 51 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,567,034 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,820 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 444,374 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 51 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.