| Title |
Differences Between the Intestinal Lumen Microbiota of Aberrant Crypt Foci (ACF)-Bearing and Non-bearing Rats
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Digestive Diseases and Sciences, July 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10620-018-5180-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Xiuli Xiao, Wenbo Long, Tingyu Huang, Tian Xia, Rupei Ye, Yong Liu, Hanan Long |
| Abstract |
Multiple factors including host-microbiota interaction could contribute to the conversion of healthy mucosa to sporadic precancerous lesions. An imbalance of the gut microbiota may be a cause or consequence of this process. The goal was to investigate and analyze the composition of gut microbiota during the genesis of precancerous lesions of colorectal cancer. To analyze the composition of gut microbiota in the genesis of precancerous lesions, a rat model of 1, 2-dimethylhydrazine (DMH)-induced aberrant crypt foci (ACF) was established. The feces of these rats and healthy rats were collected for 16S rRNA sequencing. The diversity and density of the rat intestinal microbiota were significantly different between ACF-bearing and non-bearing group. ACF were induced in rats treated with DMH and showed increased expression of the inflammatory cytokines IL-6, IL-8, and TNF-α. Firmicutes was the most predominant phylum in both ACF-bearing and non-bearing group, followed by Bacteroidetes. Interestingly, although the density of Bacteroidetes decreased from the fifth week to the 17th week in both groups, it was significantly reduced in ACF-bearing group at the 13th week (P < 0.01). At the genus level, no significant difference was observed in the most predominant genus, Lactobacillus. Instead, Bacteroides and Prevotella were significantly less abundant (P < 0.01), while Akkermansia was significantly more abundant (P < 0.05) in ACF-bearing group at the 13th week. Imbalance of the intestinal microbiota existed between ACF-bearing and non-bearing rats, which could be used as biomarker to predict the genesis of precancerous lesions in the gut. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 20 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Lecturer | 3 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 15% |
| Other | 2 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 10% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 6 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 25% |
| Engineering | 3 | 15% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 2 | 10% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 5% |
| Neuroscience | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 7 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 19 July 2018.
All research outputs
#6,107,914
of 23,854,458 outputs
Outputs from Digestive Diseases and Sciences
#985
of 4,304 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#101,077
of 329,623 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Digestive Diseases and Sciences
#11
of 70 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,854,458 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,304 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 329,623 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 70 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.