Cargando…

Separating “good” from “bad” faecal dysbiosis – evidence from two cross-sectional studies

BACKGROUND: Faecal dysbiosis associated with the use of metformin has been conceived as a favourable (“good”) dysbiosis and that with intake of non-nutritive sweeteners (NNS) as unfavourable (“bad”). The study aimed to construct an alternative dysbiosis index (ADI) for the separation of the dysbiose...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Farup, Per G., Aasbrenn, Martin, Valeur, Jørgen
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6276176/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30524735
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40608-018-0207-3
_version_ 1783377961156608000
author Farup, Per G.
Aasbrenn, Martin
Valeur, Jørgen
author_facet Farup, Per G.
Aasbrenn, Martin
Valeur, Jørgen
author_sort Farup, Per G.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Faecal dysbiosis associated with the use of metformin has been conceived as a favourable (“good”) dysbiosis and that with intake of non-nutritive sweeteners (NNS) as unfavourable (“bad”). The study aimed to construct an alternative dysbiosis index (ADI) for the separation of the dysbioses into “good” and “bad”, and to validate the ADI. METHODS: Subjects with morbid obesity were included. Use of NNS and drugs were noted, IBS was classified according to the Rome III criteria and the severity measured with the Irritable bowel severity scoring system (IBSSS). Faecal dysbiosis was tested with GA-Map ™ Dysbiosis test (Genetic Analysis AS, Oslo, Norway). The result was given as Dysbiosis Index (DI) scores 1–5, score > 2 indicates dysbiosis. An ADI was constructed and validated in subjects with IBS at another hospital. RESULTS: Seventy-six women and 14 men aged 44.7 years (SD 8.6) with BMI 41.8 kg/m(2) (SD 3.6) were included. Dysbiosis was associated with the use of NNS and metformin, but not with IBS or IBSSS. An ADI based on differences in 7 bacteria was positively and negatively associated with the “good” metformin dysbiosis and the “bad” NNS dysbiosis respectively. The ADI was also negatively associated with IBSSS (a “bad” dysbiosis). The negative associations between ADI and IBS and IBSS were confirmed in the validation group. CONCLUSIONS: The new ADI, but not the DI, allowed separation of the “good” and “bad” faecal dysbiosis. Rather than merely reporting dysbiosis and degrees of dysbiosis, future diagnostic tests should distinguish between types of dysbiosis.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6276176
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-62761762018-12-06 Separating “good” from “bad” faecal dysbiosis – evidence from two cross-sectional studies Farup, Per G. Aasbrenn, Martin Valeur, Jørgen BMC Obes Research Article BACKGROUND: Faecal dysbiosis associated with the use of metformin has been conceived as a favourable (“good”) dysbiosis and that with intake of non-nutritive sweeteners (NNS) as unfavourable (“bad”). The study aimed to construct an alternative dysbiosis index (ADI) for the separation of the dysbioses into “good” and “bad”, and to validate the ADI. METHODS: Subjects with morbid obesity were included. Use of NNS and drugs were noted, IBS was classified according to the Rome III criteria and the severity measured with the Irritable bowel severity scoring system (IBSSS). Faecal dysbiosis was tested with GA-Map ™ Dysbiosis test (Genetic Analysis AS, Oslo, Norway). The result was given as Dysbiosis Index (DI) scores 1–5, score > 2 indicates dysbiosis. An ADI was constructed and validated in subjects with IBS at another hospital. RESULTS: Seventy-six women and 14 men aged 44.7 years (SD 8.6) with BMI 41.8 kg/m(2) (SD 3.6) were included. Dysbiosis was associated with the use of NNS and metformin, but not with IBS or IBSSS. An ADI based on differences in 7 bacteria was positively and negatively associated with the “good” metformin dysbiosis and the “bad” NNS dysbiosis respectively. The ADI was also negatively associated with IBSSS (a “bad” dysbiosis). The negative associations between ADI and IBS and IBSS were confirmed in the validation group. CONCLUSIONS: The new ADI, but not the DI, allowed separation of the “good” and “bad” faecal dysbiosis. Rather than merely reporting dysbiosis and degrees of dysbiosis, future diagnostic tests should distinguish between types of dysbiosis. BioMed Central 2018-12-03 /pmc/articles/PMC6276176/ /pubmed/30524735 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40608-018-0207-3 Text en © The Author(s). 2018 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Farup, Per G.
Aasbrenn, Martin
Valeur, Jørgen
Separating “good” from “bad” faecal dysbiosis – evidence from two cross-sectional studies
title Separating “good” from “bad” faecal dysbiosis – evidence from two cross-sectional studies
title_full Separating “good” from “bad” faecal dysbiosis – evidence from two cross-sectional studies
title_fullStr Separating “good” from “bad” faecal dysbiosis – evidence from two cross-sectional studies
title_full_unstemmed Separating “good” from “bad” faecal dysbiosis – evidence from two cross-sectional studies
title_short Separating “good” from “bad” faecal dysbiosis – evidence from two cross-sectional studies
title_sort separating “good” from “bad” faecal dysbiosis – evidence from two cross-sectional studies
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6276176/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30524735
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40608-018-0207-3
work_keys_str_mv AT farupperg separatinggoodfrombadfaecaldysbiosisevidencefromtwocrosssectionalstudies
AT aasbrennmartin separatinggoodfrombadfaecaldysbiosisevidencefromtwocrosssectionalstudies
AT valeurjørgen separatinggoodfrombadfaecaldysbiosisevidencefromtwocrosssectionalstudies