Copyright
©The Author(s) 2019.
World J Gastroenterol. Mar 28, 2019; 25(12): 1478-1491
Published online Mar 28, 2019. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v25.i12.1478
Published online Mar 28, 2019. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v25.i12.1478
Table 1 General characteristics of the subjects (n = 80)
n (%) | |
Gender | |
Male | 30 (37.50) |
Female | 50 (62.50) |
Ethnicity | |
Javanese | 34 (42.50) |
Balinese | 40 (50.00) |
Chinese | 3 (3.75) |
Ambonese | 1 (1.25) |
Bugis | 1 (1.25) |
Melayu | 1 (1.25) |
Weight (kg) (mean ± SD) | 55.65 (14.35) |
Height (cm) (mean ± SD) | 156.07 (10.54) |
Body mass index (kg/m2) (mean ± SD) | 22.57 (4.54) |
Table 2 Microbiota profile comparison (based on Yakult intestinal flora-scan)
No | Log10 bacterial cells/g feces mean ± SD (detection rate %) | ||||
Type of Bacteria | Yogyakarta | Bali | |||
Young | Elderly | Young | Elderly | ||
Phylum Firmicutes | |||||
1 | Clostridium coccoides group | 9.9 ± 0.5 (100) | 9.3 ± 1.2a (100) | 9.9 ± 0.5 (100) | 9.4 ± 0.5c (100) |
2 | Clostridium leptum subgroup | 9.7 ± 0.4 (100) | 9.3 ± 1.1 (100) | 9.6 ± 0.5 (100) | 9.4 ± 0.6c (100) |
3 | Clostridium perfringens | 5.6 ± 0.9 (100) | 5.0 ± 1.1 (85) | 6.7 ± 1.2e (100) | 6.9 ± 1.4f (95) |
4 | Clostridium difficile | - (0) | - (0) | - (0) | - (0) |
5 | Total Lactobacillus | 6.7 ± 1.1 (95) | 7.2 ± 1.2 (95) | 6.8 ± 1.1 (100) | 7.1 ± 1.2 (100) |
6 | Lactobacillus plantarum subgroup | 5.0 ± 1.0 (100) | 4.1 ± 0.8a (85) | 5.1 ± 1.1 (100) | 4.8 ± 0.8f (100) |
7 | Lactobacillus gasseri subgroup | 5.4 ± 1.1 (100) | 6.4 ± 1.6a (90) | 5.5 ± 1.2 (100) | 5.6 ± 1.7 (90) |
8 | Lactobacillus reuteri subgroup | 4.6 ± 0.8 (95) | 5.3 ± 1.4a (90) | 4.5 ± 0.9 (90) | 4.9 ± 1.3 (100) |
9 | Lactobacillus ruminis subgroup | 6.8 ± 1.6 (45) | 7.6 ± 0.9 (35) | 6.4 ± 1.7 (80e) | 7.4 ± 1.3c (70f) |
10 | Lactobacillus casei subgroup | 3.7 ± 0.6 (40) | 4.9 ± 1.0a (25) | 3.8 ± 0.8 (40) | 3.6 ± 000.8f (35) |
11 | Lactobacillus sakei subgroup | 3.6 ± 0.5 (35) | 0b | 3.1 ± 0.6 (55) | 3.0 ± 0.6 (30f) |
12 | Lactobacillus fermentum | 5.3 ± 0.8 (75) | 5.9 ± 1.1 (80) | 5.3 ± 0.8 (55) | 5.1 ± 0.8f (60) |
13 | Lactobacillus brevis | 3.9 ± 0.8 (50) | 4.0 ± 0.9 (15a) | 4.7 ± 0.9 (35) | 3.7 ± 0.8 (40) |
14 | Lactobacillus fructivorans | - (0) | - (0) | - (0) | - (0) |
15 | Enterococcus | 7.4 ± 0.7 (90) | 7.1 ± 1.0 (90) | 7.4 ± 0.9 (95) | 7.9 ± 1.1f (95) |
16 | Streptococcus | 8.4 ± 0.5 (95) | 7.5 ± 1.6a (75) | 8.0 ± 0.7 (95) | 8.2 ± 0.7 (45d) |
17 | Staphylococcus | 5.3 ± 0.5 (100) | 5.1 ± 1.1 (90) | 5.0 ± 0.6 (100) | 5.2 ± 1.0 (100) |
Phylum Bacteroidetes | |||||
18 | B. fragilis group | 8.9 ± 0.7 (100) | 8.3 ± 1.1 (100) | 9.3 ± 0.6 (100) | 7.9 ± 1.1c (100) |
19 | Prevotella | 10.0 ± 1.2 (85) | 9.1 ± 1.6a (75) | 9.4 ± 1.9 (80) | 9.0 ± 1.1c (85) |
Phylum Actinobacteria | |||||
20 | Atopobium cluster | 9.1 ± 0.6 (100) | 8.9 ± 0.7 (100) | 8.9 ± 0.7 (100) | 9.0 ± 0.5 (100) |
21 | Bifidobacterium | 9.4 ± 0.6 (100) | 8.4 ± 1.3a (100) | 8.6 ± 0.9f (100) | 8.4 ± 1.2 (100) |
Phylum Proteobacteria | |||||
22 | Enterobacteriaceae | 7.3 ± 0.8 (100) | 7.8 ± 1.6 (100) | 7.6 ± 0.9 (100) | 8.4 ± 0.8c (100) |
23 | Pseudomonas | 4.1 ± 0.6 (25) | 4.7 ± 1.0 (30) | 3.1 ± 0.0 (10) | 4.2 ± 0.8 (55d) |
24 | Total Bacteria | 10.6 ± 0.4 (100) | 10.0 ± 1.0a(100) | 10.5 ± 0.5 (100) | 10.1 ± 0.5c (100) |
Table 3 Microbiota profile (culture method) in young and elderly subjects
Microbiota (Log10 CFU/g feces) | mean ± SD (detection rate %) | P value | |
Younger (n = 40) | Elderly (n = 40) | ||
Coliform | 6.80 ± 0.83 (100) | 7.20 ± 0.73 (100) | 0.028 |
Escherichia coli | 6.87 ± 0.74 (100) | 7.29 ± 0.78 (100) | 0.016 |
Yeast | 4.17 ± 0.51 (53) | 4.28 ± 0.50 (43) | 0.411 |
Mold | 0.0 ± 0.0 (0) | 3.68 ± 0.27 (8) | - |
Lactobacillus plantarum | 4.16 ± 0.85 (8) | 4.16 ± 0.03 (5) | 1.000 |
Total LAB | 7.03 ± 0.83 (100) | 7.67 ± 1.23 (100) | 0.008 |
Table 4 Comparison between qPCR and culture method
- Citation: Rahayu ES, Utami T, Mariyatun M, Hasan PN, Kamil RZ, Setyawan RH, Pamungkaningtyas FH, Harahap IA, Wiryohanjoyo DV, Pramesi PC, Cahyanto MN, Sujaya IN, Juffrie M. Gut microbiota profile in healthy Indonesians. World J Gastroenterol 2019; 25(12): 1478-1491
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/v25/i12/1478.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v25.i12.1478