Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Structural and Functional Differences in Small Intestinal and Fecal Microbiota: 16S rRNA Gene Investigation in Rats
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Structural and Functional Differences in Small Intestinal and Fecal Microbiota: 16S rRNA Gene Investigation in Rats
Do you wish to request the book?
Structural and Functional Differences in Small Intestinal and Fecal Microbiota: 16S rRNA Gene Investigation in Rats
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Structural and Functional Differences in Small Intestinal and Fecal Microbiota: 16S rRNA Gene Investigation in Rats
2024
Overview
To compare the differences in floral composition and functions between the two types of microbiota, ileal contents and feces were collected from Sprague Dawley (SD) rats fed in a conventional or specific-pathogen free (SPF) environment and rats fed a high-fat diet (HFD), and the V3–V4 region of the 16S ribosomal ribonucleic acid (rRNA) gene in these rats was then amplified and sequenced. Compared with feces, about 60% of the bacterial genera in the ileum were exclusive, with low abundance (operational taxonomic units (OTUs) < 1000). Of bacteria shared between the ileum and feces, a few genera were highly abundant (dominant), whereas most had low abundance (less dominant). The dominant bacteria differed between the ileum and feces. Ileal bacteria showed greater β-diversity, and the distance between in-group samples was nearer than that between paired ileum–feces samples. Moreover, the ileum shared various biomarkers and functions with feces (p < 0.05). The HFD and SPF conditions had a profound influence on α-diversity and abundance but not on the exclusive/shared features or β-diversity of samples. The present findings suggested that, under conventional circumstances, fecal bacteria can represent approximately 40% of the low abundant ileal bacterial genera and that dominant fecal bacteria failed to represent the ileal dominant flora. Moreover, fecal flora diversity does not reflect β-diversity in the ileum.
