Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,337

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Analysis of Intestinal Flora Development in Breast‐Fed and Formula‐Fed Infants by Using Molecular Identification and Detection Methods

Harmsen, Hermie J. M., Wildeboer–Veloo, Alida C. M., Raangs, Gerwin C., Wagendorp, Arjen A., Klijn, Nicolette, Bindels, Jacques G., Welling, Gjalt W.·2000·Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition
DOI 10.1002/j.1536-4801.2000.tb02655.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background: An obvious difference between breast‐fed and formula‐fed newborn infants is the development of the intestinal flora, considered to be of importance for protection against harmful micro‐organisms and for the maturation of the intestinal immune system. In this study, novel molecular identification methods were used to verify the data obtained by traditional culture methods and to validate the culture independent fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) technique. Methods: From each of six breast‐fed and six formula‐fed newborn infants, six fecal samples were obtained during the first 20 days of life. The microbial compositions of the samples were analyzed by culturing on specific media and by FISH, by using specific 16S rRNA‐targeted oligonucleotide probes. The colonies growing on the media were identified by random amplified polymorphic DNA pattern analysis and by polymerase chain reaction amplification and subsequent analysis of the 16S rRNA gene. Results: Molecular identification of the colonies showed that the selective media are insufficiently selective and unsuitable for quantitative analyses. Qualitative information from the culturing results combined with the data obtained by the FISH technique revealed initial colonization in all infants of a complex (adult‐like) flora. After this initial colonization, a selection of bacterial strains began in all infants, in which Bifidobacterium strains played an important role. In all breast‐fed infants, bifidobacteria become dominant, whereas in most formula‐fed infants similar amounts of Bacteroides and bifidobacteria (∼40%) were found. The minor components of the fecal samples from breast‐fed infants were mainly lactobacilli and streptococci; samples from formula‐fed infants often contained staphylococci, Escherichia coli, and clostridia. Conclusions: This study confirms the differences in development of intestinal flora between breast‐fed and formula‐fed infants. The results obtained from the FISH technique were consistent. Although the repertoire of probes for this study was not yet complete, the FISH technique will probably become the method of reference for future studies designed to develop breast‐fed–like intestinal flora in formula‐fed infants.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/j.1536-4801.2000.tb02655.x

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Harmsen, H. J. M., Wildeboer–Veloo, A. C. M., Raangs, G. C., Wagendorp, A. A., Klijn, N., Bindels, J. G., & Welling, G. W.
Venue
Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2000-01
Volume
30
Issue
1
Pages
61-67
ISSN
  • 0277-2116 (ISSN-L)
  • 1536-4801
DOI
10.1002/j.1536-4801.2000.tb02655.x
OpenAlex
W2138253380
Cited by
1,337
References
3
FWCI
23.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.