Cited by 1,287Gut microbiota and healthClostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens researchOral microbiology and periodontitis research

Structural segregation of gut microbiota between colorectal cancer patients and healthy volunteers

Open access
Wang, Tingting, Cai, Guoxiang, Qiu, Yunping, Fei, Na, Zhang, Menghui, Pang, Xiaoyan, Jia, Wei, Cai, Sanjun +1 more·2012·The ISME Journal

Abstract

Despite a long-suspected role in the development of human colorectal cancer (CRC), the composition of gut microbiota in CRC patients has not been adequately described. In this study, fecal bacterial diversity in CRC patients (n=46) and healthy volunteers (n=56) were profiled by 454 pyrosequencing of the V3 region of the 16S ribosomal RNA gene. Both principal component analysis and UniFrac analysis showed structural segregation between the two populations. Forty-eight operational taxonomic units (OTUs) were identified by redundancy analysis as key variables significantly associated with the structural difference. One OTU closely related to Bacteroides fragilis was enriched in the gut microbiota of CRC patients, whereas three OTUs related to Bacteroides vulgatus and Bacteroides uniformis were enriched in that of healthy volunteers. A total of 11 OTUs belonging to the genera Enterococcus, Escherichia/Shigella, Klebsiella, Streptococcus and Peptostreptococcus were significantly more abundant in the gut microbiota of CRC patients, and 5 OTUs belonging to the genus Roseburia and other butyrate-producing bacteria of the family Lachnospiraceae were less abundant. Real-time quantitative PCR further validated the significant reduction of butyrate-producing bacteria in the gut microbiota of CRC patients by measuring the copy numbers of butyryl-coenzyme A CoA transferase genes (Mann-Whitney test, P<0.01). Reduction of butyrate producers and increase of opportunistic pathogens may constitute a major structural imbalance of gut microbiota in CRC patients.

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 · 10.1038/ismej.2011.109

Cites

65 of 65 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Enterotoxigenic Bacteroides fragilis is enriched in fecal samples of colorectal cancer patients compared with controls.

    “However, ETBF was reported to be enriched in fecal samples of patients with CRC compared with controls.35, 44, 45”
  • Compared with controls, colorectal cancer patients had lower abundances of Bifidobacterium and Lactobacillus spp. and other short-chain fatty acid-producing bacteria such as Clostridium, Roseburia, Lachnospiraceae, and Faecalibacterium prausnitzii.

    “several studies have shown that compared with controls, patients with CRC had lower abundances of Bifidobacterium and Lactobacillus spp,16, 18 and other SCFA-producing bacteria, such as the genera Clostridium and Roseburia, the family Lachnospiraceae, and Faecalibacterium prausnitzii.15, 35, 37, 45, 53, 129”

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wang, T., Cai, G., Qiu, Y., Fei, N., Zhang, M., Pang, X., Jia, W., Cai, S., & Zhao, L.
Affiliations
  • Shanghai Jiao Tong University (CN)
  • Shanghai Medical College of Fudan University (CN)
  • University of North Carolina at Greensboro (US)
Corresponding author
Zhao, Liping
Venue
The ISME Journal
Published
2011-08-18
Volume
6
Issue
2
Pages
320-329
ISSN
  • 1751-7362 (ISSN-L)
  • 1751-7370
OpenAlex
W2015567271
Cited by
1,287
References
65
Citations by year
2026: 49 · 2025: 80 · 2024: 126 · 2023: 118 · 2022: 139 · 2021: 155 · 2020: 134 · 2019: 106 · 2018: 101 · 2017: 80 · 2016: 53 · 2015: 46 · 2014: 38 · 2013: 39 · 2012: 19
FWCI
12.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The ISME Journal (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China (30730005)
  • National Science and Technology Major Project
  • National Key Research and Development Program of China
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gut microbiota and health
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › Clostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens research
  • Health Sciences › Dentistry › Periodontics › Oral microbiology and periodontitis research
Keywords
colorectal cancer, gut microbiota, microbial community structure, Bacteroides fragilis, Bacteroides vulgatus, Bacteroides uniformis, butyrate-producing bacteria, Lachnospiraceae, Roseburia, opportunistic pathogens, Enterococcus, Escherichia-Shigella, Klebsiella, Streptococcus, Peptostreptococcus, dysbiosis
MeSH terms
Acyl Coenzyme A, Adult, Aged, Bacteria, Feces, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, RNA, Ribosomal, 16S, Colorectal Neoplasms, Reproducibility of Results, Coenzyme A-Transferases, Bacterial Physiological Phenomena, Principal Component Analysis, Gastrointestinal Tract, Biodiversity, Metagenome

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