Cited by 158Clostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens researchGut microbiota and healthBacterial Identification and Susceptibility Testing

Impacts of infection with different toxigenic Clostridium difficile strains on faecal microbiota in children

Open access
Ling, Zongxin, Liu, Xia, Jia, Xiaoyun, Cheng, Yiwen, Luo, Yueqiu, Yuan, Li, Wang, Yuezhu, Zhao, Chunna +4 more·2014·Scientific Reports

Abstract

Increasing evidence suggests that altered intestinal microbial composition and function result in an increased risk of Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhoea (CDAD); however, the specific changes of intestinal microbiota in children suffering from CDAD and their associations with C. difficile strain toxigenicity are poorly understood. High-throughput pyrosequencing showed that reduced faecal bacterial diversity and dramatic shifts of microbial composition were found in children with CDAD. The Firmicutes/Bacteroidetes ratio was increased significantly in patients with CDAD, which indicated that dysbiosis of faecal microbiota was closely associated with CDAD. C. difficile infection resulted in an increase in lactate-producing phylotypes, with a corresponding decrease in butyrate-producing bacteria. The decrease in butyrate and lactate buildup impaired intestinal colonisation resistance, which increased the susceptibility to C. difficile colonisation. Strains of C. difficile which were positive for both toxin A and toxin B reduced faecal bacterial diversity to a greater degree than strains that were only toxin B-positive, and were associated with unusually abundant Enterococcus, which implies that the C. difficile toxins have different impacts on the faecal microbiota of children. Greater understanding of the relationships between disruption of the normal faecal microbiota and colonisation with C. difficile that produces different toxins might lead to improved treatment.

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/srep07485

Cites

60 of 60 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?

  • The high efficacy rate of FMT in rCDI is not observed under other conditions where the characteristics of donors, recipients, and working protocols appear to largely impact clinical outcomes.

    “This concept is supported by evidence that the high efficacy rate of FMT in rCDI is not observed under other conditions where the characteristics of donors, 26,39 recipients, 41,42 and working protocols, 43 appear to largely impact clinical outcomes.”

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
Ling, Z., Liu, X., Jia, X., Cheng, Y., Luo, Y., Yuan, L., Wang, Y., Zhao, C., Guo, S., Li, L., Xu, X., & Xiang, C.
Affiliations
  • First Affiliated Hospital Zhejiang University (CN)
  • Capital Medical University (CN)
  • Chinese National Human Genome Center at Shanghai (CN)
Corresponding author
  • Li, Lanjuan
  • Xu, Xiwei
  • Xiang, Charlie
Venue
Scientific Reports
Published
2014-12-15
Volume
4
Issue
1
Pages
7485-7485
ISSN
2045-2322 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2156456403
Cited by
158
References
60
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 22 · 2015: 6
FWCI
9.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Scientific Reports (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China
  • National Key Research and Development Program of China
  • Natural Science Foundation of Zhejiang Province
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › Clostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens research
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gut microbiota and health
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Clinical Biochemistry › Bacterial Identification and Susceptibility Testing
Keywords
Clostridium difficile, Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea, fecal microbiota, gut dysbiosis, children, toxin A, toxin B, Firmicutes/Bacteroidetes ratio, bacterial diversity, butyrate-producing bacteria, lactate-producing bacteria, Enterococcus, colonization resistance
MeSH terms
Bacterial Toxins, Child, Preschool, Diarrhea, Enterocolitis, Pseudomembranous, Feces, Humans, Intestines, RNA, Ribosomal, 16S, Case-Control Studies, Clostridioides difficile, Sequence Analysis, DNA, Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction, Microbiota

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