Cited by 341Gut microbiota and healthClostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens researchProbiotics and Fermented Foods

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 206 of the 207 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Ruminococcus gnavus : friend or foe for human health

Open access

Abstract

Ruminococcus gnavus was first identified in 1974 as a strict anaerobe in the gut of healthy individuals, and for several decades, its study has been limited to specific enzymes or bacteriocins. With the advent of metagenomics, R. gnavus has been associated both positively and negatively with an increasing number of intestinal and extraintestinal diseases from inflammatory bowel diseases to neurological disorders. This prompted renewed interest in understanding the adaptation mechanisms of R. gnavus to the gut, and the molecular mediators affecting its association with health and disease. From ca. 250 publications citing R. gnavus since 1990, 94% were published in the last 10 years. In this review, we describe the biological characterization of R. gnavus, its occurrence in the infant and adult gut microbiota and the factors influencing its colonization of the gastrointestinal tract; we also discuss the current state of our knowledge on its role in host health and disease. We highlight gaps in knowledge and discuss the hypothesis that differential health outcomes associated with R. gnavus in the gut are strain and niche specific.

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 · 10.1093/femsre/fuad014

Cites

206 of 206 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1. Scanning electron microscopy image of R. gnavus ATCC 35913 anaerobically grown in rich medium to stationary phase (courtesy of Catherine Booth).
Figure 1. Scanning electron microscopy image of R. gnavus ATCC 35913 anaerobically grown in rich medium to stationary phase (courtesy of Catherine Booth).CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2. Distribution of GHs across R. gnavus strains. A total of 7741 putative GHs has been identified by analysing 92 genomes of R. gnavus strains. These GHs are spread across 56 GH families. Some GH families are not widely spread amongst R. gnavus strains (i.e. GH35, GH38, GH53, GH65, GH79, GH84, GH91, GH101, GH120, GH125, and GH154) while other families are present in all the strains (i.e. GH1, GH2, GH3, GH13, GH18, GH25, GH29, GH31, GH32, GH36, GH73, GH77, GH78, GH95, GH112, and GH151). More than half of the sequences (4021/7741) belongs to seven GH families: GH1, GH2, GH3, GH13, GH23, GH32, and GH73. Combined, these families cover enzymes with a wide range of activities including (but not exclusively) α-amylase, isoamylase, pullulanase, β-glucosidase, β-galactosidase, β-mannosidase, β-glucuronidase, β-xylosidase, lysozyme, peptidoglycan hydrolase, invertase, inulinase, and endo-levanase.
Figure 2. Distribution of GHs across R. gnavus strains. A total of 7741 putative GHs has been identified by analysing 92 genomes of R. gnavus strains. These GHs are spread across 56 GH families. Some GH families are not widely spread amongst R. gnavus strains (i.e. GH35, GH38, GH53, GH65, GH79, GH84, GH91, GH101, GH120, GH125, and GH154) while other families are present in all the strains (i.e. GH1, GH2, GH3, GH13, GH18, GH25, GH29, GH31, GH32, GH36, GH73, GH77, GH78, GH95, GH112, and GH151). More than half of the sequences (4021/7741) belongs to seven GH families: GH1, GH2, GH3, GH13, GH23, GH32, and GH73. Combined, these families cover enzymes with a wide range of activities including (but not exclusively) α-amylase, isoamylase, pullulanase, β-glucosidase, β-galactosidase, β-mannosidase, β-glucuronidase, β-xylosidase, lysozyme, peptidoglycan hydrolase, invertase, inulinase, and endo-levanase.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3. R. gnavus association in diseases and potential molecular mediators.
Figure 3. R. gnavus association in diseases and potential molecular mediators.CC BY · PubMed Central

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

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?

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

1 retracted

Show all 207 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Crost, E. H., Coletto, E., Bell, A., & Juge, N.
Affiliations
Quadram Institute (GB)
Corresponding author
Juge, Nathalie
Venue
FEMS Microbiology Reviews
Published
2023-03
Volume
47
Issue
2
ISSN
  • 0168-6445 (ISSN-L)
  • 1574-6976
OpenAlex
W4362525665
Cited by
335
References
207
Citations by year
2026: 90 · 2025: 128 · 2024: 98 · 2023: 19
FWCI
8.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • FEMS Microbiology Reviews (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BB/R012490/1)
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
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Probiotics and Fermented Foods
Keywords
Ruminococcus gnavus, gut microbiota, intestinal colonization, inflammatory bowel disease, neurological disorders, strain-specific effects, niche specificity, host-microbe interactions, anaerobic bacteria, metagenomics
MeSH terms
Eubacteriales, Gastrointestinal Microbiome, Adult, Humans, Gastrointestinal Tract, Ruminococcus

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