CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 179Gut microbiota and healthProbiotics and Fermented FoodsClostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens research

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 38 of the 38 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Ecological and physiological studies on large intestinal bacteria in relation to production of hydrolytic and reductive enzymes involved in formation of genotoxic metabolites

Mcbain, A. J., Macfarlane, G. T.·1998·Journal of Medical Microbiology
DOI 10.1099/00222615-47-5-407
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Several hydrolytic and reductive bacterial enzymes (beta-glucuronidase, GN; beta-glucosidase, GS; arylsulphatase, AS; azoreductase, AR; nitroreductase, NR) involved in production of mutagenic or genotoxic metabolites were measured in human colonic contents. Cell-associated AS and extracellular GS were approximately twice as high in the distal colon compared with the proximal bowel, while AR changed little throughout the gut. Measurements of these enzymes in faeces from seven healthy donors confirmed that the majority were cell-associated, and demonstrated high levels of inter-individual variability. NR decreased four-fold between the proximal and distal colon while extracellular GN was reduced by 50%. Most probable number (MPN) analysis on faeces obtained from six healthy donors showed that counts of intestinal bacteria producing GS and AR were c. 10(10) and 10(11)/g, respectively, in all samples tested. Numbers of GN- and AS-forming organisms were between two and three orders of magnitude lower. Inter-individual carriage rates of bacterial populations synthesising NR were highly variable. Screening of 20 pure cultures of intestinal bacteria, belonging to six different genera, showed that Bacteroides ovatus, in particular, synthesised large amounts of GS, whereas B. fragilis, B. vulgatus and Bifidobacterium pseudolongum formed the highest cell-associated levels of GN. In general, bifidobacteria and Lactobacillus acidophilus did not produce significant amounts of AR. All five clostridia studied (Clostridium bifermentans, C. septicum, C. perfringens, C. sporogenes and C. butyricum) produced NR and AR, as did the bacteroides (B. fragilis, B. ovatus and B. vulgatus). Escherichia coli and C. perfringens formed large amounts of NR. Levels of AS production were invariably low and few of the organisms screened synthesised this enzyme. In-vitro studies investigating the effect of intestinal transit time on enzyme production, in a three-stage (V1-V3) continuous culture model of the colon operated at system retention times (R) of either 31.1 or 68.4 h, showed that specific activities of GS were up to four-fold higher (V3) at R = 31.1 h. Bacteriological analysis demonstrated that representative populations of colonic micro-organisms were maintained in the fermentation system, and indicated that changes in GS activity were not related to numbers of the predominant anaerobic or facultative anaerobic species within the model, but were explainable on the basis of substrate-induced modulation of bacterial metabolism.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1099/00222615-47-5-407

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 38 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–179 of 179

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Mcbain, A. J., & Macfarlane, G. T.
Corresponding author
Mcbain, A. J.
ORCID
Mcbain, A. J.
Venue
Journal of Medical Microbiology
Publisher
Microbiology Society
Published
1998-05-01
Volume
47
Issue
5
Pages
407-416
ISSN
  • 0022-2615 (ISSN-L)
  • 1473-5644
DOI
10.1099/00222615-47-5-407
OpenAlex
W2120864835
Cited by
179
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 15
FWCI
0.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Medical Microbiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gut microbiota and health
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Probiotics and Fermented Foods
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › Clostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens research
Keywords
colonic bacteria, β-glucosidase, beta-glucuronidase, arylsulfatase, azoreductase, nitroreductase, genotoxic metabolites, mutagenicity, Bacteroides ovatus, Bacteroides fragilis, Bacteroides vulgatus, Clostridium, Bifidobacterium, Lactobacillus acidophilus, Escherichia coli, Clostridium perfringens, intestinal transit time
MeSH terms
Adult, Arylsulfatases, Bacteria, beta-Glucosidase, Feces, Female, Glucuronidase, Humans, Hydrolysis, Intestine, Large, Male, Middle Aged, Models, Biological, Mutagens, NADH, NADPH Oxidoreductases, Nitroreductases, Oxidation-Reduction, Colony Count, Microbial, Ecosystem, Bacterial Physiological Phenomena

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