Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 257

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 80 of the 80 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Bacterial and fungal microbiota in relation to probiotic therapy (VSL#3) in pouchitis

Open access
Kühbacher, T, Ott, S J, Helwig, U, Mimura, T, Rizzello, F, Kleessen, B, Gionchetti, P, Blaut, M, Campieri, M, Fölsch, U R, Kamm, M A, Schreiber, S·2006·Gut

Abstract

Background: The intestinal microbiota plays a critical role in the pathophysiology of pouchitis, a major complication after ileal pouch anal anastomosis in patients with ulcerative colitis. Recently, controlled trials have demonstrated that probiotics are effective in maintenance of remission in pouchitis patients. However, the mechanism by which therapy with probiotics works remains elusive. This study explores the role of the bacterial and fungal flora in a controlled trial for maintenance of remission in pouchitis patients with the probiotic VSL#3 compound. Methods: The mucosa associated pouch microbiota was investigated before and after therapy with VSL#3 by analysis of endoscopic biopsies using ribosomal DNA/RNA based community fingerprint analysis, clone libraries, real time polymerase chain reaction (PCR), and fluorescence in situ hybridisation. Patients were recruited from a placebo controlled remission maintenance trial with VSL#3. Results: Patients who developed pouchitis while treated with placebo had low bacterial and high fungal diversity. Bacterial diversity was increased and fungal diversity was reduced in patients in remission maintained with VSL#3 (p = 0.001). Real time PCR experiments demonstrated that VSL#3 increased the total number of bacterial cells (p = 0.002) and modified the spectrum of bacteria towards anaerobic species. Taxa specific clone libraries for Lactobacilli and Bifidobacteria showed that the richness and spectrum of these bacteria were altered under probiotic therapy. Conclusions: Probiotic therapy with VSL#3 increases the total number of intestinal bacterial cells as well as the richness and diversity of the bacterial microbiota, especially the anaerobic flora. The diversity of the fungal flora is repressed. Restoration of the integrity of a “protective” intestinal mucosa related microbiota could therefore be a potential mechanism of probiotic bacteria in inflammatory barrier diseases of the lower gastrointestinal tract.

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 · 10.1136/gut.2005.078303

Cites

80 of 80 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 80 references

Cited by

See all 257

Metadata

Authors
Kühbacher, T., Ott, S. J., Helwig, U., Mimura, T., Rizzello, F., Kleessen, B., Gionchetti, P., Blaut, M., Campieri, M., Fölsch, U. R., Kamm, M. A., & Schreiber, S.
Venue
Gut
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2006-01-09
Volume
55
Issue
6
Pages
833-841
ISSN
  • 0017-5749 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-3288
OpenAlex
W2155703794
Cited by
257
References
80
FWCI
29.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Bacterial and fungal microbiota in relation to probiotic therapy (VSL#3) in pouchitis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/gut.2005.078303
The paper
Kühbacher, T., Ott, S. J., Helwig, U., Mimura, T., Rizzello, F., Kleessen, B., Gionchetti, P., Blaut, M., Campieri, M., Fölsch, U. R., Kamm, M. A., & Schreiber, S. (2006). Bacterial and fungal microbiota in relation to probiotic therapy (VSL#3) in pouchitis. Gut. https://doi.org/10.1136/gut.2005.078303

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.