CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 255Gut microbiota and healthGastrointestinal motility and disordersAnaerobic Digestion and Biogas Production

Alternative pathways for hydrogen disposal during fermentation in the human colon.

Open access
Gibson, G R, Cummings, J H, Macfarlane, G T, Allison, C, Segal, I, Vorster, H H, Walker, A R·1990·Gut
DOI 10.1136/gut.31.6.679PMC PMC1378495
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Hydrogen gas, which is produced during fermentation in the human colon, is either excreted in breath or metabolised by gut bacteria through a variety of pathways. These may include methanogenesis, dissimilatory sulphate reduction, and acetogenesis. To determine which of these routes predominates in the large intestine, stools were taken from 30 healthy subjects and incubated as 5% (w/v) slurries with Lintner's starch. In 23 of 30 subjects, methane production was the main method of hydrogen disposal. In the remaining seven, high rates of sulphate reduction were recorded together with raised production of H2S. All samples showed relatively low rates of hydrogen evolution and of acetate formation from CO2 and H2. Sulphate reduction and methanogenesis seem to be mutually exclusive in the colon and this is probably linked to sulphate availability. Sulphate reduction, methanogenesis, and acetogenesis were strongly influenced by pH. Sulphate reduction was optimal at alkaline pH values whereas methane production was maximal at a neutral pH and acetogenesis favoured acidic conditions. Faecal H2S values were related to carriage of sulphate reducing bacteria. These data show that a number of competing pathways for hydrogen disposal are possible in the large gut and that a variety of factors such as colonic pH and sulphate availability can determine which of these mechanisms predominates.

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.31.6.679

Cites

2 of 2 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?

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

Research works printed but not linked: 44

  1. Miller TL, Wolin MJ, Macario EC de, Macario AJL. Isolation of Methanobrevibacter smithii from human feces. Appl Env Microbiol 1982; 43: 227-32.
  2. Miller TL, Wolin MJ. Stability of Methanobrevibacter smithii populations in the microbial flora excreted from the human large bowel. Appl Env Microbiol 1983; 45: 317-8.
  3. Segal I, Walker ARP, Lord S, Cummings JH. Breath methane and large bowel cancer risk in contrasting African popula- tions. Gut 1988; 29: 608-13.
  4. Flourie B, Florent C, Etanchaud F, etal. Starch absorption by healthy men evaluated by lactulose hydrogen breath test. Am]7 Clin Nutr 1988; 47: 61-6.
  5. Gibson GR, Macfarlane GT, Cummings JH. Occurrence of sulphate-reducing bacteria in human faeces and the relation- ship of dissimilatory sulphate reduction to methanogenesis in the large gut. ] Appl Bacteriol 1988; 65: 103-11.
  6. Gibson GR, Cummings JH, Macfarlane GT. Competition for hydrogen between sulphate reducing bacteria and methano- genic bacteria from the human large intestine. J Appl Bacteriol 1988; 65: 241-7.
  7. Lajoie SF, Bank S, Miller TL, Wolin MJ. Acetate production from hydrogen and (I C) carbon dioxide by the microflora of human feces. Appl Env Microbiol 1988; 54: 2723-7.
  8. Wolin MJ. Interactions between H2-producing and methane- producing species. In: Schlegel HG, Gottschalk G, Pfennig N, eds. Microbial formation and utilization of gases. Gottingen: Goltze Press, 1976: 141-50.
  9. Allison C, Macfarlane GT. Effect of nitrate upon methane production by slurries of human faecal bacteria. J Gen Microbiol 1988; 134: 1397-405.
  10. J0rgensen BB. A comparison of methods for the quantification of bacterial sulfate reduction in coastal marine sediments. I. Measurement with radiotracer techniques. Geomicrobiol J 1978; 1:11-27.
  11. Sorokin YI. Experimental investigation of bacterial sulfate reduction in the Black Sea using S3". Microbiologica 1962; 31: 329-35.
  12. Jones JG, Simon BM. Interactions of acetogens and methano- genesis in anaerobic freshwater sediments. Appl Environ Microbiol 1985; 49: 944-8.
  13. Laanbroek HJ, Pfennig N. Oxidation of short chain fatty acids by sulfate-reducing bacteria in freshwater and in marine sediments. Arch Microbiol 1981; 128: 330-5.
  14. S0rensen J, Christensen D, J0rgensen BB. Volatile fatty acids and hydrogen as substrates for sulfate-reducing bacteria in anaerobic marine sediment. Appl Environ Microbiol 1981; 42: 5-11.
  15. Keith SM, Herbert RA, Harfoot CG. Isolation of new types of sulphate-reducing bacteria from estuarine and marine sedi- ments using chemostat enrichments. J Appl Bacteriol 1982; 53: 29-33.
  16. Cline JD. Spectrophotometric determination of hydro- gen sulfide in natural waters. Limnol Oceanogr 1969; 14: 454-8.
  17. Postgate JR, Campbell LL. Classification of Desulfovibrio species, the non-sporing sulphate-reducing bacteria. Bacteriol Rev 1966; 30: 732-8.
  18. Widdel F, Pfennig N. Studies on dissimilatory sulfate- reducing bacteria that decompose fatty acids. I. Isolation of new sulfate-reducing bacteria enriched with acetate from saline environments. Description of Desulfobacter postgatei gen. nov., sp. nov. Arch Microbiol 1981; 129: 395-400.
  19. Widdel F. New types of acetate-oxidizing, sulfate-reducing Desulfobacter species, D. hvdrogenophilus sp. nov., D. latus sp. nov., and D. curvatus sp. nov. Arch Microbiol 1987; 148: 286-91.
  20. Widdel F, Pfennig N. Studies on dissimilatory sulfate- reducing bacteria that decompose fatty acids. Incomplete oxidation of propionate by Desulfobulbus propionicus gen. nov., sp. nov. Arch Microbiol 1982; 131: 360-5.
  21. Widdel F, Pfennig N. A new anaerobic sporing acetate- oxidizing sulfate-reducing bacterium, Desulfotomaculum acetoxidans (emend). Arch Microbiol 1977; 112: 119-22.
  22. Widdel F, Pfennig N. Sporulation and further nutritional characteristics of Desulfotomaculum acetoxidans. Arch Microbiol 1981; 129: 401-2.
  23. Calloway DH, Colasito DJ, Matthews RD. Gases produced by human intestinal microflora. Nature 1966; 212: 1238-9.
  24. Levitt MD. Production and excretion of hydrogen gas in man. N Englj Med 1969; 281: 122-7.
  25. Levitt MD, Ingelfinger FJ. Hydrogen and methane produc- tion in man. Ann NYAcad Sci 1968; 150: 75-81.
  26. Balch WE, Fox GE, Magrum LJ, Woese CR, Wolfe RS. Methanogens: reevaluation of a unique biological group. Microbiol Rev 1979; 43: 260-96.
  27. Postgate JR. The sulphate-reducing bacteria. 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984.
  28. Fuchs G. CO2 fixation in acetogenic bacteria: variations on a theme. FEMS Microbiol Rev 1986; 39: 181-213.
  29. Miller TL, Wolin MJ. Methanosphaera stadtmaniae gen. nov., sp. nov.: a species that forms methane by reducing methanol with hydrogen. Arch Microbiol 1985; 141: 116-22.
  30. Cappenberg TE. Interrelations between sulphate-reducing and methane-producing bacteria in bottom deposits of a freshwater lake. I. Field observations. Ant van Leeuwen J Microbiol Serol 1974; 40: 285-95.
  31. Cappenberg TE. Interrelations between sulphate-reducing and methane-producing bacteria in bottom deposits of a freshwater lake. II. Inhibition experiments. Ant van Leeuwen J Microbiol Serol 1974; 40: 297-306.
  32. Cappenberg TE. A study of mixed continuous cultures of sulphate-reducing and methane-producing bacteria. Microbiol Ecol 1975; 2: 60-72.
  33. Kristiansson JK, Schonheit P, Thauer RK. Different Ks values for hydrogen of methanogenic bacteria and sulfate- reducing bacteria: an explanation for the apparent inhibition of methanogenesis by sulfate. Arch Microbiol 1982; 131: 278-82.
  34. Lovley DR, Dwyer DF, Klug MJ. Kinetic analysis of competition between sulfate reducers and methanogens for hydrogen in sediments. Appl Environ Microbiol 1982; 43: 1373-9.
  35. Lupton FS, Zeikus JG. Physiological basis for sulfate dependent H2 competition between sulfidogens and methanogens. CurrMicrobiol 1985; 11: 7-12.
  36. McInerney MJ, Bryant MP. Anaerobic degradation of lactate by syntrophic associations of Methanosarcina barkeri and Desulfovibrio species and effect of H2 on acetate degradation. Appl Environ Microbiol 1981; 41: 346-54.
  37. Bryant MP, Campbell LL, Reddy CA, Crabile MR. Growth of Desulfovibrio on lactate or ethanol media low in sulfate in association with H2-utilizing methanogenic bacteria. Appl Environ Microbiol 1977; 33: 1162-9.
  38. Coutts DAP, Balba MTM, Senior E. Acetogenesis and acetotrophy in a hexanoate-catabolizing microbial associa- tion isolated from anoxic landfill. JfAppl Bacteriol 1987; 63: 343-53.
  39. Prins RA, Lankhors A. Synthesis of acetate from CO2 in caecum of some rodents. FEMS Microbiol Lett 1977; 1: 255-8.
  40. Zeikus JG. Microbial populations in digestors. In: Stafford DA, Wheatley BI, Hughes DE, eds. Proceedings of Ist international symposium on anaerobic digestion. London: Applied Science, 1980: 75-103.
  41. Cummings JH, Pomare EW, Branch WJ, Naylor CPE, Macfarlane GT. Short chain fatty acids in human large intestine, portal, hepatic and venous blood. Gut 1987; 28: 1221-7.
  42. Gibson GR, Cummings JH, Macfarlane GT. Use of a three- stage continuous culture system to study the effect of mucin on dissimilatory sulfate reduction and methanogenesis by mixed populations of human gut bacteria. Appl Environ Microbiol 1988; 54: 2750-5.
  43. Bjorneklett A, Jenssen F. Relationship between hydrogen (H2) and methane (CH4) production in man. Scand J Gastroenterol 1982; 17: 985-92.
  44. Oh MS, Phelps KR, Traube M, Barbosa-Salvidor JL, Boxhill C, Cavioli HJ. D-Lactic acidosis in a man with short-bowel syndrome. NEnglJfMed 1979; 301: 249-52. on July 13, 2023 by guest. Protected by copyright. http://gut.bmj.com/ Gut: first published as 10.1136/gut.31.6.679 on 1 June 1990. Downloaded from

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gibson, G. R., Cummings, J. H., Macfarlane, G. T., Allison, C., Segal, I., Vorster, H. H., & Walker, A. R.
ORCID
Venue
Gut
Publisher
BMJ
Published
1990-06
Volume
31
Issue
6
Pages
679-683
ISSN
  • 0017-5749 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-3288
DOI
10.1136/gut.31.6.679
PMC
PMC1378495
OpenAlex
W2141495063
Cited by
255
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 5
FWCI
5.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Gut (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gut microbiota and health
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Gastroenterology › Gastrointestinal motility and disorders
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Building and Construction › Anaerobic Digestion and Biogas Production
Keywords
colonic fermentation, methanogenesis, dissimilatory sulfate reduction, acetogenesis, hydrogen sulfide, colonic pH, sulfate-reducing bacteria, gut microbiota, human colon
MeSH terms
Acetates, Adult, Bacteria, Anaerobic, Colon, Feces, Female, Fermentation, Humans, Hydrogen, Hydrogen-Ion Concentration, Male, Methane, Middle Aged, Sulfates

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