CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 234Gut microbiota and healthGallbladder and Bile Duct DisordersMicrobial Community Ecology and Physiology

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 75 of the 75 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Gut microbiota dysbiosis and bacterial community assembly associated with cholesterol gallstones in large-scale study

Open access
Wu, Tao, Zhang, Zhigang, Liu, Bin, Hou, Dezhi, Liang, Yun, Zhang, Jie, Shi, Peng·2013·BMC Genomics
DOI 10.1186/1471-2164-14-669PMC PMC3851472
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Elucidating gut microbiota among gallstone patients as well as the complex bacterial colonization of cholesterol gallstones may help in both the prediction and subsequent lowered risk of cholelithiasis. To this end, we studied the composition of bacterial communities of gut, bile, and gallstones from 29 gallstone patients as well as the gut of 38 normal individuals, examining and analyzing some 299, 217 bacterial 16S rRNA gene sequences from 120 samples. RESULTS: First, as compared with normal individuals, in gallstone patients there were significant (P < 0.001) increases of gut bacterial phylum Proteobacteria and decreases of three gut bacterial genera, Faecalibacterium, Lachnospira, and Roseburia. Second, about 70% of gut bacterial operational taxonomic units (OTUs) from gallstone patients were detectable in the biliary tract and bacteria diversity of biliary tract was significantly (P < 0.001) higher than that of gut. Third, analysis of the biliary tract core microbiome (represented by 106 bacteria OTUs) among gallstone patients showed that 33.96% (36/106) of constituents can be matched to known bacterial species (15 of which have publicly available genomes). A genome-wide search of MDR, BSH, bG, and phL genes purpotedly associated with the formation of cholesterol gallstones showed that all 15 species with known genomes (e.g., Propionibacterium acnes, Bacteroides vulgates, and Pseudomonas putida) contained at least contained one of the four genes. This finding could potentially provide underlying information needed to explain the association between biliary tract microbiota and the formation of cholesterol gallstones. CONCLUSIONS: To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to discover gut microbiota dysbiosis among gallstone patients, the presence of which may be a key contributor to the complex bacteria community assembly linked with the presence of cholesterol gallstones. Likewise, this study also provides the first large-scale glimpse of biliary tract microbiota potentially associated with cholesterol gallstones. Such a characterization of the biliary tract core microbiome has potentially important biological and medical implications regarding the role of bacteria in the formation cholesterol gallstones.

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 · 10.1186/1471-2164-14-669

Cites

75 of 75 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Phyla level comparisons of microbial components between the gut and biliary tract. Only top nine phyla shown. ***P < 0.001.
Figure 1 Phyla level comparisons of microbial components between the gut and biliary tract. Only top nine phyla shown. ***P < 0.001.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Genera level comparisons of microbial components between gut and biliary tract. In total, 38 genera distributions are shown, including those genera of each type of sample with relative abundance of at least 0.01%, respectively. Taxons marked by stars were unclassified. C., Clostridiaceae family. L., Lachnospiraceae family. R., Ruminococcaceae family. *P < 0.05.
Figure 2 Genera level comparisons of microbial components between gut and biliary tract. In total, 38 genera distributions are shown, including those genera of each type of sample with relative abundance of at least 0.01%, respectively. Taxons marked by stars were unclassified. C., Clostridiaceae family. L., Lachnospiraceae family. R., Ruminococcaceae family. *P < 0.05.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3 Microbiota analysis of separates samples based upon where they live in the community. Hierarchical average clustering based on the Spearman/Pearson correlation coefficients of the proportion of all taxons, filtered for taxonomic variables with over 50% percent zeroes. Non-informative variables are characterized using the coefficient of variation (mean/standard deviation). Data normalization between samples was conducted by Sum, and those between taxons Pareto Scaling (mean-centered and divided by the square root of standard deviation of each variable). In total, 35 taxonomic features are shown in the heatmap, with statistical significance among four types of samples based on T-test/ANOVA analyses.
Figure 3 Microbiota analysis of separates samples based upon where they live in the community. Hierarchical average clustering based on the Spearman/Pearson correlation coefficients of the proportion of all taxons, filtered for taxonomic variables with over 50% percent zeroes. Non-informative variables are characterized using the coefficient of variation (mean/standard deviation). Data normalization between samples was conducted by Sum, and those between taxons Pareto Scaling (mean-centered and divided by the square root of standard deviation of each variable). In total, 35 taxonomic features are shown in the heatmap, with statistical significance among four types of samples based on T-test/ANOVA analyses.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 4 Quantitative comparisons of bacterial OTUs between the gut and biliary tract. Numbers in brackets denote OTU number discovered from each of four different types of samples, corresponding to four different colored boxes. Number in brackets located at the colored boxes denotes shared OTUs (at overlapped boxes) across either the four types of samples or those unique to a given sample type.
Figure 4 Quantitative comparisons of bacterial OTUs between the gut and biliary tract. Numbers in brackets denote OTU number discovered from each of four different types of samples, corresponding to four different colored boxes. Number in brackets located at the colored boxes denotes shared OTUs (at overlapped boxes) across either the four types of samples or those unique to a given sample type.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 5 Pipeline for identifying biliary tract core microbiome and potential microbial species associated with the presence of gallstones.
Figure 5 Pipeline for identifying biliary tract core microbiome and potential microbial species associated with the presence of gallstones.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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 234

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Wu, T., Zhang, Z., Liu, B., Hou, D., Liang, Y., Zhang, J., & Shi, P.
Affiliations
  • Kunming Institute of Zoology (CN)
  • First Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University (CN)
  • Kunming Medical University (CN)
Corresponding author
  • Zhang, Jie
  • Shi, Peng
ORCID
Venue
BMC Genomics
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2013-10-01
Volume
14
Issue
1
Pages
669-669
ISSN
1471-2164 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1186/1471-2164-14-669
PMC
PMC3851472
OpenAlex
W2116463764
Cited by
234
References
74
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 29 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 3
FWCI
3.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • BMC Genomics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China (31100916)
  • Chinese Academy of Sciences
  • Natural Science Foundation of Yunnan Province
  • Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences
  • Kunming Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gut microbiota and health
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Gastroenterology › Gallbladder and Bile Duct Disorders
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Microbial Community Ecology and Physiology
Keywords
cholesterol gallstones, gallstones, gut dysbiosis, bacterial community assembly, Proteobacteria, Faecalibacterium, Lachnospira, Roseburia, MDR genes
MeSH terms
Bacteria, Biliary Tract, Cholesterol, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Phylogeny, Gastrointestinal Tract, Gallstones, Metagenomics, Microbiota, Dysbiosis

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