CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 145Inflammatory Bowel DiseaseSalmonella and Campylobacter epidemiologyGut microbiota and health

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 42 of the 42 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Detection of Campylobacter concisus and Other Campylobacter Species in Colonic Biopsies from Adults with Ulcerative Colitis

Open access
Mukhopadhya, Indrani, Thomson, John M., Hansen, Richard, Berry, Susan H., El-Omar, Emad M., Hold, Georgina L.·2011·PLoS ONE
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0021490PMC PMC3124515
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The critical role of bacteria in the pathogenesis of ulcerative colitis (UC) is well recognized, but an individual causative microorganism has not been singled out so far. Campylobacter concisus and other non-jejuni species of Campylobacter have been implicated as putative aetiological agents in inflammatory bowel disease in children, but such studies have not been addressed in adults. This study investigated the prevalence of Campylobacter species in colonic biopsy samples from adults with UC and healthy controls. METHODS: Adult patients who were undergoing diagnostic colonoscopy were recruited for the study, which included 69 patients with histologically proven UC and 65 healthy controls. DNA was extracted from the biopsy samples and subjected to Campylobacter genus specific and Campylobacter concisus specific polymerase chain reaction and sequencing. RESULTS: Detection of all Campylobacter DNA utilising genus specific primers was significantly higher in cases of UC, with a prevalence of 73.9% (51/69) compared to 23.1% (15/65) in controls (p = 0.0001). Nested PCR for C. concisus DNA was positive in 33.3% (23/69) of biopsy samples from subjects with UC, which was significantly higher than the prevalence rate of 10.8% (7/65) from controls (p = 0.0019). Sequencing of the remaining Campylobacter positive samples revealed that Campylobacter ureolyticus was positive in 21.7% (15/69) of samples from UC subjects as opposed to 3.1% (2/65) in controls (p = 0.0013). Mixed Campylobacter species were more common in UC patients, 20.3% (14/69) as compared to controls 4.6% (3/65) (p = 0.0084). CONCLUSION: The higher prevalence of Campylobacter genus and more specifically C. concisus and C. ureolyticus in biopsy samples from adults with UC suggests these genera of bacteria may be involved in the chronic inflammation that is characteristically seen in UC. To the best of our knowledge this is the first report of this association of C. concisus and C. ureolyticus with UC in adults.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0021490

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Campylobacter species, Campylobacter concisus and Campylobacter ureolyticus in subjects with ulcerative colitis and controls. The prevalence of all Campylobacter species was 73.9% (51/69) in subjects with UC as compared to 23.1% (15/65) in controls (p = 0.0001). Campylobacter concisus was detected in 33.3% (23/69) of subjects with UC, which was significantly higher than the prevalence rate of 10.8% (7/65) from controls (p = 0.0019). Campylobacter ureolyticus was positive in 21.7% (15/69) of samples from UC subjects as opposed to 3.1% (2/65) in controls (p = 0.0013).
Figure 1 Campylobacter species, Campylobacter concisus and Campylobacter ureolyticus in subjects with ulcerative colitis and controls. The prevalence of all Campylobacter species was 73.9% (51/69) in subjects with UC as compared to 23.1% (15/65) in controls (p = 0.0001). Campylobacter concisus was detected in 33.3% (23/69) of subjects with UC, which was significantly higher than the prevalence rate of 10.8% (7/65) from controls (p = 0.0019). Campylobacter ureolyticus was positive in 21.7% (15/69) of samples from UC subjects as opposed to 3.1% (2/65) in controls (p = 0.0013).CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Phylogenetic tree constructed using sequences of the 16S rRNA gene of C. concisus strains from UC and controls and other strains available in GenBank. Strains from UC are underlined in red and those from HC are underlined in blue. The evolutionary history was inferred using the Neighbor-Joining method. The bootstrap consensus tree inferred from 500 replicates was taken to represent the evolutionary history of the taxa analysed. The evolutionary distances were computed using the Maximum Composite Likelihood method.
Figure 2 Phylogenetic tree constructed using sequences of the 16S rRNA gene of C. concisus strains from UC and controls and other strains available in GenBank. Strains from UC are underlined in red and those from HC are underlined in blue. The evolutionary history was inferred using the Neighbor-Joining method. The bootstrap consensus tree inferred from 500 replicates was taken to represent the evolutionary history of the taxa analysed. The evolutionary distances were computed using the Maximum Composite Likelihood method.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 145

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Mukhopadhya, I., Thomson, J. M., Hansen, R., Berry, S. H., El-Omar, E. M., & Hold, G. L.
Affiliations
University of Aberdeen (GB)
Corresponding author
Hold, Georgina L.
ORCID
Venue
PLoS ONE
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Published
2011-06-27
Volume
6
Issue
6
Pages
e21490
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1371/journal.pone.0021490
PMC
PMC3124515
OpenAlex
W2100955999
Cited by
145
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 12
FWCI
8.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Discovery Research Portal (University of Dundee) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • ENLIGHTEN (Jurnal Bimbingan dan Konseling Islam) (acceptedVersion)
  • UNSWorks (University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • UNSWorks (UNSW Sydney) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Aberdeen University Research Archive (Aberdeen University) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Gastroenterology › Inflammatory Bowel Disease
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Salmonella and Campylobacter epidemiology
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gut microbiota and health
Keywords
Campylobacter concisus, Campylobacter ureolyticus, ulcerative colitis, colonic biopsy, inflammatory bowel disease, bacterial etiology, adults, chronic inflammation, prevalence, nested PCR, DNA detection
MeSH terms
Adult, Campylobacter, Campylobacter Infections, Colitis, Ulcerative, Colon, Humans, Molecular Sequence Data, Polymerase Chain Reaction

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