Cited by 206Gut microbiota and healthOral microbiology and periodontitis researchMicrobial Community Ecology and Physiology

Analysis of the Intestinal Lumen Microbiota in an Animal Model of Colorectal Cancer

Open access
Zhu, Qingchao, Jin, Zhiming, Wu, Wen, Gao, Renyuan, Guo, Bomin, Gao, Zhiguang, Yang, Yongzhi, Qin, Huanlong·2014·PLoS ONE

Abstract

Recent reports have suggested that multiple factors such as host genetics, environment and diet can promote the progression of healthy mucosa towards sporadic colorectal carcinoma. Accumulating evidence has additionally associated intestinal bacteria with disease initiation and progression. In order to examine and analyze the composition of gut microbiota in the absence of confounding influences, we have established an animal model of 1, 2-dimethylhydrazine (DMH)-induced colon cancer. Using this model, we have performed pyrosequencing of the V3 region of the 16S rRNA genes in this study to determine the diversity and breadth of the intestinal microbial species. Our findings indicate that the microbial composition of the intestinal lumen differs significantly between control and tumor groups. The abundance of Firmicutes was elevated whereas the abundance of Bacteroidetes and Spirochetes was reduced in the lumen of CRC rats. Fusobacteria was not detected in any of the healthy rats and there was no significant difference in observed Proteobacteria species when comparing the bacterial communities between our two groups. Interestingly, the abundance of Proteobacteria was higher in CRC rats. At the genus level, Bacteroides exhibited a relatively higher abundance in CRC rats compared to controls (14.92% vs. 9.22%, p<0.001). Meanwhile, Prevotella (55.22% vs. 26.19%), Lactobacillus (3.71% vs. 2.32%) and Treponema (3.04% vs. 2.43%), were found to be significantly more abundant in healthy rats than CRC rats (p<0.001, respectively). We also demonstrate a significant reduction of butyrate-producing bacteria such as Roseburia and Eubacterium in the gut microbiota of CRC rats. Furthermore, a significant increase in Desulfovibrio, Erysipelotrichaceae and Fusobacterium was also observed in the tumor group. A decrease in probiotic species such as Ruminococcus and Lactobacillus was likewise observed in the tumor group. Collectively, we can conclude that a significant difference in intestinal bacterial flora exists between healthy rats and CRC rats.

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.0090849

Cites

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?

  • Metagenomic analyses have consistently identified a reduction of butyrate-producers in patients with colorectal cancer, a finding replicated in animals.

    “Metagenomic analyses have consistently identified a reduction of butyrate-producers in patients with CRC,100 a finding replicated in animals.101”

    From The gut microbiota and host health: a new clinical frontier (2016) · cites this paper as [101]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 45 · Cited by 206

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [38]Sears CL, Islam S, Saha A, Arjumand M, Alam NH, et al (2008) Association of enterotoxigenic Bacteroides fragilis infection with inflammatory diarrhea. Clin Infect Dis 47: 797– 803. 18680416 PMC3045827

Authors
Zhu, Q., Jin, Z., Wu, W., Gao, R., Guo, B., Gao, Z., Yang, Y., & Qin, H.
Affiliations
Shanghai Jiao Tong University (CN)
Corresponding author
Qin, Huanlong
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2014-03-06
Volume
9
Issue
3
Pages
e90849
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2020597244
Cited by
206
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 8
FWCI
7.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China (81230057)
  • Shanghai Jiao Tong University
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gut microbiota and health
  • Health Sciences › Dentistry › Periodontics › Oral microbiology and periodontitis research
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Microbial Community Ecology and Physiology
Keywords
colorectal cancer, gut microbiota, animal models, 16S rRNA gene pyrosequencing, Firmicutes, Bacteroides, Prevotella, Lactobacillus, butyrate-producing bacteria, Roseburia, Eubacterium, Desulfovibrio, Fusobacterium, Ruminococcus
MeSH terms
Animals, Bacteroides, Colon, Genes, Bacterial, Lactobacillus, Male, Treponema, Colorectal Neoplasms, Rats, Wistar, Sequence Analysis, DNA, Prevotella, Proteobacteria, Molecular Typing, Microbiota

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