MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Probiotic Lacidofil® STRONG Mitigates the Antibiotic‐Induced Alteration of the Fecal microRNA Signature in Healthy Humans

2016· article· en· W2492766426 on OpenAlexafffund
Amel Taïbi, Elena M. Comelli, Stéphanie‐Anne Girard, Thomas A. Tompkins

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGut microbiota and health
Canadian institutionsLallemand (Canada)University of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsFecesProbioticLactobacillus rhamnosusGut floraBiologyAntibioticsPlaceboDiarrheaAntibiotic-associated diarrheaMicrobiologyImmunologyInternal medicineMedicineBacteriaClostridium difficilePathologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Antibiotic treatments are often associated with disruption of the gut microbiota composition leading to adverse effects such as diarrhea and colitis. Probiotics can counteract these effects by stabilizing the altered intestinal microbiota. We and others previously showed that the gut microbiota is associated with a distinctive intestinal microRNA (miRNA) signature. MiRNAs originating from intestinal cells are recovered in the feces, their use as biomarkers of gut health is emerging. It is likely that fecal miRNAs could be used as tools for monitoring the microbiota‐dependent intestinal miRNAs. The objectives of this study were to assess: 1. If antibiotic treatment modifies the fecal miRNA signature and 2. If probiotic Lacidofil® STRONG positively impacts this response. Fecal samples were obtained from a double‐blind, randomized, placebo‐controlled trial where healthy adult participants received a placebo (n=80) or a multi‐strain probiotic Lacidofil STRONG® ( Lactobacillus rhamnosus R0011 and Lactobacillus helveticus R0052) (n=80) with 875 mg of amoxicillin and 125 mg of clavulanic acid twice a day for 7 days. A subset of 24 subjects (Body Mass Index between 18.5 and 24.9) (n=11 placebo group and n=13 probiotic group) were used here. Total RNA was extracted from feces collected before and after antibiotic treatment and used to profile the expression of 829 miRNAs with the nCounter human version 3 miRNA expression assay (NanoString Technologies). Statistics and hierarchical clustering were performed in R. Selected miRNAs were validated by qPCR. With threshold value set based on background subtracted‐normalized negative controls, 700 miRNAs were detected in the feces; this provides the first description of the fecal mirnome. Among these, 48 were changed after antibiotic treatment (p<0.05) in the placebo group, resulting in a clear separation between baseline and antibiotic treated samples based on hierarchical clustering. This shows that the fecal mirnome responds to antibiotics. Selected miRNA include down‐regulated miR‐378b (0.5 fold change, p=0.02) and up‐regulated miR‐574‐5p and miR‐612 (1.7 and 2.2 fold change, p= 0.01 and 0.04 respectively). No significant difference in miR‐378b expression was found in the probiotic group, suggesting that antibiotic‐dependent alteration of miR‐378b expression is mitigated by Lacidofil® STRONG. Previous studies showed that this antibiotic regimen modifies the gut microbiota composition. Moreover, the miR‐378 family was previously found to depend on the gut microbiota. Thus, it is likely that antibiotic‐dependent fecal miRNAs respond to alterations in the gut microbiota induced by the drug. Administration of Lacidofil ® STRONG was able to alleviate the alteration of the fecal miRNA signature. This implies that dietary manipulation of the gut microbiota can be a strategy to sustain intestinal health via miRNA. Moreover, microbiota‐associated fecal miRNAs, may be used as biomarkers of probiotic administration. Support or Funding Information NSERC, Lallemand Health Solutions, Lawson Family Chair in Microbiome Nutrition Research

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.246 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB Journal→Same topicGut microbiota and health→French-language works237,207→