2010
DOI: 10.4161/gmic.1.3.12013
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Responders and non-responders to probiotic interventions

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
52
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
3

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 61 publications
(52 citation statements)
references
References 31 publications
(27 reference statements)
0
52
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Reductions included several fermentation variables (weight of cecal contents, empty cecal weight, total amounts of propionate and butyrate ( P = 0.07) in cecal contents), plasma PYY (RS*fat P = 0.08), and abdominal fat (RS*fat P = 0.07). Such findings indicate that rats respond differently to HAM‐RS2 with a high fat diet, and consideration should be given to this partial attenuation and difference in response . The specific mechanism by which HAM‐RS2 reduces body fat may be a reflection of the amount of propionate and butyrate in the cecal contents, which were partially attenuated with the feeding of HAM‐RS2 in a high fat diet .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Reductions included several fermentation variables (weight of cecal contents, empty cecal weight, total amounts of propionate and butyrate ( P = 0.07) in cecal contents), plasma PYY (RS*fat P = 0.08), and abdominal fat (RS*fat P = 0.07). Such findings indicate that rats respond differently to HAM‐RS2 with a high fat diet, and consideration should be given to this partial attenuation and difference in response . The specific mechanism by which HAM‐RS2 reduces body fat may be a reflection of the amount of propionate and butyrate in the cecal contents, which were partially attenuated with the feeding of HAM‐RS2 in a high fat diet .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…This emphasizes the importance of trying to increase the chance of patients responding to therapy, by using biological or genetic markers when available to stratify the patient population before enrollment and decide at what point intervention will provide the best outcome (for example, in subjects with a starting CD4 count less than 350 cells/µl). 28 The immune markers IgE, IgG, IFNγ and IL-10 did not show a significant impact of probiotic supplementation. Markers that are more specific for the intestinal barrier including plasma lipopolysaccharide, plasma total bacterial DNA and urine lactoferrin: mannitol ratio, may be more useful in future studies.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 93%
“…One possibility for this finding is that this mouse initially harbored a microbiota deprived in HAM-RS2-responsive genera and therefore was not able to respond to the carbohydrate. Nonresponders can be confounding to data analysis of dietary intervention and clinical studies (Reid et al, 2010). Conversely, two mice from the Control group (5 and 6) were colonized by a gut microbiota most similar to the 18% HAM-RS2-fed mice and contained the highest proportions of Bifidobacterium and Allobaculum and fewest representatives of Turicibacter spp.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%