1. Introduction
Type 2 diabetes (DM), a heterogeneous disorder of glucose metabolism characterized by both insulin resistance and pancreatic β-cell dysfunction, is considered to be a multifactorial disease [1,2]. Among the factors that influence its development, the gut microbiota has recently begun to be studied more closely, as its association with the pathophysiology of most chronic diseases, including DM, has been reported in various studies in humans as well as in animal models [3,4,5]. The gut microbiota is the complex community of microorganisms living in the intestinal tracts. It is essential for various physiologic processes and is considered to be an environmental factor responsible for energy metabolism and, consequently, for metabolic disorders [3,4,5]. Various studies have shown an association between the gut microbiota and DM; however, the details of such reports vary, as the taxa associated with DM differ substantially depending on the studies and/or the geographic areas in which they were conducted [6,7,8,9,10,11,12]. The reasons for such conflicting results may stem from environmental factors, which may affect glucose metabolism together with the gut microbiota and are substantially different depending on the study population. Although the factors responsible for the above such conflicting results have not been well-elucidated yet, the nutrients consumed seem to be among these factors. Namely, since intestinal microorganisms metabolize various diet-derived nutrients into a variety of bioactive compounds, which in turn induce various bioactions, not only the proportion of any specific microorganism, but also the amount of specific nutrients consumed may affect the amount of nutrient-derived bioactive metabolites. For example, short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs), metabolites with various antidiabetic biological functions, are produced from fiber consumed and have been reported to be increased in a diet-dependent fashion [13,14,15,16]. Therefore, the amount of nutrients consumed may have metabolic effects that depend on the proportion of their corresponding intestinal microorganisms. Furthermore, since various intestinal microorganisms may not affect glucose metabolism alone, but jointly, analyses of the independent association of each taxon with DM may not always be reliable.
To examine the association between the gut microbiota and DM precisely in a general Japanese population, we investigated this association considering selected nutrients consumed and interactions between intestinal microorganisms examined using cluster analyses.
2. Subjects and Methods
2.1. Study Population
Participants were recruited from the Iwaki study, a health promotion study of Japanese people aged over 20 years that aims to prevent lifestyle-related diseases and prolong lifespan. The Iwaki study is conducted annually in the Iwaki area of the city of Hirosaki in Aomori Prefecture, northern Japan [17,18]. The Iwaki study is a population-based study that involves annual comprehensive health examinations. Participants were recruited from residents aged over 20 years living in the Iwaki area (number: approximately 9200) through a public announcement. The Iwaki study itself has no inclusion or exclusion criteria. As shown in Figure 1, of the 1148 individuals who participated in the Iwaki study in 2016, 74 individuals over 77 years of age were excluded to minimize age-related diversity in gut microbiota as previously reported [19], as were 55 individuals with incomplete data. After these exclusions, 1019 individuals (403 men, 616 women) aged 52.4 ± 14.1 years were included in the present study.
This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Hirosaki University School of Medicine (No. 2016-028, approved on 27 May 2016), and was conducted in accordance with the recommendations of the Declaration of Helsinki. Written informed consent was obtained from all the participants.
2.2. Characteristics Measured
Blood samples were collected in the morning under fasting conditions from a peripheral vein. Fecal samples were collected within 3 days prior to the study by using a commercial tube kit (TechnoSuruga Laboratory Co., Ltd., Shizuoka, Japan) and cotton swabs and were stored at 4 °C until the DNA was extracted as previously reported [20,21,22]. The gut microbiota composition was investigated by applying the quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (q-PCR) method targeting the V3–V4 region of the prokaryotic 16S rRNA genes, as previously described [23]. The proportion of each genus of the gut microbiota is a composition ratio obtained by dividing the number of read counts of each genus by the total number of read counts. The measurements of the gut microbiota were described previously in detail elsewhere [19]. Of the 395 genera detected in our analysis, 15 major genera with a proportion of ≥0.01, which together accounted for 0.857 of total abundance, were evaluated in the present study. Daily nutritional intake was estimated using the brief self-administered diet history questionnaire (BDHQ), which is a well-annotated structured self-administered questionnaire invented for Japanese adults to estimate their daily intakes of energy, and selected nutrients by assessing dietary habits during the preceding month [20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30]. Although the BDHQ gives values for a large number of nutrients consumed, only the values of macronutrients and fibers were used here to simplify this first analysis in order to maximize statistical power and avoid multiple testing problems. Fiber was used since it is a well-established nutrient associated with DM in relation with the gut microbiota, as described.
The following clinical characteristics were also measured: height, body weight, body mass index (BMI), percent body fat (fat (%)), fasting blood glucose (FBG), fasting serum insulin, glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), systolic (s) and diastolic (d) blood pressures (BP), serum levels of low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol, triglyceride (TG), high-density lipoprotein (HDL)-cholesterol, uric acid (SUA), urea nitrogen, creatinine (Cr), and albumin, and activity levels of aspartate transaminase (AST), alanine transaminase (ALT), and γ-glutamyl transpeptidase (γGTP) activities. The percent body fat was measured by applying the bioelectricity impedance method with a Tanita MC-190 body composition analyzer (Tanita Corp., Tokyo, Japan). HbA1c (%) is expressed as the National Glycohemoglobin Standardization Program value. All laboratory testing was performed in a commercial laboratory (LSI Medience Co., Tokyo, Japan) in accordance with vendor protocols. Insulin secretion was evaluated by performing a homeostasis model assessment of β-cell function (HOMA-β), based on fasting blood glucose and insulin levels [31]. Insulin resistance was also assessed based by using homeostasis model assessment (HOMA-R) [31].
DM was defined according to the 2010 Japan Diabetes Society criterion (FBG levels of ≥126 mg/dL) [32]. In subjects whose FBG levels were not measured, DM was defined by an HbA1c concentration of ≥6.5%. Those taking medication for DM were also defined as having DM. Hypertension was defined by a blood pressure of ≥140/90 mmHg or the use of anti-hypertensive therapy. Hyperlipidemia was defined by an LDL cholesterol level of ≥140 mg/dL, a triglyceride level of ≥150 mg/dL, or the use of anti-hyperlipidemic therapy. Alcohol intake status (current drinker or non-drinker) and smoking habits (never, past, or current) were determined using a questionnaire.
2.3. Statistical Analysis
Data are presented as means ± SD. The statistical significance of the differences in values between two groups (parametric) and case–control associations between groups (nonparametric) were assessed by using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the χ2 test, respectively. Differences in gut microbiota composition and selected nutrients consumed between diabetic and nondiabetic subjects were also evaluated with adjustment for possible confounding factors. Correlations between the gut microbiota composition and selected nutrients consumed were evaluated using univariate or multivariate (for independent associations) linear regression analyses. For multivariate analyses, among characteristics related to each other and different between the DM and non-DM groups, one characteristic that showed the lowest p-value was selected as an independent variable, i.e., age, gender, BMI, systolic blood pressure, and serum levels of TG, UA, Cr and ALT were selected as possible confounding factors. Based on the four genera found to be independently associated with DM, subjects were grouped by hierarchical clustering into four major clusters, each of which seemed to represent subjects with each corresponding dominant genus, and then were plotted using a principal component (PC) analysis. The association between DM and each cluster was evaluated by multiple logistic regression analyses with adjustment for the multiple factors described above. For statistical analyses, HOMA indices, TG, AST, and ALT were log-transformed (ln) to approximate a normal distribution. For the correlation analyses with HOMA-R and HOMA-β, subjects with FBG levels of >140 mg/dL (n = 50) and <63 (n = 42), respectively, were excluded to evaluate such index precisely. A p-value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant. All analyses were performed using JMP pro version 16.0 (SAS Institute Japan Ltd., Tokyo, Japan).
3. Results
3.1. Clinical Characteristics of the Study Subjects
The clinical characteristics of subjects based on their diabetic status are shown in Table 1. In addition to those related to glucose metabolism, most characteristics measured were significantly different between the DM and non-DM groups, i.e., the diabetic subjects were older (61.45 ± 10.8 vs. 51.4 ± 14.1, p < 0.001), more obese (e.g., BMI: 25.2 ± 4.2 vs. 22.7 ± 3.3, p < 0.001), hypertensive (71.9% vs. 32.9%, p < 0.001), and hyperlipidemic (62.5% vs. 36.8%, p < 0.001), and showed modestly deteriorated kidney function compared with the non-diabetic subjects. However, the proportion of lifestyle-related characteristics, such as habitual alcohol drinking and smoking, was not significantly different between these groups.
3.2. Differences in the Selected Nutrients Consumed and Proportions of Gut Microbiota Genera between the DM and Non-DM Groups
Differences in selected nutrients consumed between the DM and non-DM groups were then evaluated (Table 2). As shown, no differences between these groups were observed for any selected nutrients consumed. These observations indicate that the diabetic subjects did not eat more than the non-diabetic subjects, at least regarding the amounts of macronutrients and total energy.
We then examined differences in the gut microbiota composition between the DM and non-DM groups (Table 2). Among 15 major genera evaluated in this study, the proportions of Bifidobacterium, Streptococcus, Roseburia, and Blautia were significantly different between the DM and non-DM groups, even after adjustment with multiple possible confounding factors; the proportions of Bifidobacterium and Streptococcus were increased and those of Roseburia and Blautia were decreased in the DM group compared with the non-DM group.
3.3. Correlation between the Selected Nutrients Consumed and Gut Microbiota Genera
The correlations between selected nutrients consumed by the subjects and their gut microbiota genera were then examined (Table 3). After adjustment for possible confounding factors (age, gender, BMI, sBP, and serum levels of TG, UA, Cr and ALT), the genus Streptococcus was significantly positively correlated with energy consumed (β = 0.075, p = 0.027), and the genus Roseburia was significantly positively correlated with the proportion of carbohydrate and fiber consumed (β = 0.091, p = 0.007, and β = 0.092, p = 0.010, respectively). In contrast, the genera Bifidobacterium and Blautia were not correlated with any selected nutrients consumed.
3.4. Assessment of Gut Microbiota Genera as Risk Factors for DM
Logistic regression analyses were performed to assess the major gut microbiota genera as risk factors for DM (Table 4). The genus Bifidobacterium was identified as a significant risk factor for DM (odds ratio (OR): 1.68, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.33–2.13), whereas the genera Roseburia and Blautia were identified as factors negatively associated with DM (OR: 0.54, 95% CI: 0.30-0.96 and OR: 0.45, 95% CI: 0.24-0.86, respectively) even after adjustment for multiple factors as described above. Furthermore, because the genus Roseburia was significantly correlated with the proportion of carbohydrate and fiber consumed, the risk posed by the genus Roseburia in the gut microbiota was evaluated with further adjustment for such factors; the negative association remained significant even after this adjustment (OR: 0.53, 95% CI: 0.30-0.95, and OR: 0.54, 95% CI: 0.30-0.96 for adjustments with carbohydrate and fiber, respectively).
3.5. A Bifidobacterium-Dominant Gut Microbiota Is a Risk Factor for DM
To further evaluate the association of gut microbiota composition with DM, we grouped the subjects based on the four abovementioned genera found to be independently associated with DM by hierarchical clustering into four major clusters, each of which seems to represent subjects in whom the corresponding genus is dominant (Figure 2). The association between DM and each cluster was evaluated by conducting multiple logistic regression analyses with adjustment for the factors described above (Table 5). A logistic regression analysis that used the Blautia-dominant group as the reference, which is the most negatively associated genus with DM as shown in Table 4, revealed that the Bifidobacterium-dominant group was the only one significantly positively associated with DM after adjustment with multiple factors as described previously (OR 3.97, 95% CI 1.68–9.35).
4. Discussion
In this cross-sectional study of a general Japanese population, we found that, after adjustment with multiple possible confounding factors, the proportion of the genera Bifidobacterium and Streptococcus in the gut microbiota were positively associated with DM, and the proportions of the genera Roseburia and Blautia were negatively associated with DM. These findings indicate that the genera Bifidobacterium and Streptococcus are risk factors for DM, whereas the genera Roseburia and Blautia are protective factors against DM. Next, we evaluated the influences of selected nutrient factors on these associations because the gut microbiota has been reported to be affected by the nutrients consumed [33,34]. The analyses revealed positive correlations between the genera Streptococcus and Roseburia in the gut microbiota with energy consumed and the amounts of carbohydrate and fiber consumed, respectively, but no correlation between the proportion of the genera Bifidobacterium or Blautia with any nutrient factors. Together, these findings may indicate that the DM risk posed by increased energy consumption can be blamed, at least in part, on an increase in the proportion of the genus Streptococcus in the gut microbiota and that higher carbohydrate and fiber consumption may decrease the risk of DM by increasing the proportion of the genus Roseburia in the gut microbiota. In contrast, the associations between the genera Bifidobacterium and Blautia and DM were independent of selected nutrients consumed, which suggests that there is no effective diet for changing the proportion of these genera in the gut microbiota to reduce the risk of DM.
As described, intestinal microorganisms metabolize various diet-derived nutrients to bioactive compounds, which appear to induce not only positive but also negative metabolic states. For example, indoles produced from tryptophan induce interleukin-22 production, trimethylamine produced from choline is further converted into trimethylamine-oxide, which acts pro-inflammatory, secondary bile acids converted from primary bile acids act anti-inflammatory, and SCFAs produced from dietary fibers are involved in various beneficial metabolic pathways [13,35,36,37,38]. However, although the biological effects of these metabolites have been widely evaluated, the changes in these metabolites in response to nutrients consumed, particularly in relation with the gut microbiota, remain poorly understood. Namely, SCFAs have been reported to be increased in a diet-dependent fashion [13,14,15,16], but they are produced not only by proposed metabolically beneficial microorganisms but also by potentially pathogenic microorganisms [39,40]. Therefore, the observed associations between DM and the gut microbiota depending on nutrients consumed seem to warrant further analyses with more subjects and/or at the level of species or subspecies.
Because the intestinal microorganisms that compose the gut microbiota seem to affect glucose metabolism jointly rather than independently, we then grouped the subjects according to the four genera observed to be independently associated with DM by cluster analysis, which revealed four clusters each corresponding to a dominant genus, to examine such joint effects. The analyses showed that subjects with a Bifidobacterium-dominant gut microbiota were highly associated with having DM, whereas subjects with a Blautia-dominant gut microbiota were substantially negatively associated with having DM. Interestingly, as shown in Figure 1, when the subjects were plotted using a PC analysis, subjects with genera Bifidobacterium- and Blautia-dominant gut microbiota were not plotted fully on opposite sides, which indicates that each genus does not become a risk factor for DM on its own, but rather jointly, thus supporting the importance of analyses with mutual influences among microorganisms in the gut microbiota.
Although the associations of the genera Streptococcus, Roseburia, and Blautia with DM seem to be mostly concordant with the findings of prior studies [3,4,5], the observed positive association between genus Bifidobacterium and DM does not agree with most previous reports [6,7,8,9,10,11]. This conflicting result may stem from differences in the methodology used and/or study population. Notably, the proportion of genus Bifidobacterium in the gut microbiota appears to be substantially different depending on the study population. Study populations that showed a negative association between genus Bifidobacterium and DM generally had a relatively low proportion of genus Bifidobacterium (0.019~0.072) [6,7,8], while one unique study with opposite results used a Japanese population with a relatively high proportion of genus Bifidobacterium in the gut microbiota (~0.16) [12]. These findings suggest the possibility of a U-shaped association between genus Bifidobacterium and DM, i.e., a negative association when the proportion of genus Bifidobacterium in the gut microbiotas of the study population is low, but a positive association when the proportion of genus Bifidobacterium in the gut microbiotas of the study population is high. Our study population belongs to the same ethnicity as the study population described above that showed a positive association between genus Bifidobacterium and DM and had a similarly relatively high proportion of genus Bifidobacterium, 0.080. Furthermore, correlation analyses of genus Bifidobacterium with indices representing glucose metabolism, such as FBG and HOMA-R, indicated such U-shaped associations with inflection points at 0.149 and 0.133, respectively (Figure 3). Together, an increased proportion of genus Bifidobacterium in the gut microbiota seems to be a risk factor for DM, at least in populations with a high proportion of this genus, or Japanese populations.
The effect of dietary intervention on glucose metabolism is often explained as being partly caused by changes in the gut microbiota, although the reported results are conflicting [7,11,12,41,42]. A recent systematic review assessing such effects in subjects with DM reported no significant changes in the proportions of bacteria in genera including Bifidobacterium and Roseburia upon the dietary intervention [43]. Similarly in our study, the proportion of genus Bifidobacterium in the gut microbiota did not correlate with any nutrient factors, which may suggest that improvement in glucose metabolism by a dietary intervention cannot be simply explained as its effects on increasing the genus Bifidobacterium in the gut microbiota. In contrast, the genus Roseburia was found to be positively correlated in our study with the proportion of carbohydrate and fiber consumed. Roseburia produce short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs) from non-digestible carbohydrates, and SCFAs activate G-protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs), through which SCFAs exert various biological functions that are beneficial for the development of DM such as increasing the levels of glucagon like peptide-1 (GLP-1) and peptide tyrosine-tyrosine (PYY) [44,45]. Therefore, this correlation indicates that dietary intervention to increase the carbohydrate or fiber consumed may improve glucose metabolism at least, in part, by increasing the proportion of the genus Roseburia in gut microbiota and, thus, increasing the amounts of SCFAs.
Like the genus Roseburia, the genus Blautia is also known to produce SCFAs and to be inversely associated with various diseases including DM [19,46,47]. However, no correlations between genus Blautia and any selected nutrients consumed were observed in this study. Thus, although an increased proportion of the genus Blautia in the gut microbiota exerts substantial effects on the pathophysiology leading to DM, selected nutrients consumed may not have a substantial influence on the proportion of the genus Blautia in the gut microbiota, i.e., the genus Blautia seems to be a protective factor against DM independent of the amounts of selected nutrients consumed.
The present study has both strengths and limitations. Its strengths include the statistical adjustments made for multiple factors that could have confounded the results and its analysis of a general population-based sample. It also had the following limitations. The participants were selected from a health promotion study, not from a population undergoing ordinary health check-ups, and thus may not accurately represent the general population. Additionally, we examined associations between DM and microorganisms in the gut at the genus level because such associations at the phylum level have been extensively reported. Extended analyses at other levels of taxonomy, such as the species level, may provide even more detailed information on this issue. Furthermore, the influence of the macronutrients consumed on the associations with DM was evaluated to simplify the analyses and avoid the issue of multiple testing. However, the micronutrients consumed may also have some influence on the gut microbiota and its association with DM, and thus analyses of micronutrients consumed should be examined in future work. This study was observational, i.e., no nutrient factor-based interventions were conducted. Therefore, the effects of an intervention using any nutrient factors could not be evaluated precisely. Drugs used by the study participants were also not evaluated, even though some drugs used to treat DM, such as metformin, have been repeatedly reported to alter gut microbiota [11,48]. As the subjects of this study were participants of a health care check-up, more than half of the diabetic subjects (56 out of 96) did not take any drugs to treat DM, and the prevalence of metformin usage has been reported to be much lower in Japan compared with that in other countries such as Taiwan, Hong Kong, and the United States [49] Therefore, the influence of drugs taken by the study participants on the results reported here may not be so substantial. Finally, because our study was cross-sectional and not a cohort study, we could not assess the cause–consequence relationship between the gut microbiota and DM; therefore, cohort analyses are warranted to reveal the relationship between the gut microbiota composition and the incidence of DM.
5. Conclusions
The proportion of the genera Streptococcus and Bifidobacterium in the gut microbiota was positively associated with DM, and those of the genera Roseburia and Blautia were negatively associated with DM. The observed positive correlation between the proportions of the genera Streptococcus and Roseburia with energy consumed, and amounts of carbohydrate and fiber consumed, respectively, indicate the possible involvements of nutrient factors in the association between the gut microbiota and DM. Furthermore, independent of nutrient factors, subjects in a general Japanese population with a Bifidobacterium-dominant gut microbiota seem to be at higher risk for DM, while those with a Blautia-dominant gut microbiota seem to be more protected against DM. The results reported here seem to reinforce the importance of considering nutritional factors in examining the association between gut microbiota and DM and the joint effects of gut microbiota on that association, and may lead to the discovery of which nutritional interventions are appropriate for which individuals in the future.
A.T. (Ayumi Tamura), M.M., Y.N., M.D., I.T., K.S., and K.I. designed the study. A.T. (Ayumi Tamura), M.M., Y.N., S.M., and M.D., analyzed and interpreted the data. M.D. wrote the manuscript. K.H., R.I., S.O., A.T. (Akihide Terada), S.M., H.M., M.Y, I.T., K.S., and K.I. contributed to data acquisition. K.H., R.I., S.O., A.T. (Akihide Terada), J.T., and M.Y. contributed to data interpretation. A.T. (Ayumi Tamura), M.M., I.T., K.S., and K.I. takes responsibility for the integrity and the accuracy of the data. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Hirosaki University School of Medicine (No. 2016-028, approved on 27 May 2016)), and was conducted in accordance with the recommendations of the Declaration of Helsinki.
Written informed consent was obtained from all the participants.
All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article.
We thank Katie Oakley, from Edanz (
The authors have no competing interest relevant to this article.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Enlarge this image.Figure 2. Plots of study subjects clustered by the genera Bifidobacterium, Streptococcus, Roseburia, and Blautia using a principal component (PC) analysis. Subjects are plotted in four different colors corresponding to each of four evaluated clusters. Eigenvectors are also shown as arrows with their representing genus names attached.
Enlarge this image.Figure 3. Correlation of genus Bifidobacterium with fasting blood glucose and HOMA-R. Regression lines and curves evaluated by linear and quadratic function regression analyses, respectively, are shown with their p-values for correlation. Quadratic function regression analyses showed significant correlations, but linear regression analyses did not.
Clinical characteristics of the study subjects based on diabetic status.
| Characteristics | DM (n = 96) | Non-DM (n = 923) | p |
|---|---|---|---|
| Number (Gender: M/F) | 44/52 | 359/564 | 0.188 |
| Age (years) | 61.47 ± 10.76 | 51.43 ± 14.12 | <0.001 ** |
| Height (cm) | 160.30 ± 9.06 | 161.35 ± 8.90 | 0.270 |
| Body weight (kg) | 64.72 ± 12.36 | 59.34 ± 11.27 | <0.001 ** |
| Body mass index (kg/m2) | 25.15 ± 4.15 | 22.70 ± 3.26 | <0.001 ** |
| Percent body fat | 29.25 ± 9.70 | 25.96 ± 7.96 | <0.001 ** |
| Fasting plasma glucose (mg/dL) | 129 ± 44.43 | 87.85 ± 9.56 | <0.001 ** |
| HbA1c (%) | 7.21 ± 1.31 | 5.71 ± 0.30 | <0.001 ** |
| Fasting serum insulin: IRI (mU/mL) | 7.30 ± 4.26 | 5.06 ± 2.62 | <0.001 ** |
| HOMA-R | 2.31 ± 1.53 | 1.23 ± 0.63 | <0.001 ** |
| HOMA-β | 63.75 ± 166.54 | 81.00 ± 2.13 | <0.001 ** |
| Systolic blood pressure (mmHg) | 133.5 ± 18.45 | 123.10 ± 17.45 | <0.001 ** |
| Diastolic blood pressure (mmHg) | 79.25 ± 10.60 | 75.09 ± 12.07 | 0.001 ** |
| LDL cholesterol (mg/dL) | 123.41 ± 37.18 | 117.21 ± 29.15 | 0.054 |
| Triglyceride (mg/dL) | 128.98 ± 105.11 | 94.98 ± 61.62 | <0.001 ** |
| HDL cholesterol (mg/dL) | 58.13 ± 17.36 | 65.52 ± 17.08 | <0.001 ** |
| Serum albumin (g/dL) | 4.45 ± 0.34 | 4.51 ± 0.29 | 0.056 |
| Serum uric acid (mg/dL) | 5.44 ± 1.37 | 5.05 ± 1.35 | 0.007 ** |
| Serum urea nitrogen (mg/dL) | 15.94 ± 6.79 | 14.00 ± 4.00 | <0.001 ** |
| Serum creatinine (mg/dL) | 0.84 ± 0.97 | 0.71 ± 0.18 | <0.001 ** |
| AST | 26.41 ± 11.00 | 22.86 ± 9.12 | <0.001 ** |
| ALT | 29.06 ± 19.42 | 21.44 ± 13.68 | <0.001 ** |
| γGTP | 39.69 ± 27.80 | 33.33 ± 42.63 | 0.153 |
| Hypertension: n (%) | 69 (71.9) | 304 (32.9) | <0.001 ** |
| Hyperlipidemia: n (%) | 60 (62.5) | 340 (36.8) | <0.001 ** |
| Drinking alcohol: n (%) | 42 (43.8) | 452 (49.0) | 0.330 |
| Smoking (never/ past/ current): n | 59/18/19 | 571/183/168 | 0.917 |
p < <0.01 is indicated by **. Data are presented as the mean ± SD or number of subjects (%).
DM-dependent differences in nutrients consumed and gut microbiota composition.
| p (Adjusted) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DM | Non-DM | Non | Age and Gender | Multiple Factors | |
| Energy (kcal/kg/day) | 31.755 ± 10.93 | 31.998 ± 10.23 | 0.826 | 0.142 | 0.444 |
| Carbohydrate (g/kg/day) | 4.197 ± 1.45 | 4.277 ± 1.43 | 0.599 | 0.095 | 0.720 |
| Protein (g/kg/day) | 1.123 ± 0.48 | 1.198 ± 0.50 | 0.571 | 0.292 | 0.440 |
| Fat (g/kg/day) | 0.903 ± 0.35 | 0.907 ± 0.37 | 0.922 | 0.567 | 0.167 |
| Fiber (g/kg/day) | |||||
| Total | 0.194 ± 0.08 | 0.189 ± 0.09 | 0.601 | 0.107 | 0.882 |
| Water soluble | 0.048 ± 0.02 | 0.047 ± 0.02 | 0.783 | 0.100 | 0.954 |
| Water insoluble | 0.139 ± 0.05 | 0.136 ± 0.06 | 0.587 | 0.108 | 0.872 |
| Bifidobacterium | 0.098 ± 0.11 | 0.078 ± 0.08 | 0.024 * | <0.001 * | <0.001 * |
| Collinsella | 0.044 ± 0.05 | 0.040 ± 0.05 | 0.435 | 0.1648 | 0.339 |
| Bacteroides | 0.088 ± 0.10 | 0.111 ± 0.08 | 0.010 * | 0.048* | 0.057 |
| Prevotella | 0.060 ± 0.12 | 0.049 ± 0.10 | 0.315 | 0.8522 | 0.794 |
| Alistipes | 0.018 ± 0.03 | 0.016 ± 0.02 | 0.359 | 0.4956 | 0.413 |
| Gemmiger | 0.025 ± 0.02 | 0.025 ± 0.03 | 0.858 | 0.8266 | 0.884 |
| Streptococcus | 0.037 ± 0.06 | 0.019 ± 0.03 | <0.001 ** | 0.001 ** | 0.005 ** |
| Roseburia | 0.038 ± 0.04 | 0.046 ± 0.05 | 0.131 | 0.022 * | 0.020 * |
| Anaerostipes | 0.042 ± 0.05 | 0.058 ± 0.06 | 0.017 * | 0.1357 | 0.096 |
| Fusicatenibacter | 0.017 ± 0.02 | 0.021 ± 0.02 | 0.096 | 0.1891 | 0.202 |
| Blautia | 0.057 ± 0.04 | 0.075 ± 0.04 | <0.001 ** | 0.012 * | 0.016 * |
| Ruminococcus 2 | 0.045 ± 0.04 | 0.051 ± 0.06 | 0.341 | 0.6327 | 0.392 |
| Ruminococcus 1 | 0.034 ± 0.04 | 0.032 ± 0.05 | 0.684 | 0.7635 | 0.961 |
| Faecalibacterium | 0.072 ± 0.05 | 0.079 ± 0.06 | 0.231 | 0.1791 | 0.315 |
| Lachnospiracea_incertae_sedis | 0.019 ± 0.01 | 0.020 ± 0.01 | 0.707 | 0.4297 | 0.586 |
p < 0.05 and <0.01 are indicated by * and **, respectively. Data are presented as the mean ± SD or number of subjects (%). Multiple factors: age, gender, BMI, sBP, and levels of TG, SUA, Cr, and ALT. Ruminococcus species belong to two different families, Ruminococcaceae and Lachnospiraceae, and, thus, were classified into two corresponding genera, Ruminococcus 1 and 2.
Correlation between nutrients consumed and gut microbiota genera.
| Bifidobacterium | Streptococcus | Roseburia | Blautia | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| β | p | β | p | β | p | β | p | |
| Energy (kcal/kg/day) | −0.017 | 0.627 | 0.075 | 0.027 * | 0.043 | 0.213 | −0.019 | 0.583 |
| Carbohydrate (g/kg/day) | 0.004 | 0.902 | 0.062 | 0.063 | 0.091 | 0.007 ** | −0.022 | 0.522 |
| Protein (g/kg/day) | −0.023 | 0.493 | 0.047 | 0.164 | 0.010 | 0.765 | −0.032 | 0.353 |
| Fat (g/kg/day) | 0.015 | 0.653 | 0.041 | 0.215 | −0.008 | 0.822 | −0.020 | 0.557 |
| Fiber (g/kg/day) | ||||||||
| Total | −0.028 | 0.420 | 0.015 | 0.674 | 0.092 | 0.010 * | −0.049 | 0.167 |
| Water soluble | −0.024 | 0.486 | 0.004 | 0.900 | 0.091 | 0.010 * | −0.035 | 0.315 |
| Water insoluble | −0.028 | 0.453 | 0.020 | 0.579 | 0.069 | 0.010 * | −0.049 | 0.171 |
p < 0.05 and <0.01 are indicated by * and **, respectively. Data are presented as the mean ± SD or number of subjects (%). Multiple factors: age, gender, BMI, sBP, and levels of TG, SUA, Cr, and ALT.
Risk of gut microbiota genera for DM.
| Univariate | Multiple Factors Adjusted | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR | 95%CI | p | OR | 95%CI | p | |
| Bifidobacterium (per 0.1) | 1.28 | 1.03–1.59 | 0.026 * | 1.68 | 1.33–2.13 | <0.001 * |
| Streptococcus (per 0.1) | 2.27 | 1.51–3.40 | <0.001 ** | 1.47 | 0.93–2.32 | 0.107 |
| Roseburia (per 0.1) | 0.68 | 0.41–1.12 | 0.132 | 0.54 | 0.30–0.96 | 0.027 * |
| Blautia (per 0.1) | 0.31 | 0.17–0.58 | <0.001 ** | 0.45 | 0.24–0.86 | 0.011* |
p < 0.05 and <0.01 are indicated by * and **, respectively. Data are presented as the mean ± SD or number of subjects (%). Multiple factors: age, gender, BMI, sBP, and levels of TG, SUA, Cr, and ALT.
Risk of gut microbiota clustered based on four associated genera for DM.
| Univariate | Age and Gender |
Multiple Factors |
|||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR | 95%CI | p | OR | 95%CI | p | OR | 95%CI | p | |
| Blautia |
Ref | - | - | Ref | - | - | Ref | - | - |
| Roseburia |
1.72 | 0.30–1.11 | 0.101 | 1.44 | 0.74–2.80 | 0.278 | 1.54 | 0.78–3.04 | 0.218 |
| Streptococcus dominant | 4.01 | 1.85–8.70 | <0.001 ** | 2.28 | 1.02–5.10 | 0.044 * | 2.10 | 0.90–4.87 | 0.084 |
| Bifidobacterium dominant | 2.57 | 1.18–5.62 | 0.018 ** | 3.43 | 1.52–7.75 | 0.003 ** | 3.97 | 1.68–9.35 | 0.002 ** |
p < 0.05 and <0.01 are indicated by * and **, respectively. Data are presented as the mean ± SD or number of subjects (%). Multiple factors: age, gender, BMI, sBP, and levels of TG, SUA, Cr, and ALT.
References
1. Stumvoll, M.; Goldstein, B.J.; van Haeften, T.W. Type 2 diabetes: Principles of pathogenesis and therapy. Lancet; 2005; 365, pp. 1333-1346. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(05)61032-X]
2. DeFronzo, R.A. Pathogenesis of type 2 diabetes mellitus. Med. Clin. N. Am.; 2004; 88, pp. 787-835. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mcna.2004.04.013] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15308380]
3. Tilg, H.; Moschen, A.R. Microbiota and diabetes: An evolving relationship. Gut; 2014; 63, pp. 1513-1521. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2014-306928] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24833634]
4. Gurung, M.; Li, Z.; You, H.; Rodrigues, R.; Jump, D.B.; Morgun, A.; Shulzhenko, N. Role of gut microbiota in type 2 diabetes pathophysiology. EBioMedicine; 2020; 51, 102590. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ebiom.2019.11.051]
5. Fan, Y.; Pedersen, O. Gut microbiota in human metabolic health and disease. Nat. Rev. Microbiol.; 2021; 19, pp. 55-71. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41579-020-0433-9]
6. Xu, J.; Lian, F.; Zhao, L.; Zhao, Y.; Chen, X.; Zhang, X.; Guo, Y.; Zhang, C.; Zhou, Q.; Xue, Z. et al. Structural modulation of gut microbiota during alleviation of type 2 diabetes with a Chinese herbal formula. ISME J.; 2015; 9, pp. 552-562. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ismej.2014.177]
7. Candela, M.; Biagi, E.; Soverini, M.; Consolandi, C.; Quercia, S.; Severgnini, M.; Peano, C.; Turroni, S.; Rampelli, S.; Pozzilli, P. et al. Modulation of gut microbiota dysbioses in type 2 diabetic patients by macrobiotic Ma-Pi 2 diet. Br. J. Nutr.; 2016; 116, pp. 80-93. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0007114516001045]
8. Barengolts, E.; Green, S.J.; Eisenberg, Y.; Akbar, A.; Reddivari, B.; Layden, B.T.; Dugas, L.; Chlipala, G. Gut microbiota varies by opioid use, circulating leptin and oxytocin in African American men with diabetes and high burden of chronic disease. PLoS ONE; 2018; 13, e0194171. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0194171]
9. Sedighi, M.; Razavi, S.; Navab-Moghadam, F.; Khamseh, M.E.; Alaei-Shahmiri, F.; Mehrtash, A.; Amirmozafari, N. Comparison of gut microbiota in adult patients with type 2 diabetes and healthy individuals. Microb Pathog.; 2017; 111, pp. 362-369. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.micpath.2017.08.038]
10. Wu, X.; Ma, C.; Han, L.; Nawaz, M.; Gao, F.; Zhang, X.; Yu, P.; Zhao, C.; Li, L.; Zhou, A. et al. Molecular characterisation of the faecal microbiota in patients with type II diabetes. Curr. Microbiol.; 2010; 61, pp. 69-78. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00284-010-9582-9]
11. Wu, H.; Esteve, E.; Tremaroli, V.; Khan, M.T.; Caesar, R.; Mannerås-Holm, L.; Ståhlman, M.; Olsson, L.M.; Serino, M.; Planas-Fèlix, M. et al. Metformin alters the gut microbiome of individuals with treatment-naive type 2 diabetes, contributing to the therapeutic effects of the drug. Nat Med.; 2017; 23, pp. 850-858. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nm.4345] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28530702]
12. Sasaki, M.; Ogasawara, N.; Funaki, Y.; Mizuno, M.; Iida, A.; Goto, C.; Koikeda, S.; Kasugai, K.; Joh, T. Transglucosidase improves the gut microbiota profile of type 2 diabetes mellitus patients: A randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled study. BMC Gastroenterol.; 2013; 13, 81. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-230X-13-81] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23657005]
13. Herrema, H.; Niess, J.H. Intestinal microbial metabolites in human metabolism and type 2 diabetes. Diabetologia; 2020; 63, pp. 2533-2547. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00125-020-05268-4]
14. Schwiertz, A.; Taras, D.; Schäfer, K.; Beijer, S.; Bos, N.A.; Donus, C.; Hardt, P.D. Microbiota and SCFA in lean and overweight healthy subjects. Obesity; 2010; 18, pp. 190-195. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/oby.2009.167]
15. De la Cuesta-Zuluaga, J.; Mueller, N.T.; Álvarez-Quintero, R.; Velásquez-Mejía, E.P.; Sierra, J.A.; Corrales-Agudelo, V.; Carmona, J.A.; Abad, J.M.; Escobar, J.S. Higher Fecal Short-Chain Fatty Acid Levels Are Associated with Gut Microbiome Dysbiosis, Obesity, Hypertension and Cardiometabolic Disease Risk Factors. Nutrients; 2018; 11, 51. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/nu11010051] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30591685]
16. Jumpertz, R.; Le, D.S.; Turnbaugh, P.J.; Trinidad, C.; Bogardus, C.; Gordon, J.I.; Krakoff, J. Energy-balance studies reveal associations between gut microbes, caloric load, and nutrient absorption in humans. Am. J. Clin. Nutr.; 2011; 94, pp. 58-65. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3945/ajcn.110.010132]
17. Daimon, M.; Kamba, M.; Murakami, H.; Takahashi, K.; Otaka, H.; Makita, K.; Yanagimachi, M.; Terui, K.; Kageyama, K.; Nigawara, T. et al. Association Between Pituitary-Adrenal Axis Dominance Over the Renin-Angiotensin-Aldosterone System and Hypertension. J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab.; 2016; 101, pp. 889-897. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1210/jc.2015-3568]
18. Kamba, A.; Daimon, M.; Murakami, H.; Otaka, H.; Matsuki, K.; Sato, E.; Tanabe, J.; Takayasu, S.; Matsuhashi, Y.; Yanagimachi, M. et al. Association between Higher Serum Cortisol Levels and Decreased Insulin Secretion in a General Population. PLoS ONE; 2016; 11, e0166077. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0166077]
19. Ozato, N.; Saito, S.; Yamaguchi, T.; Katashima, M.; Tokuda, I.; Sawada, K.; Katsuragi, Y.; Kakuta, M.; Imoto, S.; Ihara, K. et al. Blautia genus associated with visceral fat accumulation in adults 20-76 years of age. NPJ Biofilms Microbiomes; 2019; 5, 28. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41522-019-0101-x]
20. Kawada, Y.; Naito, Y.; Andoh, A.; Ozeki, M.; Inoue, R. Effect of storage and DNA extraction method on 16S rRNA-profiled fecal microbiota in Japanese adults. J. Clin. Biochem. Nutr.; 2019; 64, pp. 106-111. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3164/jcbn.18-84]
21. Nishimoto, Y.; Mizutani, S.; Nakajima, T.; Hosoda, F.; Watanabe, H.; Saito, Y.; Shibata, T.; Yachida, S.; Yamada, T. High stability of faecal microbiome composition in guanidine thiocyanate solution at room temperature and robustness during colonoscopy. Gut; 2016; 65, pp. 1574-1575. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2016-311937] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27340192]
22. Hosomi, K.; Ohno, H.; Murakami, H.; Natsume-Kitatani, Y.; Tanisawa, K.; Hirata, S.; Suzuki, H.; Nagatake, T.; Nishino, T.; Mizuguchi, K. et al. Method for preparing DNA from feces in guanidine thiocyanate solution affects 16S rRNA-based profiling of human microbiota diversity. Sci. Rep.; 2017; 7, 4339. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-04511-0] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28659635]
23. Takahashi, S.; Tomita, J.; Nishioka, K.; Hisada, T.; Nishijima, M. Development of a prokaryotic universal primer for simultaneous analysis of Bacteria and Archaea using next-generation sequencing. PLoS ONE; 2014; 9, e105592. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0105592] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25144201]
24. Sasaki, S. Development and evaluation of dietary assessment methods using biomarkers and diet history questionnaires for individuals. Research for Evaluation Methods of Nutrition and Dietary Lifestyle Programs Held on Healthy Japan 21; Tanaka, H. Summary report Ministry of Health, Welfare, and Labour: Tokyo, Japan, 2004; pp. 10-44.
25. Sasaki, S.; Yanagibori, R.; Amano, K. Validity of a self-administered diet history questionnaire for assessment of sodium and potassium—Comparison with single 24-hour urinary excretion. Jpn. Cir. J.; 1998; 62, pp. 431-435. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1253/jcj.62.431] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9652319]
26. Kobayashi, S.; Murakami, K.; Sasaki, S.; Okubo, H.; Hirota, N.; Notsu, A.; Fukui, M.; Date, C. Comparison of relative validity for food group intake estimated by comprehensive and brief-type self-administered diet history questionnaires against 16 d dietary records in Japanese adults. Public Health Nutr.; 2011; 14, pp. 1200-1211. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1368980011000504]
27. Kobayashi, S.; Honda, S.; Murakami, K.; Sasaki, S.; Okubo, H.; Hirota, N.; Notsu, A.; Fukui, M.; Date, C. Both comprehensive and brief self-administered diet history questionnaires satisfactorily rank nutrient intakes in Japanese adults. J. Epidemiol.; 2012; 22, pp. 151-159. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2188/jea.JE20110075]
28. Okuda, M.; Sasaki, S. Assessment of Foods Associated with Sodium and Potassium Intake in Japanese Youths Using the Brief-Type Self-Administered Diet History Questionnaire. Nutrients; 2021; 13, 2345. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/nu13072345]
29. Nishida, Y.; Nakamura, H.; Sasaki, S.; Shirahata, T.; Sato, H.; Yogi, S.; Yamada, Y.; Nakae, S.; Tanaka, S.; Katsukawa, F. Evaluation of energy intake by brief-type self-administered diet history questionnaire among male patients with stable/at risk for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. BMJ Open Respir. Res.; 2021; 8, e000807. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjresp-2020-000807]
30. Murakami, K.; Livingstone, M.B.E.; Fujiwara, A.; Sasaki, S. Reproducibility and Relative Validity of the Healthy Eating Index-2015 and Nutrient-Rich Food Index 9.3 Estimated by Comprehensive and Brief Diet History Questionnaires in Japanese Adults. Nutrients; 2019; 11, 2540. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/nu11102540]
31. Matthews, D.R.; Hosker, J.P.; Rudenski, A.S.; Naylor, B.A.; Treacher, D.F.; Turner, R.C. Homeostasis model assessment: Insulin resistance and beta-cell function from fasting plasma glucose and insulin concentrations in man. Diabetologia; 1985; 28, pp. 412-419. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00280883]
32. The Committee of the Japan Diabetes Society on the Diagnostic Criteria of Diabetes Mellitus Nanjo, K.; Tajima, N.; Kadowaki, T.; Kashiwagi, A.; Araki, E.; Ito, C.; Inagaki, N.; Iwamoto, Y.; Kasuga, M. et al. Report of the committee on the classification and diagnostic criteria of diabetes mellitus. J. Diabetes Investig.; 2010; 1, pp. 212-228.
33. Sonnenburg, J.L.; Bäckhed, F. Diet-microbiota interactions as moderators of human metabolism. Nature; 2016; 535, pp. 56-64. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature18846] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27383980]
34. Wu, G.D.; Chen, J.; Hoffmann, C.; Bittinger, K.; Chen, Y.Y.; Keilbaugh, S.A.; Bewtra, M.; Knights, D.; Walters, W.A.; Knight, R. et al. Linking long-term dietary patterns with gut microbial enterotypes. Science; 2011; 334, pp. 105-108. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1208344] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21885731]
35. Qiu, J.; Heller, J.J.; Guo, X.; Chen, Z.M.; Fish, K.; Fu, Y.X.; Zhou, L. The aryl hydrocarbon receptor regulates gut immunity through modulation of innate lymphoid cells. Immunity; 2012; 36, pp. 92-104. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.immuni.2011.11.011] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22177117]
36. Watanabe, M.; Houten, S.M.; Mataki, C.; Christoffolete, M.A.; Kim, B.W.; Sato, H.; Messaddeq, N.; Harney, J.W.; Ezaki, O.; Kodama, T. et al. Bile acids induce energy expenditure by promoting intracellular thyroid hormone activation. Nature; 2006; 439, pp. 484-489. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature04330] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16400329]
37. Tolhurst, G.; Heffron, H.; Lam, Y.S.; Parker, H.E.; Habib, A.M.; Diakogiannaki, E.; Cameron, J.; Grosse, J.; Reimann, F.; Gribble, F.M. Short-chain fatty acids stimulate glucagon-like peptide-1 secretion via the G-protein-coupled receptor FFAR2. Diabetes; 2012; 61, pp. 364-371. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2337/db11-1019]
38. Koeth, R.A.; Wang, Z.; Levison, B.S.; Buffa, J.A.; Org, E.; Sheehy, B.T.; Britt, E.B.; Fu, X.; Wu, Y.; Li, L. et al. Intestinal microbiota metabolism of L-carnitine, a nutrient in red meat, promotes atherosclerosis. Nat. Med.; 2013; 19, pp. 576-585. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nm.3145]
39. Serpa, J.; Caiado, F.; Carvalho, T.; Torre, C.; Gonçalves, L.G.; Casalou, C.; Lamosa, P.; Rodrigues, M.; Zhu, Z.; Lam, Z.E. et al. Butyrate-rich colonic microenvironment is a relevant selection factor for metabolically adapted tumor cells. J. Biol. Chem.; 2010; 285, pp. 39211-39223. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M110.156026]
40. Flint, H.J.; Duncan, S.H.; Scott, K.P.; Louis, P. Links between diet, gut microbiota composition and gut metabolism. Proc. Nutr. Soc.; 2015; 74, pp. 13-22. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0029665114001463]
41. Firouzi, S.; Majid, H.A.; Ismail, A.; Kamaruddin, N.A.; Barakatun-Nisak, M.Y. Effect of multi-strain probiotics (multi-strain microbial cell preparation) on glycemic control and other diabetes-related outcomes in people with type 2 diabetes: A randomized controlled trial. Eur. J. Nutr.; 2017; 56, pp. 1535-1550. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00394-016-1199-8]
42. Pedersen, C.; Gallagher, E.; Horton, F.; Ellis, R.J.; Ijaz, U.Z.; Wu, H.; Jaiyeola, E.; Diribe, O.; Duparc, T.; Cani, P.D. et al. Host-microbiome interactions in human type 2 diabetes following prebiotic fibre (galacto-oligosaccharide) intake. Br. J. Nutr.; 2016; 116, pp. 1869-1877. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0007114516004086] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27974055]
43. Houghton, D.; Hardy, T.; Stewart, C.; Errington, L.; Day, C.P.; Trenell, M.I.; Avery, L. Systematic review assessing the effectiveness of dietary intervention on gut microbiota in adults with type 2 diabetes. Diabetologia; 2018; 61, pp. 1700-1711. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00125-018-4632-0] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29754286]
44. Tan, J.; McKenzie, C.; Potamitis, M.; Thorburn, A.N.; Mackay, C.R.; Macia, L. The role of short-chain fatty acids in health and disease. Adv. Immunol.; 2014; 121, pp. 91-119. [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24388214]
45. Sun, M.; Wu, W.; Liu, Z.; Cong, Y. Microbiota metabolite short chain fatty acids, GPCR, and inflammatory bowel diseases. J. Gastroenterol.; 2017; 52, pp. 1-8. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00535-016-1242-9]
46. Liu, C.; Li, J.; Zhang, Y.; Ohilip, A.; Shi, E.; Chi, X.; Meng, J. Influence of glucose fermentation on CO₂ assimilation to acetate in homoacetogen Blautia coccoides GA-1. J. Ind. Microbiol. Biotechnol.; 2015; 42, pp. 1217-1224. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10295-015-1646-1]
47. Larsen, N.; Vogensen, F.K.; van den Berg, F.W.; Nielsen, D.S.; Andreasen, A.S.; Pedersen, B.K.; Al-Soud, W.A.; Sørensen, S.J.; Hansen, L.H.; Jakobsen, M. Gut microbiota in human adults with type 2 diabetes differs from non-diabetic adults. PLoS ONE; 2010; 5, e9085. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0009085]
48. Mueller, N.T.; Differding, M.K.; Zhang, M.; Maruthur, N.M.; Juraschek, S.P.; Miller, E.R., 3rd; Appel, L.J.; Yeh, H.C. Metformin Affects Gut Microbiome Composition and Function and Circulating Short-Chain Fatty Acids: A Randomized Trial. Diabetes Care; 2021; 44, pp. 1462-1471. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2337/dc20-2257]
49. Kubota, K.; Kamijima, Y.; Kao Yang, Y.H.; Kimura, S.; Chia-Cheng Lai, E.; Man, K.K.C.; Ryan, P.; Schuemie, M.; Stang, P.; Su, C.C. et al. Penetration of new antidiabetic medications in East Asian countries and the United States: A cross-national comparative study. PLoS ONE; 2018; 13, e0208796. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0208796]
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Details
; Tanabe, Jutaro 1 ; Yanagimachi, Miyuki 1 ; Tokuda, Itoyo 2 ; Sawada, Kaori 3 ; Ihara, Kazushige 3 ; Daimon, Makoto 1
1 Department of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Hirosaki University Graduate School of Medicine, Hirosaki 036-8562, Japan;
2 Department of Oral Healthcare Science, Hirosaki University Graduate School of Medicine, Hirosaki 036-8562, Japan;
3 Department of Social Medicine, Hirosaki University Graduate School of Medicine, Hirosaki 036-8562, Japan;