Women with and without metabolic disorder differ in their gut microbiota composition

Obesity (Silver Spring). 2012 May;20(5):1082-7. doi: 10.1038/oby.2012.8. Epub 2012 Jan 30.

Abstract

The aim of this study was to investigate whether overweight/obese women in metabolic disorder group (MDG, n = 27) differ in their gut microbiota composition from overweight/obese women in non-metabolic disorder group (NMDG, n = 47) and normal weight women group (NWG, n = 11). Gut microbiota was profiled from fecal samples by 16S rRNA fluorescence in situ hybridization and flow cytometry in 85 premenopausal women. Body composition was measured by bioimpedance, and dietary intakes were collected via food diaries. Standard procedures were used to assess plasma glucose, serum insulin, lipids, and inflammatory status. We found that the proportion of bacteria belonging to Eubacterium rectale-Clostridium coccoides group, indicating efficient energy harvest from nutrients in gut, was higher in MDG compared to NMDG and NWG, while no difference was found between NMDG and NWG. The proportion of Eubacterium rectale-Clostridium coccoides group correlated positively with weight, BMI, total fat, fat mass percentage (FM%), visceral fat area, and serum triglycerides, and negatively with high-density lipoprotein (HDL). Our results indicate that certain members of Eubacterium rectale-Clostridium coccoides group are associated with obesity-related MDs not obesity per se.

Publication types

  • Comparative Study
  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

  • Adult
  • Analysis of Variance
  • Body Composition
  • Body Mass Index
  • Clostridium / growth & development*
  • Colony Count, Microbial
  • Feces / microbiology*
  • Female
  • Finland / epidemiology
  • Flow Cytometry
  • Gastrointestinal Tract / microbiology*
  • Humans
  • In Situ Hybridization, Fluorescence
  • Intra-Abdominal Fat / pathology*
  • Metabolic Syndrome / epidemiology
  • Metabolic Syndrome / microbiology*
  • Metabolic Syndrome / pathology
  • Middle Aged
  • Predictive Value of Tests