• This record comes from PubMed

Effect of hyperbaric air on endotoxin from Bacteroides fragilis strains

. 2018 May ; 63 (3) : 283-290. [epub] 20171113

Language English Country United States Media print-electronic

Document type Comparative Study, Journal Article

Grant support
SGS01/LF/2016 Ostravská Univerzita v Ostravě (CZ)

Links

PubMed 29134546
DOI 10.1007/s12223-017-0564-1
PII: 10.1007/s12223-017-0564-1
Knihovny.cz E-resources

The aim of the project was to determine any effect of hyperbaric air on Bacteroides fragilis strains cultivated under hyperbaric conditions. Previously, it was hypothesized that there was a correlation between the presence of Bacteroides bacteria in patients preferring a meaty diet and cancer of the small intestine, and particularly of the large intestine and rectum. With respect to the fact that Bacteroides fragilis (BAFR) group are important producers of endotoxins, measurement and statistical evaluation of endotoxin production by individual strains of isolated Bacteroides species were used to compare bacteria isolated from various clinical samples from patients with colon and rectum cancer in comparison with strains isolated from other non-cancer diagnoses. Endotoxin production was proven by quantitative detection using the limulus amebocyte lysate (LAL) test in EU/mL. Production of endotoxins in these bacteria cultured under hyperbaric air conditions was higher than those strains cultured under normobaric anaerobic conditions. But these differences in endotoxin production were not statistically significant (t test with log-transformed data, p value = 0.0910). Based on a two-tier t test for lognormal data, it is possible to cautiously conclude that a statistically significant difference was found between endotoxin production by Bacteroides fragilis strains isolated from non-carcinoma diagnoses (strains (1-6) and strains isolated from colorectal carcinoma diagnoses (strains 7-8; Wilcoxon non-parametric test p = 0.0132; t test = 0.1110; t test with log-transformed data, p value = 0.0294).

See more in PubMed

Exp Brain Res. 2013 Jan;224(1):1-14 PubMed

Vnitr Lek. 1992 Jul;38(7):640-4 PubMed

Ann Clin Lab Sci. 1989 Sep-Oct;19(5):360-76 PubMed

Ugeskr Laeger. 2010 Feb 8;172(6):440-4 PubMed

J Bacteriol. 2009 May;191(10):3384-91 PubMed

Zentralbl Bakteriol. 1993 Jun;278(4):529-40 PubMed

Infect Immun. 1995 Mar;63(3):840-6 PubMed

Infect Immun. 1982 Jun;36(3):1139-45 PubMed

Clin Microbiol Rev. 2007 Oct;20(4):593-621 PubMed

Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:906168 PubMed

Klin Mikrobiol Infekc Lek. 2010 Jun;16(3):97-102 PubMed

Epidemiol Mikrobiol Imunol. 2016 Summer;65(2):129-35 PubMed

J Med Microbiol. 1995 Feb;42(2):102-12 PubMed

Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2006 Jul;56(Pt 7):1599-605 PubMed

Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2008 Jan;58(Pt 1):103-9 PubMed

J Med Microbiol. 1989 Jul;29(3):171-6 PubMed

J Med Microbiol. 1997 Jan;46(1):85-91 PubMed

Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011 Jan;127 Suppl 1:131S-141S PubMed

Rozhl Chir. 1998 Jan;77(1):24-6 PubMed

Stem Cell Res. 2014 May;12(3):638-45 PubMed

Mol Microbiol. 1999 Apr;32(1):139-49 PubMed

Bull Johns Hopkins Hosp. 1956 May;98(5):325-51 PubMed

Surgery. 2013 Jun;153(6):819-27 PubMed

Find record

Citation metrics

Loading data ...

Archiving options

Loading data ...