Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31639130›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

Enriched taxa were found among the gut microbiota of centenarians in East China.

Na Wang, Rui Li, Haijiang Lin, Chaowei Fu, Xuecai Wang, Yiming Zhang, Meifang Su, Peixin Huang, Junhua Qian, Feng Jiang and 6 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

40 citing papers in PubMed, 48 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Frontiers in nutrition · 2024
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Na WangKey Laboratory of Public Health Safety of Ministry of Education, School of Public Health, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Rui LiKey Laboratory of Public Health Safety of Ministry of Education, School of Public Health, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Haijiang LinTaizhou Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Taizhou City, Jiangsu Province, China.
Chaowei FuKey Laboratory of Public Health Safety of Ministry of Education, School of Public Health, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Xuecai WangTaizhou Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Taizhou City, Jiangsu Province, China.
Yiming ZhangDeqing Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Deqing City, Zhejiang Province, China.
Meifang SuYuhuan Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Wenling City, Zhejiang Province, China.
Peixin HuangYuhuan Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Wenling City, Zhejiang Province, China.
Junhua QianYuhuan Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Wenling City, Zhejiang Province, China.
Feng JiangKey Laboratory of Public Health Safety of Ministry of Education, School of Public Health, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Hexing WangKey Laboratory of Public Health Safety of Ministry of Education, School of Public Health, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Lufang JiangKey Laboratory of Public Health Safety of Ministry of Education, School of Public Health, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Xin YuKey Laboratory of Public Health Safety of Ministry of Education, School of Public Health, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Jianxiang LiuKey Laboratory of Public Health Safety of Ministry of Education, School of Public Health, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Yue ChenSchool of Epidemiology and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Qingwu JiangKey Laboratory of Public Health Safety of Ministry of Education, School of Public Health, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.ORCID 0000-0001-5230-7352
Fudan University · CNZhejiang Center for Disease Control and Prevention · CNNantong University · CNUniversity of Ottawa · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGut microbiota is closely related to age. Studies from Europe and the U.S. identified featured microbiota in different age groups for the elderly. Asian studies mainly focused on people living in longevity areas. Featured microbiota for the elderly people of different age groups, especially in the centenarian in the general population, has not been well investigated in China.

methodWe conducted a comparative study by including 198 subjects of three age groups (65-70, 90-99, and 100+ years) in East China. Information regarding age, sex, height, weight, waist circumference, hip circumference, food preference, smoking status and alcohol consumption were collected by using a structured questionnaire. Fecal samples for each participant were collected as well. 16S rRNA gene sequencing were employed to analyze the gut microbiota composition. Logistic regression with LASSO feature selection was used to identify featured taxa in different age groups and to assess their potential interactions with other factors such as lifestyle.

resultThe gut microbiota of the 90-99 year and 100+ year age groups showed more diversity, robustness, and richness compared with the 65-70 year age group. PCoA analysis showed a clear separation between the 65-70 and 100+ year age groups. At the species level, Bacteroides fragilis, Parabacteroides merdae, Ruminococcus gnavus, Coprococcus and Clostridium perfringens increased, but Bacteroides vulgatus, Ruminococcus sp.5139BFAA and Clostridium sp.AT5 decreased in the 90-99 year age group. The age differences in gut microbiota were similar across the strata of smoking, alcohol consumption status and food preference.

conclusionOur study demonstrated age differences in many aspects of gut microbiota, such as overall diversity, microbiota structure, and relative abundance of key taxa. Moreover, the gut microbiota of centenarian was significantly different from those of younger age groups of the elderly.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overBacteriaChinaEuropeFecesFemaleGastrointestinal MicrobiomeHumansLongevityMaleRNA, Ribosomal, 16SRNA, Ribosomal, 16S

Identifiers

PMID31639130
PMCPMC6804974
OpenAlexW2981732760

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.