Page 82 - Read Online

Page 6 of 12 Sane et al. Microbiome Res Rep 2023;2:18 https://dx.doi.org/10.20517/mrr.2023.12

Table 1. Bacteria affected by Lpps and/or OA development
Rats Bacteria Whole group Lpps responsive/water control rats
Organ promoting effect P* promoting effect P
Distal ileum Ligilactobacillus murinus H ** 0.034 H/Lpps 0.048
enterococci H 0.025 - NS
Limosilactobacillus reuteri - NS H/Lpps 0.033
Caecum Lactobacillus johnsonii - NS H/Lpps 0.02
Parabacteroides goldsteinii - NS OA/Water 0.021
Colon Akkermansia sp. OA 0.047 OA/Water 0.01
L.johnsonii - NS H/Lpps 0.008
L.reuteri - NS H/Lpps 0.023
Mucispirillum schaedleri - NS H/Lpps 0.046
*
P value corresponding to intergroup comparison (ANOVA, Bonferonni post-hoc test) are given for the whole group (Total N = 20, 10 Lpps
**
treated, 10 water drinking rats) and for the responsive group (R N = 18, 8 Lpps treated, 10 water drinking rats); promoting conditions are listed as
H (healthy), OA (OA development), Lpps (Lpps treatment), Water (untreated animals).

Figure 2. PCA illustrating the contribution of bacteria and antigen-presenting cells to OA progression according to the Lpps treatment.
The dataset comprises bacterial counts in the digest tract and Peyer’s patches, body weight and bone marrow antigen-presenting cells
(red circles) from 10 untreated and 10 Lpps treated rats. Blue circles correspond to the qualitative variables (i.e., OA progression and
Lpps/water intake).

The exclusion of the two unresponsive rats unveiled more shifts. Healthy status was still associated with
higher L. murinus counts in the distal ileum, together with Limosilactobacillus reuteri. The rats responsive to