Page 66 - Read Online

Page 10 of 18 Chen et al. Microbiome Res Rep 2025;4:8 https://dx.doi.org/10.20517/mrr.2024.44

Table 3. Fecal microbiota outcomes of all included studies
Author, year, Time points Amount of Alpha diversity Beta diversity Taxonomy Additional information
country samples (phylum, class, order, family, genus, species)
Subgroup A
Bifidobacterium (both P < 0.05)
Arboleya et al., 1. DoL 2 141 T1: no significant T2-3: redundancy analysis shows distinct T1: (species level) ↑ B. longum spp. Suis (P < 0.05) Bifidobacterium diversity
[31]
2020, Spain 2. DoL 10 difference separation (P = 0.028, P = 0.026, T2: (species level) ↑ B. animalis spp. Lactis, measured, not overall
3. DoL 30 T2: higher Shannon & respectively) B. longum spp. Suis, B. bifidum, B. pseudolongum spp diversity
4. DoL 90 Chao1 (P < 0.05) pseudolongum (all P < 0.05) ↓ B. longum spp longum,
T3: higher Shannon B. vansindernii, B. reuteri (P < 0.05)
(P < 0.01) T3: (species level) ↑ B. bifidum, B. dentium,
B. animalis spp lactis, B. magnum (all P < 0.05)
Ford et al., 2019, 1. WoL 1 546 T1-4: ↓ OTU richness (P There was no distinct microbial clustering T1-2: (phylum level) no significant differences
[33]
USA 2. WoL 2 = 0.013) per week of life in the DHM group, T3: (phylum level) ↓ Actinobacteria, ↑ Firmicutes
3. WoL 4 Similar Shannon index whereas this was present in the MOM (both P < 0.05)
4. WoL 6 Increasing alpha group (Genus level) ↑ Staphylococcus (P = 0.014), ↓ Bacteroides,
diversity over time Bifidobacterium, Enterococcus (all P < 0.05)
Kumbhare et al., 1. Day 0 112 Not stated T3-4: MOM intake explained 22% and All time points: (Genus level) ↑ Clostridium, unclassified Time points correspond with
2022, Canada [34] 2. Day 7 18% of Bray-Curtis dissimilarity Lactobacilliales (all P < 0.001), ↓ Propionibacterium, DoL 3-5 depending on
3. PMA 33 (both P < 0.01) Veillonella, unclassified Enterobacteriaceae fortification start
weeks T4: (genus level) ↑ unclassified Lactobacilliales, ↓
4. PMA 35
weeks
Piñeiro-Ramos Full-enteral 36 No difference in PCoA (UNIFRAC) and PERMANOVA (Family level) ↑ Staphylococcaceae, Pasteurellaceae
et al., 2020, feeding Shannon or Chao1 index show microbial composition differences (P < 0.05)
[32]
Spain achieved (P = 0.04)
Subgroup B
***
Cong et al., 2017, 1. DoL 0-10 389 T1-3: ↓ Gini-Simpson Feeding type explained 11% of Bray-Curtis T1-3: (order level) ↑ Enterobacteriales, ↓ Clostridiales,
USA [36] 2. DoL 11-20 index (explained by dissimilarity (P < 0.01, PERMANOVA) Lactobacillales, Pasteurellales, Bacillales, Bifidobacteriales,
3. DoL 21-30 feeding type, P < 0.01) Actinomycetales
***
Gregory et al., Daily until 199 ↓ Shannon index; Feeding type explained 21% of the (order level) ↑ Bacillales, Lactobacillales, succession of ↑
2016, USA [19] discharge or increased more rapidly variance in Bray-Curtis dissimilarity Enterobacteriales, Clostridiales, Bifidobacteriales with
DoL 60 over time (P < 0.001) * increasing PMA in both groups
***
Morais et al., 1. DoL 2 389 T4: ↓ Chao1 index T4: no beta diversity difference (Bray- RT-PCR T4: RT-PCR method measured
**
2021, 2. DoL 8 61 for 16S (P < 0.05) Curtis PCoA) (phylum level) ↓ Firmicutes (P = 0.05) key bacterial phyla and
Portugal [37] 3. DoL 16 rRNA No differences in (Genus level) ↓ Bifidobacterium (adjusted for gestational age, genera
4. DoL 26 sequencing Shannon index P = 0.003; not significant in multivariable model)
(species level) ↓ E.Coli (P < 0.05)
16S rRNA T4:
(phylum level) ↑ Firmicutes, Proteobacteria, Bacteroidetes,
Actinobacteria
(Genus level) ↑ Staphylococcus, Streptococcus ↓ Serratia,
Clostridium, Bifidobacterium
Parra-Llorca Full-enteral 62 *** Not stated RDA indicates microbial composition (Phylum level) ↑ Firmicutes ↓ Actinobacteria (both P < 0.05)