2006
DOI: 10.1016/j.mimet.2005.10.014
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparison of methods and animal models commonly used for investigation of fecal microbiota: Effects of time, host and gender

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
33
0

Year Published

2006
2006
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 42 publications
(33 citation statements)
references
References 24 publications
0
33
0
Order By: Relevance
“…A study by Bernbom et al showed that the fecal microbiota of SPF rats and human microbiota-associated rats clustered according to the gender of the host animal (61). Our results are consistent also with the observations by Markle et al who suggested that sex hormones could influence microbial populations (62).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A study by Bernbom et al showed that the fecal microbiota of SPF rats and human microbiota-associated rats clustered according to the gender of the host animal (61). Our results are consistent also with the observations by Markle et al who suggested that sex hormones could influence microbial populations (62).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, the ruminant-specific 16S rRNA gene marker, CF128F, was detected more frequently than the non-16S rRNA gene markers in water and sediment samples in the stream directly impacted by cattle (Tables 4 and 7). Differences in the abundance, host distribution, and environmental survival rates of targeted populations may partially explain the different detection rates observed for the molecular markers tested with water samples (1,22). In addition, differences in copy number between targeted genes and amplification efficiency can also contribute to the differences in sensitivity among MST assays.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…DGGE was carried out as previously described [9] using a DCode™ Universal Mutation Detection System instrument and gradient former model 475 according to the manufacturer's instructions (Bio-Rad Labs, Hercules, California). The denaturing gradient was formed with two 9% acrylamide (acrylamide-bis 37.5:1) stock solutions (Bio-Rad) in 1 × TAE (20 mM Tris, 10 mM acetate, 0.5 M EDTA, pH 7.4).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…An example of such a fingerprinting method is Denaturing Gradient Gel Electrophoresis (DGGE) of PCR-amplified 16S rRNA genes, which have proved very useful for analysis of faecal bacteria [7-9]. While the DGGE profiles based on amplified rRNA genes (DNA-DGGE) provides a fingerprint of the composition of the investigated community, they do not necessarily reflect metabolic activities, and could even originate from dormant, lysed or dead cells.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%