TABLE 5.
Bacteria | Study | Higher meat intake | Lower meat intake | Higher vs lower1 |
---|---|---|---|---|
Genera | ||||
Bacteroides | van Faassen et al. 1987 [85] | Post-omnivorous | Post-vegan | ↔ |
Post-omnivorous | Post-vegetarian | ↔ | ||
Post-vegetarian | Post-vegan | ↔ | ||
Hess et al. 2018 [84] | Post-red meat | Post-mushroom | ↓ | |
Kohnert et al. 2021 [91] | Post-pre-omnivorous | Post-pre, post-, or pre-vegan | ↔2 | |
Anaerostipes | Hess et al. 2018 [84] | Post-red meat | Post-mushroom | ↓ |
Kahleova et al. 2020 [89] | Pre-vegan | Post-vegan | ↓ | |
Pagliai et al. 2020 [74] | Post-pre-Mediterranean | Post-pre-vegetarian | ↓ | |
Pre-vegetarian | Post-vegetarian | ↓ | ||
Ruminococcus | Lang et al. 2018 [87] | Red/white meat | Nonmeat | Differed3 |
Crimarco et al. 2020 [88] | Animal-based diet | Plant-based diet | ↑ | |
Kohnert et al. 2021 [91] | Post-pre-omnivorous | Post-pre-vegan | ↓ | |
Post-omnivorous | Pre-omnivorous | ↔2 | ||
Pre-vegan | Post-vegan | ↔2 | ||
Roseburia | Crimarco et al. 2020 [88] | Animal-based diet | Plant-based diet | ↑ |
Meslier et al. 2020 [92] | Post-omnivorous (higher nonfish meat) | Post-Mediterranean diet (higher fish) | ↓ | |
Kohnert et al. 2021 [91] | Post-pre-omnivorous | Post-pre-vegan | ↑ | |
Post-omnivorous | Pre-omnivorous | ↑ | ||
Pre-vegan | Post-vegan | ↑ | ||
Species | ||||
Faecalibacterium prausnitzii | Kahleova et al. 2020 [89] | Post-pre-omnivorous | Post-pre-vegan | ↓ |
Pre-vegan | Post-vegan | ↓ | ||
Meslier et al. 2020 [92] | Post-omnivorous (higher nonfish meat) | Post-Mediterranean diet (higher fish) | ↓ |
Higher abundance (↑), Lower abundance (↓), or comparable abundances (↔) in the higher meat intake group compared to the lower meat intake group.
Amplicon sequence variant of the genus or species was reported as both enriched and depleted in the comparison by the study author.
Authors reported that the abundance of the genus differed among the red meat, white meat, and non-meat groups, but did not report the pair-wise difference between groups.