Skip to main content
. 2007 Aug 15;104(34):13780–13785. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0706625104

Table 1.

Ninety-seven percent OTUs enriched or depleted in IBD subset

Top Blast hit* Phylum ΔPrevalence,%
Depleted in IBD subset
    Bacterium mpn-isolate group 5 Bacteroidetes; Bacteroidales −42.3
    Bacterium mpn-isolate group 18 Firmicutes; Lachnospiraceae −37.7
    Butyrate-producing bacterium A2–A165 Firmicutes; Lachnospiraceae −34.0
    Butyrate-producing bacterium SR1/1 Firmicutes; Lachnospiraceae −32.5
    Bacteroides thetaiotaomicron Bacteroidetes; Bacteroidales −32.5
    Butyrate-producing bacterium L2—L7 Firmicutes; Lachnospiraceae −27.6
    Clostridium nexile Firmicutes; Lachnospiraceae −26.2
    Bacterium mpn-isolate group 19 Firmicutes; Lachnospiraceae −26.2
    Butyrate-producing bacterium SS2/1 Firmicutes; Lachnospiraceae −24.1
    Alistipes sp. WAL 8169 Bacteroidetes; Bacteroidales −24.0
Enriched in IBD subset
    Drinking-water bacterium Y7 Alphaproteobacteria 76.0
    Actinobacterium GWS-BW-H99 Actinobacteria 62.5
    Nocardioides sp. NS/27 Actinobacteria 61.8
    Novosphingobium sp. K39 Alphaproteobacteria 57.8
    Pseudomonas straminea Betaproteobacteria 53.7
    Gamma proteobacterium DD103 Gammaproteobacteria 50.9
    Bacillus licheniformis Firmicutes;Bacilli 49.7
    Sphingomonas sp. AO1 Alphaproteobacteria 49.6
    Actinomyces oxydans Actinobacteria 48.9
    Acidimicrobidae Ellin7143 Actinobacteria 47.6

*Identified by Blast search of database culled of environmental clones.

Determined by comparison to rRNA sequence database (49).

Difference in prevalence of an OTU between normal subset and IBD subset.