Table 1.
Comparison at the genus level: 16S rDNA sequences versus RSR doublons
| Phylum | Genus | 16S |
RSR |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Healthy | Crohn | Healthy | Crohn | ||
| Bacteroidetes | Alistipes | 0.7 | 1.1 | ND | 0.3 |
| Bacteroidales | 0.7 | 0.3 | ND | ND | |
| Bacteroides | 50.3 | 43.2 | 63.7 | 80.9 | |
| Prevotella | 6.1 | 11.9 | 0.3 | 1.4 | |
| Tannerella | ND | 8.7 | ND | 1.4 | |
| Firmicutes | Anaerotruncus | 0.6 | ND | ND | ND |
| Anaerovorax | 0.2 | ND | ND | ND | |
| Clostridium | 1.5 | 10.4 | 5.6 | 0.8 | |
| Dialister | 0.2 | ND | ND | ND | |
| Enterococcus | ND | 1.1 | 4.0 | 5.5 | |
| Eubacterium | 1.8 | ND | ND | ND | |
| Faecalibacterium | 1.7 | 0.5 | 0.7 | ND | |
| Lachnospira | 0.2 | ND | ND | ND | |
| Lachnospiraceae | 0.2 | ND | ND | ND | |
| Lactobacillales | 0.2 | 0.3 | ND | ND | |
| Oscillospira | 0.2 | ND | ND | ND | |
| Papillibacter | 0.6 | 0.2 | ND | ND | |
| Phascolarctobacterium | 0.2 | ND | ND | ND | |
| Roseburia | 1.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | ND | |
| Ruminococcus | 4.2 | 1.4 | 0.7 | ND | |
| Streptococcus | ND | 0.5 | ND | 0.3 | |
| Subdoligranulum | 2.0 | 0.5 | 0.3 | ND | |
| unclassified_ Clostridiaceae | 3.5 | ND | ND | ND | |
| unclassified_ Lachnospiraceae | 0.2 | ND | ND | ND | |
| Proteobacteria | Bilophila | 0.7 | ND | ND | ND |
| Desulfovibrio | ND | 0.2 | ND | ND | |
| Escherichia | 3.7 | 2.8 | 0.3 | 3.0 | |
| Shigella | 0.2 | ND | ND | 0.3 | |
| Methylophilus methylotrophus | 0.9 | ND | ND | ND | |
| Actinobacteria | Bifidobacterium | 2.4 | 1.4 | 14.2 | 4.2 |
| Brachybacterium | 0.2 | ND | ND | ND | |
| Coriobacterium | 3.1 | 0.2 | 1.7 | ND | |
| Corynebacterium | 0.6 | ND | ND | ND | |
Values in bold indicates that each genus represented by at least 1% of the clones analysed by using 16S is also detected when using RSRs. ‘ND’ indicates an absence of detection.