Skip to main content
. 2012 Jul 1;3(4):383–393. doi: 10.4161/gmic.21008

Table 1. The difference in average relative abundance of OTUs between the early and late periods.

OTU Taxonomy (level)   Early (%) Late (%) P-value
19
Clostridiales (order)
-9.95
1.52
0.00
5.4E-16*
37
Clostridiales (order)
-2.40
1.25
0.24
3.3E-11*
28
Firmicutes (phylum)
-2.36
0.84
0.16
5.2E-11*
44
Clostridiales (order)
-2.09
0.83
0.20
5.5E-11*
25
Clostridiales (order)
-1.79
1.43
0.41
9.7E-17*
18
Clostridiales (order)
-1.66
1.62
0.51
4.4E-16*
23
Lactobacillus (genus)
-1.34
1.03
0.41
1.7E-05*
12
Lactobacillus (genus)
-1.31
1.96
0.79
2.0E-10*
30
Clostridiales (order)
-1.22
1.81
0.78
2.6E-09*
24
Clostridiales (order)
-1.11
0.86
0.40
2.5E-04*
5
Porphyromonadaceae (family)
-1.08
6.44
3.03
4.1E-24*
29
Oscillibacter (genus)
-0.84
1.18
0.66
8.5E-07*
26
Ruminococcaceae (family)
-0.66
0.91
0.57
2.3E-05*
2
Bacteroides (genus)
-0.64
10.54
6.77
3.6E-08*
3
Alistipes (genus)
-0.49
7.89
5.61
1.5E-04*
35
Clostridiales (order)
-0.30
0.84
0.68
1.1E-02*
7
Porphyromonadaceae (family)
-0.18
4.02
3.55
1.2E-02*
8
Porphyromonadaceae (family)
-0.15
3.57
3.22
3.8E-02*
1
Porphyromonadaceae (family)
-0.07
11.84
11.24
2.80E-01
22
Blautia (genus)
-0.05
1.60
1.54
7.90E-01
4
Porphyromonadaceae (family)
-0.03
8.53
8.35
5.50E-01
14
Porphyromonadaceae (family)
0.03
2.23
2.28
6.40E-01
16
Bacteroidetes (phylum)
0.15
0.82
0.92
4.50E-02
21
Clostridiales (order)
0.53
0.97
1.40
5.2E-05*
6
Porphyromonadaceae (family)
0.86
4.41
8.00
3.3E-42*
9
Lactobacillus (genus)
1.19
1.54
3.52
8.9E-06*
17
Clostridiales (order)
1.19
0.37
0.85
4.4E-07*
11
Bacteroidales (order)
1.50
1.12
3.15
6.0E-55*
15
Barnesiella (genus)
1.56
2.57
7.57
8.1E-51*
13
Porphyromonadaceae (family)
2.12
0.71
3.09
7.7E-53*
10
Bacteroidales (order)
2.21
1.17
5.41
1.3E-76*
27
Bacteroidales (order)
3.59
0.14
1.74
1.5E-46*
20 Turicibacter (genus) 3.69 0.10 1.26 1.5E-24*

Shaded cells represent OTUs that were classified as belonging to the Firmicutes and the non-shaded cells represent those belonging to the Bacteroidetes. Significance was assessed by using a repeated measure paired treatment analysis of variance for each OTU and correcting for multiple comparisons using an experiment-wise error rate of 0.05.34