Table II.

Comparison of fecal microbiota between 2 groups of subjects who maintained their glycemic status over 12 months

	Gr-1 vs Gr-2; P value
Phylum
Bacterial composition*	0.003
Taxonomic diversity†	ns
Relative taxon abundance or ratio‡
Bacteroidetes	0.01 (0.01)§
Firmicutes	0.00 (0.01)∥
Proteobacteria	0.04 (0.06)§
Bacteroidetes/Firmicutes ratio (1.9 vs 0.9)	0.01§
Family
Bacterial composition*	ns
Taxonomic diversity†	0.05∥
Relative taxon abundance or ratio‡
Veillonellaceae	0.03 (0.2)∥
Ruminococcaceae	0.01 (0.1)∥
Class
Relative taxon abundance or ratio‡:
Bacteroidia/Clostridia ratio	0.05 (2.0 vs 0.9)§
Genus
Bacterial composition*	ns
Taxonomic diversity†	0.02∥
Relative taxon abundance or ratio‡
Ruminococcaceae; Ruminococcus	0.03 (0.2)∥
Ruminococcaceae; g-	0.00 (0.03)∥
Veillonellaceae; Dialister	0.01 (0.1)∥
Bacteroides/Prevotella ratio (2.7 vs 5.6)	ns

Abbreviations: Gr, glycemic group; IFG, impaired fasting glucose; IGT, impaired glucose tolerance; NGT, normal glucose tolerance; ns, not significant.

Data are presented as significant differences (P values)

Gr-1: n = 35 subjects who maintained NGT during the study; Gr-2: n = 27 subjects who remained IFG/IGT during the study.

^*Bacterial composition was assessed by ANOSIM.

^†Taxonomic diversity was assessed using Shannon index.

^‡Relative taxonomic abundance between groups was compared using the Kruskal–Wallis test with significance set at P < 0.05. False discovery rate P values are shown in parenthesis.

^§Taxonomic diversity or relative taxon abundance or ratio is higher in Gr-1 relative to Gr-2.

^∥Taxonomic diversity or relative taxon abundance or ratio is higher in Gr-2 relative to Gr-1.