Table IV.
Comparisonof fecal microbiota analyzedbyquartiles of energyandtotal fat intake, A1c,and25(OH)D
| Energy intake | Fat intake | A1c | 25(OH)D | Delta 25(OH)D | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Family | Q1 vs Q4 | Q1 vs Q4 | Q1 vs Q4 | Q1 vs Q4 | Q1 vs Q4 |
| Overall composition* | ns | 0.02 | ns | ns | 0.03 |
| Composition Q1 vs Q4† | 0.02 | 0.003 | 0.04 | 0.05 | ns |
| Taxonomic diversity‡ | ns | 0.02¶ | 0.04¶ | ns | ns |
| Relative taxon abundance§ | |||||
| Bacteroidaceae | 0.02 (0.21)∥ | 0.00 (0.01)∥ | 0.05 (0.15)∥ | ns | ns |
| Prevotellaceae | ns | 0.03 (0.19)¶ | ns | ns | ns |
| Lachnospiraceae | 0.03 (0.21)∥ | ns | ns | 0.00 (0.03)∥ | 0.00 (0.01)∥ |
| Ruminococcaceae | ns | ns | 0.02 (0.10)¶ | ns | ns |
| Coprobacillaceae | ns | ns | 0.01 (0.10)¶ | ns | ns |
| Streptococcaceae | ns | ns | 0.02 (0.10)¶ | ns | ns |
| Bifidobacteriaceae | ns | ns | 0.05 (0.15)¶ | ns | ns |
| Genus | |||||
| Overall composition* | ns | 0.01 | 0.05 | ns | 0.03 |
| Composition Q1 vs Q4† | 0.02 | 0.002 | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.02 |
| Taxonomic diversity‡ | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns |
| Relative taxon abundance or ratio§: | |||||
| Bacteroides | 0.02 (0.21)∥ | 0.00 (0.01)∥ | 0.05 (0.23)∥ | ns | ns |
| Prevotella | ns | 0.02 (0.23)¶ | ns | ns | ns |
| Lachno; g- | 0.03 (0.21)∥ | ns | ns | ns | 0.02 (0.09)∥ |
| Lachno; Ruminococcus | 0.03 (0.21)∥ | ns | ns | 0.01 (0.16)∥ | 0.00 (0.02)∥ |
| Lachno; Blautia | ns | ns | ns | 0.03 (0.22)∥ | 0.00 (0.02)∥ |
| Lachno; Roseburia | ns | ns | ns | 0.00 (0.03)∥ | 0.00 (0.01)∥ |
| Lachno; Dorea | ns | ns | ns | ns | 0.03 (0.11)∥ |
| Rumino; Faecalibacterium | ns | ns | 0.01 (0.10)¶ | ns | ns |
| Copro; Catenibacterium | ns | ns | 0.01 (0.10)¶ | ns | ns |
| Streptococcus | ns | ns | 0.02 (0.13)¶ | ns | ns |
| Bacteroides/Prevotella ratio | 0.01∥ (15.2 vs 2.7) | 0.01∥ (12.4 vs 1.8) | ns (5.1 vs 2.4) | ns (5.9 vs 2.9) | ns (4.2 vs 2.2) |
Abbreviations: A1c, glycosylated hemoglobin; 25(OH)D, serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D; Delta 25(OH)D, exit minus baseline; ns, not significant.
Data are presented as significant differences (P values).
Bacterial taxa were analyzed at the taxonomic level of family and genus.
Comparison of bacterial composition by ANOSIM among all quartiles (P value).
Comparison of bacterial community composition between lowest (Q1) and highest (Q4) quartiles by ANOSIM (P value).
Taxonomic diversity was assessed by Shannon index and compared between Q1 and Q4 (P value).
Comparisons of individual taxon relative abundance between Q1 and Q4 were performed using the Kruskal–Wallis test with significance set at P < 0.05. False discovery rate P values are shown in parenthesis. Ns, not significant.
Taxonomic diversity or relative taxon abundance or ratio is higher in Q1 relative to Q4.
Taxonomic diversity or relative taxon abundance or ratio is higher in Q4 relative to Q1; energy intake (Kcals); total fat intake (g); A1c (%); 25(OH)D (ng/mL).