Table 2.
Microbial cell numbers in feces (Log10 cells/g dry mattera)) of SIHUMI and SIHUMI‐Bif mice at baseline (standard chow diet, SD) or after five week intervention period with either one of the following semisynthetic diets: low fat diet (LFD), high fat diet (HFD), high fat diet supplemented with oligofructose (HFD + OFS)
| Status | SIHUMI | SIHUMI‐Bif | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Diet | SD | LFD | HFD | HFD + OFS | SD | LFD | HFD | HFD + OFS |
| Organism | Mean ± SEM | Mean ± SEM | Mean ± SEM | Mean ± SEM | Mean ± SEM | Mean ± SEM | Mean ± SEM | Mean ± SEM |
| A. caccae | 9.79±0.07 | 9.45±0.15 | 8.84±0.23***# | 9.58±0.14 | 10.23±0.12++ | 9.33±0.18***††† | 8.48±0.06***# | 9.22±0.11*** |
| B. thetaiotaomicron | 10.55±0.10 | 9.47±0.37* | 9.79±0.43 | 10.61±0.19 | 10.87± 0.10+ | 8.30±0.38***‡‡‡+ | 9.36±0.25**# | 11.16±0.09+ |
| B. longum | 9.08±0.09 | 7.46±0.13***†††‡‡‡ | 8.78±0.13 | 9.91±0.19* | ||||
| B. producta | 10.56±0.05 | 9.92±0.07***‡‡ | 10.13±0.11*** | 10.43±0.09 | 10.63±0.04 | 9.74±0.09***‡‡‡ | 9.89±0.07***## | 10.53±0.15 |
| C. butyricum | 8.78±0.08 | 7.43±0.17**‡ | 7.43 ±0.20*** | 6.84±0.16*** | 9.02±0.05+ | 6.61±0.28***†‡‡‡ | 7.49±0.12*** | 7.84±0.14***+++ |
| C. ramosum | 9.84±0.07 | 9.07±0.08***††‡‡‡ | 9.60±0.13 | 9.81±0.09 | 9.77±0.05 | 8.99±0.12***‡‡‡ | 9.23±0.07***##+ | 9.73±0.07 |
| E. coli | 9.34±0.05 | 9.61±0.12 | 9.59±0.21 | 9.51±0.22 | 9.42±0.05 | 9.43±0.11† | 9.00±0.07***##+ | 9.47±0.10 |
| L. plantarum b) | 7.14±0.10 | 5.16±0.29***‡‡ | 5.65±0.27***# | 6.89±0.29 | 6.96±0.07 | 4.85±0.13***††‡‡‡ | 5.63±0.18***### | 6.85±0.11 |
| total | 10.55±0.09 | 9.53±0.43** | 9.73±0.22* | 10.08±0.21 | 10.96±0.05+++ | 9.35 ±0.10***‡‡‡ | 9.61±0.20***### | 10.67±0.15+ |
Values are means with their standard errors (n = 21 per SD, n = 7 per semisynthetic diet).b) Cell numbers of L. plantarum were determined by plating on Rogosa Agar. SIHUMI, simplified human microbiota; SIHUMI‐Bif, SIHUMI without Bifidobacterium longum. Mean values were significantly different between baseline (SD) and dietary intervention (LFD, HFD, HFD + OFS) for a given group of animals with the same bacterial status (*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001). Mean values were significantly different between dietary groups during intervention (LFD, HFD, HFD + OFS) in animals with the same bacterial status (†LFD:HFD; ‡LFD:HFD + OFS; #HFD:HFD + OFS; †/‡/# p < 0.05, ††/‡‡/## p < 0.01, †††/‡‡‡/### p < 0.001). Mean values were significantly different compared with SIHUMI mice on the same diet (+ p < 0.05, ++ p < 0.01, +++ p < 0.001).