TABLE 5.
Relative abundance of bacteria phyla in stool samples of participants at baseline (week 2) and follow-up (week 8)1
RG group |
WG group |
|||||||||
Phylum | Baseline | Follow-up | ΔRG | P | Baseline | Follow-up | ΔWG | P | ΔWG − ΔRG | P |
Firmicutes, % of total microbiota | 51.41 ± 3.00 | 48.61 ± 2.74 | −2.80 ± 2.87 | 0.97 | 43.29 ± 2.57 | 43.57 ± 2.33 | 0.28 ± 2.70 | 0.94 | 3.08 ± 2.75 | 0.94 |
Bacteroidetes, % of total microbiota | 38.66 ± 2.85 | 45.33 ± 3.13 | 6.67 ± 0.43 | 0.91 | 49.13 ± 2.73 | 50.2 ± 2.33 | 1.07 ± 2.79 | 0.94 | −5.6 ± 1.61 | 0.97 |
Proteobacteria, % of total microbiota | 2.96 ± 0.65 | 2.32 ± 0.29 | −0.64 ± 0.49 | 0.91 | 3.30 ± 0.53 | 3.05 ± 0.43 | −0.25 ± 0.48 | 0.94 | 0.39 ± 0.49 | 0.97 |
Actinobacteria, % of total microbiota | 1.74 ± 0.43 | 1.56 ± 0.33 | −0.18 ± 0.39 | 0.91 | 1.59 ± 0.44 | 1.05 ± 0.28 | −0.54 ± 0.36 | 0.94 | −0.36 ± 0.37 | 0.89 |
Tenericutes, % of total microbiota | 1.45 ± 0.54 | 0.73 ± 0.26 | −0.72 ± 0.42 | 0.91 | 0.73 ± 0.31 | 0.71 ± 0.28 | −0.02 ± 0.29 | 0.94 | 0.70 ± 0.43 | 0.89 |
Verrucomicrobia, % of total microbiota | 0.45 ± 0.11 | 0.71 ± 0.28 | 0.26 ± 0.27 | 0.91 | 0.26 ± 0.1 | 0.39 ± 0.14 | 0.13 ± 0.12 | 0.94 | −0.13 ± 0.20 | 0.94 |
Cyanobacteria, % of total microbiota | 0.63 ± 0.58 | 0.01 ± 0.01 | −0.62 ± 0.01 | 0.97 | 0.13 ± 0.1 | 0.07 ± 0.06 | −0.06 ± 1.09 | 0.94 | 0.56 ± 0.55 | 0.97 |
Fusobacteria, % of total microbiota | 1.75 ± 1.74 | 0.02 ± 0.01 | −1.73 ± 0.01 | 0.93 | 1.07 ± 0.61 | 0.72 ± 0.44 | −0.35 ± 0.74 | 0.94 | 1.38 ± 0.38 | 0.94 |
Lentisphaerae, % of total microbiota | 0.02 ± 0.01 | 0.03 ± 0.01 | 0.01 ± 0.02 | 0.91 | 0.07 ± 0.07 | 0.02 ± 0.01 | −0.05 ± 0.04 | 0.94 | −0.06 ± 0.03 | 0.89 |
All values are means ± SEMs. n = 40 in the RG group, and n = 39 in the WG group. There were no differences between groups at baseline. P values were obtained with the use of a linear model; covariates in the model included age, BMI, and sex with false-discovery rate correction for multiple testing. RG, refined grain; WG, whole grain.