Table 2.
Bacterial proportions that differed between rats in a diet-dependent manner.
| HPM | HAPS | HAMS | HAMSB | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| o_Bifidobacteriales | 0.001 ± 0.0001 1a | 0.017 ± 0.036 b | 0.0018 ± 0.003 bc | 0.001 ± 0.0001 a |
| g_Parabacteroides | 0.012 ± 0.011 a | 0.003 ± 0.003 c | 0.006 ± 0.005 ac | 0.078 ± 0.099 b |
| f_S24-7 | 0.033 ± 0.01 a | 0.052 ± 0.027 b | 0.040 ± 0.018 ab | 0.027 ± 0.012 a |
| f_Turicibacteraceae | 0.0001 ± 0.0001 a | 0.0070 ± 0.012 b | 0.0004 ± 0.0007 c | 0.0020 ± 0.003 bc |
| f_Peptostreptococcaceae | 0.037 ± 0.028 a | 0.014 ± 0.014 ab | 0.010 ± 0.008 b | 0.013 ± 0.009 ab |
| Ruminococcus bromii | 0.010 ± 0.005 a | 0.018 ± 0.014 a | 0.278 ± 0.123 b | 0.005 ± 0.001 a |
| f_Lactobacillaceae | 0.215 ± 0.0589 ab | 0.263 ± 0.127 a | 0.111 ± 0.075 b | 0.142 ± 0.054 b |
| g_Bilophila | 0.013 ± 0.005 a | 0.007 ± 0.006 ab | 0.008 ± 0.006 ab | 0.003 ± 0.005 b |
| g_Sutterella | 0.008 ± 0.003 a | 0.003 ± 0.003 b | 0.007 ± 0.007 ab | 0.004 ± 0.008 b |
1 Proportions of total 16S rRNA gene reads and their standard deviations are presented. For each taxon, the highest proportion found among the four diets is highlighted in bold. a,b,c Unlike superscript letters indicate significant differences (p < 0.05) in taxon abundance. DESeq2 was used to calculate the change in abundance using the Wald test, retaining only p < 0.05 and a log2 fold-change greater than ±1.