Skip to main content
. 2020 Nov 28;12(12):3673. doi: 10.3390/nu12123673

Table 3.

Comparison of fecal microbiota between the YM and placebo group.

Genus Groups Relative Abundance (%) p-Value
Baseline 4 Weeks 8 Weeks
Bifidobacterium YM 9.1 ± 1.4 6.7 ± 1.1 6.6 ± 1.0 0.062
Placebo 6.2 ± 0.8 4.2 ± 0.6 5.1 ± 0.9
Bacteroides YM 20.1 ± 1.9 27.7 ± 2.5 26.8 ± 2.1 0.076
Placebo 17.8 ± 1.8 21.8 ± 1.8 22.9 ± 1.9
Parabacteroides YM 1.4 ± 0.3 2.0 ± 0.5 2.3 ± 0.4 0.064
Placebo 1.2 ± 0.2 1.3 ± 0.2 1.3 ± 0.1
Rikenellaceae;g YM 1.4 ± 0.2 1.7 ± 0.4 2.0 ± 0.4 0.392
Placebo 2.1 ± 0.5 2.0 ± 0.3 2.2 ± 0.4
Clostridiales;f;g * YM 0.8 ± 0.2 0.4 ± 0.1 0.9 ± 0.3 0.018
Placebo 1.9 ± 0.5 1.9 ± 0.5 2.5 ± 0.6
Lachnospiraceae;g YM 4.3 ± 0.6 4.7 ± 0.6 4.6 ± 0.6 0.693
Placebo 4.7 ± 0.4 4.9 ± 0.4 4.7 ± 0.4
Blautia YM 11.8 ± 1.4 8.7 ± 1.0 8.0 ± 1.2 0.942
Placebo 11.2 ± 1.2 8.3 ± 0.9 8.7 ± 0.9
Coprococcus YM 5.6 ± 0.8 4.6 ± 0.6 4.6 ± 0.7 0.082
Placebo 7.2 ± 0.8 6.0 ± 0.7 5.9 ± 0.6
Roseburia YM 4.0 ± 0.8 3.0 ± 0.5 3.1 ± 0.5 0.343
Placebo 4.3 ± 0.7 3.7 ± 0.6 3.9 ± 0.6
Lachnospiraceae;g[Ruminococcus] YM 4.0 ± 0.8 2.8 ± 0.4 2.4 ± 0.3 0.340
Placebo 2.5 ± 0.5 2.6 ± 0.3 2.7 ± 0.4
Ruminococcaceae;g ** YM 0.8 ± 0.2 0.7 ± 0.2 0.7 ± 0.2 0.008
Placebo 1.6 ± 0.4 2.1 ± 0.4 1.9 ± 0.4
Faecalibacterium YM 14.5 ± 1.4 14.1 ± 1.4 14.1 ± 1.3 0.844
Placebo 14.6 ± 1.2 15.8 ± 1.1 13.2 ± 1.0
Oscillospira YM 2.1 ± 0.3 1.9 ± 0.2 2.4 ± 0.3 0.424
Placebo 2.2 ± 0.2 2.4 ± 0.2 2.4 ± 0.2
Ruminococcus * YM 2.3 ± 0.4 2.2 ± 0.3 2.5 ± 0.4 0.015
Placebo 3.2 ± 0.4 3.4 ± 0.4 3.8 ± 0.4

Data represent the mean ± SE. The p-values were calculated using repeated-measures ANOVA for the differences between groups without multiple comparison correction. Asterisks indicate overall significance between groups across time points (* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01). Genera that showed significantly different abundance between groups at baseline were excluded.