Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Jan 6;22(1):25.
doi: 10.1186/s12887-021-03099-9.

Development of gut microbiota along with its metabolites of preschool children

Jingjing Xiong  1 , Hongwei Hu  1 , Chuanzhi Xu  2 , Jianwen Yin  3 , Mei Liu  1 , Lizhi Zhang  1 , Yong Duan  4 , Yongkun Huang  5
Affiliations

Development of gut microbiota along with its metabolites of preschool children

Jingjing Xiong et al. BMC Pediatr. .

Abstract

Background: To reveal the changes of intestinal microbial abundance and composition, as well as the microbiota metabolic levels of bile acids and short chain fatty acids of healthy preschool children during their growth.

Methods: Feces of 120 healthy newborns and 150 healthy children aged 6 months to 6 years were collected. Then the composition of intestinal flora was analyzed by 16S rRNA, and the contents of bile acids and short chain fatty acids in feces were detected by LC-MS and GS methods, respectively.

Results: The composition and function of intestinal microflora were not stable in neonatal period but significantly improved at 6 months after birth, and gradually stabilized and tended to adult-like formation after 2-3 years old. The levels of short chain fatty acids and secondary bile acids were consistent with the development of gut microbiota.

Conclusion: The age of 6 months may be a critical period for the development of intestinal microflora in children.

Keywords: Bile acids; Children development; Gut microbiota; Microbial metabolism; Short chain fatty acids.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
The alpha diversity of the gut flora in different groups. a Chao 1 index and b Shannon index indicated the richness and evenness of the species in each group, respectively. Kruskal-Wallis test was used to determine the difference among these 9 groups. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
The beta diversity of the gut flora in different groups. a Principal coordinates analysis (PCoA) and b Multidimensional scaling (NMDS) were performed to detect the species diversity among different environmental communities. The weighted unifrac results were shown in the figure to establish the differences of beta diversity among these 9 groups
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
The species abundances of gut flora in different groups. a Phylum abundances and b Genus abundances were shown to establish the composition of species communities in each group. c and b showed the differences of abundances of main Phylum and Genus communities, respectively
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
The functional prediction of intestinal flora. The functional differences between 3-day old (g group) and 25-day old (j group) (a), and between 25-day old (j group) and 6-year old (b group) (b) were predicted by PICRUSt2 method and the results from COG dataset were shown in the figure
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
The fecal bile acids content in different groups. The fecal content of primary bile acids (PBAs) of cholic acid (a) and chenodeoxycholic acid (b) and secondary bile acids (SBAs) of lithocholic acid (c), deoxycholic acid (d) and ursodeoxycholic acid (e) were measured by LC-MS. A one-way ANOVA test was used to determine the differences among these 9 groups. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001
Fig. 6
Fig. 6
The fecal short chain fatty acids content in different groups. The fecal content of short chain fatty acids (SCFAs) of acetic acid (a), propionate (b), butyrate (c), isobutyric acid (d), and isovaleric acid (e) were measured by GS. A one-way ANOVA test was used to determine the differences among these 9 groups. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Das B, Nair GB. Homeostasis and dysbiosis of the gut microbiome in health and disease. J Biosci. 2019;44(5). - PubMed
    1. Shreiner AB, Kao JY, Young VB. The gut microbiome in health and in disease. Curr Opin Gastroenterol. 2015;31(1):69–75. doi: 10.1097/MOG.0000000000000139. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Clavijo V, Florez MJV. The gastrointestinal microbiome and its association with the control of pathogens in broiler chicken production: a review. Poult Sci. 2018;97(3):1006–1021. doi: 10.3382/ps/pex359. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Barko PC, McMichael MA, Swanson KS, Williams DA. The gastrointestinal microbiome: a review. J Vet Intern Med. 2018;32(1):9–25. doi: 10.1111/jvim.14875. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Wright EK, Kamm MA, Teo SM, Inouye M, Wagner J, Kirkwood CD. Recent advances in characterizing the gastrointestinal microbiome in Crohn's disease: a systematic review. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2015;21(6):1219–1228. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources