Evidence Hub

Association of Mucin-Degrading Gut Microbiota and Dietary Patterns with Colonic Transit Time in Constipation: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial

Xuan-Gao Wu, Hee-Jong Yang, M. Ryu, Su-Jin Jung, Kwangsu Ha, D. Jeong, Sunmi Park

Nutrients, 2024

94 participants · 13 citations

Abstract

Background: The relationship between gut microbiota composition, lifestyles, and colonic transit time (CTT) remains poorly understood. This study investigated associations among gut microbiota profiles, diet, lifestyles, and CTT in individuals with subjective constipation. Methods: We conducted a secondary analysis of data from our randomized clinical trial, examining gut microbiota composition, CTT, and dietary intake in baseline and final assessments of 94 participants with subjective constipation. Participants were categorized into normal-transit (<36 h) and slow-transit (≥36 h) groups based on CTT at baseline. Gut microbiota composition was measured using 16S rRNA sequencing, and dietary patterns were assessed through semi-quantitative food frequency questionnaires. Enterotype analysis, machine learning approaches, and metabolic modeling were employed to investigate microbiota–diet interactions. The constipated participants primarily belonged to Lachnospiraceae (ET-L). Results: The slow-transit group showed higher alpha diversity than the normal-transit group. Butyricicoccus faecihominis was abundant in the normal-transit group, while Neglectibacter timonensis, Intestinimonas massiliensis, and Intestinibacter bartlettii were abundant in the slow-transit group, which also had a higher abundance of mucin-degrading bacteria. Metabolic modeling predicted increased N-acetyl-D-glucosamine (GlcNAc), a mucin-derived metabolite, in the slow-transit group. Network analysis…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a secondary / pooled analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 94 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free