4 research outputs found

    Functional Eubacteria Species Along with Trans-domain Gut Inhabitants Favour Dysgenic Diversity in Oxalate Stone Disease

    Get PDF
    Analyses across all three domains of life are necessary to advance our understanding of taxonomic dysbiosis in human diseases. In the present study, we assessed gut microbiota (eubacteria, archaea, and eukaryotes) of recurrent oxalate kidney stone suffers to explore the extent of trans-domain and functional species dysbiosis inside the gut. Trans-domain taxonomic composition, active oxalate metabolizer and butyrate-producing diversity were explored by utilizing frc-, but-, and buk- functional gene amplicon analysis. Operational taxonomic units (OTUs) level analyses confound with the observation that dysbiosis in gut microbiota is not just limited to eubacteria species, but also to other domains like archaea and eukaryotes. We found that some of healthy eubacterial population retained together with Oxalobacter formigenes and Lactobacillus plantarum colonization in disease condition (p \u3c 0.001 & FDR = 0.05). Interestingly, trans-domain species diversity has been less shared and dysgenic taxa augmentation was found to be higher. Oxalate metabolizing bacterial species (OMBS) and butyrate-producing eubacteria species were found to be decreased in Oxalobacter non-colonizers; and Prevotella and Ruminococcus species which may contribute to oxalate metabolism and butyrate synthesis as well. Our study underscores fact that microbial dysbiosis is not limited to eubacteria only hence suggest the necessity of the trans-domain surveillance in metabolic diseases for intervention studies

    Unilateral Incomplete Bifid Ureter Presenting with Calculus in Right Kidney with Hydronephrosis: A Rare Case Report

    Get PDF
    an incomplete duplicate ureter to be 18 out of a series of 4215 autopsies studied. Amongst these 2 were the bilaterally incomplete duplicate, 7 were a unilaterally incomplete duplicate and 8 were the unilaterally complete duplicate

    HPLC ANALYSIS OF HUMAN URINE FOR OXALATE CONTENT

    Get PDF
    Objective: In the present communication, development and validation of reverse phase-high performance liquid chromatography method have been carried out for estimation of oxalate content in the urine of human volunteers with recurrent kidney stone disease and healthy status.Methods: The analysis of oxalic acid has been carried out on KYA TECH HiQ Sil C18HS column using a mobile phase of methanol: 0.001 N acetic acid in water (50:50, v/v) with a flow rate of 1 ml/min and detection wavelength, 237 nm.Results: Analysis of oxalate content was carried out using single point calibration method with retention at 2.705 min with good resolution parameters. Urine sample collected from kidney stone patients and healthy volunteers over the period of 24 h were analyzed and it has been found that concentration of oxalate in healthy volunteers is less than 12 µg/ml whereas that in case of kidney stone patients is in the range of 39-151 µg/ml and this data can be utilized for further interpretations about oxalate content in healthy and kidney stone diseased volunteers. This method was validated as per united states food and drug administration (USFDA) guidelines by the study of accuracy, precision, linearity, range, selectivity, the lower limit of quantitation, extraction recovery studies and stability studies for determining oxalate content in the urine of human volunteers. As relative standard deviations of oxalate content estimated are less than 5 percent, the method can be claimed accurate, precise, sensitive and selective for determining oxalate content in the urine of human volunteers.Conclusion: The results are satisfactory, proving the effectiveness of the method for analysis of oxalate content from other biological fluids with few optimizations

    Author Correction: Fuctional Eubacteria Species Along with Transdomain Gut Inhabitants Favour Dysgenic Diversity in Oxalate Stone Disease

    Get PDF
    This Article contains an error in the order of the Figures. Figures 2, 3 and 4 were published as Figures 4, 2, and 3 respectively. The correct Figures 2, 3 and 4 appear below as Figs 1, 2 and 3respectively. The Figure legends are correct
    corecore