The relationship between pathogenic bacteria and different stages of colorectal cancer
Résumé fourni par la source
Colorectal cancer (CRC) involves uncontrolled cell growth in the colon and rectum. This study aims to explore the prevalence of key pathogenic bacteria and their role in the progression of CRC, focusing on microbial dysbiosis. This study analyzed 52 stool and tissue samples through polymerase chain reaction (PCR), real-time PCR, and bioinformatics to identify associations between pathogenic bacteria and CRC progression. PCR results revealed a significant association between the Bacteroides fragilis toxin (bft) gene and CRC progression (P = 0.001, r = 0.570). Furthermore, Real-time PCR showed significant differences in the frequency of pks+Escherichia coli in CRC stages 1 (P = 0.03), 2 (P = 0.004), and 3 (P = 0.0002) compared to the control group. Additionally, the frequency of Fusobacterium nucleatum in stage 3 CRC patients was significantly higher than in the control group (P = 0.004) and stage 1 patients (P = 0.01). Furthermore, Streptococcus gallolyticus showed similar significant differences in stage 3 patients (P = 0.004). Bioinformatics analyses using KEGG, Reactome, STRING, and dbSNP highlighted bacteria's roles in colorectal carcinogenesis, emphasizing the need for early identification and management in CRC treatment and prevention strategies. Finally, due to the limitations of the study, the use of more advanced methods and the validation of results through more reliable techniques are essential for future research.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- The relationship between pathogenic bacteria and different stages of colorectal cancer
- Date Crossref
- 01/02/2025
- Éditeur
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude et ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.