The contribution of sulphate reducing bacteria and 5-aminosalicylic acid to faecal sulphide in patients with ulcerative colitis

M C Pitcher, E R Beatty, J H Cummings, M C Pitcher, E R Beatty, J H Cummings

Abstract

Background: Butyrate oxidation within the colonocyte is selectively inhibited by hydrogen sulphide, reproducing the metabolic lesion observed in active ulcerative colitis.

Aims: To study generation of hydrogen sulphide by sulphate reducing bacteria (SRB) and the effects of 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) in patients with ulcerative colitis in order to identify a role of this noxious agent in pathogenesis.

Patients: Fresh faeces were obtained from 37 patients with ulcerative colitis (23 with active disease) and 16 healthy controls.

Methods: SRB were enumerated from fresh faecal slurries and measurements made of sulphate reducing activity, and sulphate and hydrogen sulphide concentrations. The effect of 5-ASA on hydrogen sulphide production was studied in vitro.

Results: All controls and patients with active ulcerative colitis carried SRB and total viable counts were significantly related to the clinical severity grade. SRB were of two distinct types: rapidly growing strains (desulfovibrios) which showed high sulphate reduction rates, present in 30% of patients with ulcerative colitis and 44% of controls; and slow growing strains which had little activity. In vitro, 5-ASA inhibited sulphide production in a dose dependent manner; in patients with ulcerative colitis not on these drugs faecal sulphide was significantly higher than in controls (0.55 versus 0.25 mM, p=0.027).

Conclusions: Counts and carriage rates of SRB in faeces of patients with ulcerative colitis are not significantly different from those in controls. SRB metabolism is not uniform between strains and alternative sources of hydrogen sulphide production exist in the colonic lumen which may be similarly inhibited by 5-ASA. The evidence for hydrogen sulphide as a metabolic toxin in ulcerative colitis remains circumstantial.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Box and whisker plots of total viable counts of sulphate reducing bacteria (SRB) related to (A) Truelove and Witts global clinical grade, and (B) sigmoidoscopic grade of mucosal inflammation in patients with ulcerative colitis (Spearman rank correlation test, p

Figure 2

Box and whisker plot showing…

Figure 2

Box and whisker plot showing sulphate reduction rates in faeces of all subjects…

Figure 2
Box and whisker plot showing sulphate reduction rates in faeces of all subjects (patients and healthy controls combined) according to colonial growth characteristics of sulphate reducing bacteria (SRB). Rapidly growing SRB are desulfovibrio-like.

Figure 3

Dose response effect of 5-aminosalicylic…

Figure 3

Dose response effect of 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) on dissimilatory sulphate reduction by sulphate…

Figure 3
Dose response effect of 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) on dissimilatory sulphate reduction by sulphate reducing bacteria in faecal slurries. Values are mean (SE) for seven healthy subjects selected with high basal sulphate reducing activity.

Figure 4

Box and whisker plot showing…

Figure 4

Box and whisker plot showing total faecal sulphide concentration in patients with ulcerative…

Figure 4
Box and whisker plot showing total faecal sulphide concentration in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) (n=8) not receiving 5-aminosalicylic acid, and healthy controls (n=16).

Figure 5

Box and whisker plots showing…

Figure 5

Box and whisker plots showing total faecal sulphide concentration in patients with ulcerative…

Figure 5
Box and whisker plots showing total faecal sulphide concentration in patients with ulcerative colitis (n=37) grouped according to treatment with oral drug therapy. (A) Sulphide concentrations in patients treated with 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) drugs alone or in combination with prednisolone (n=29) versus no 5-ASA (n=8). (B) Sulphide concentrations in patients treated with prednisolone alone or in combination with 5-ASA (n=11) versus no prednisolone (n=26).
Figure 2
Figure 2
Box and whisker plot showing sulphate reduction rates in faeces of all subjects (patients and healthy controls combined) according to colonial growth characteristics of sulphate reducing bacteria (SRB). Rapidly growing SRB are desulfovibrio-like.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Dose response effect of 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) on dissimilatory sulphate reduction by sulphate reducing bacteria in faecal slurries. Values are mean (SE) for seven healthy subjects selected with high basal sulphate reducing activity.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Box and whisker plot showing total faecal sulphide concentration in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) (n=8) not receiving 5-aminosalicylic acid, and healthy controls (n=16).
Figure 5
Figure 5
Box and whisker plots showing total faecal sulphide concentration in patients with ulcerative colitis (n=37) grouped according to treatment with oral drug therapy. (A) Sulphide concentrations in patients treated with 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) drugs alone or in combination with prednisolone (n=29) versus no 5-ASA (n=8). (B) Sulphide concentrations in patients treated with prednisolone alone or in combination with 5-ASA (n=11) versus no prednisolone (n=26).

References

    1. Gastroenterology. 1968 Apr;54(4):575-87
    1. Clin Sci (Lond). 1993 Jul;85(1):1-4
    1. Lancet. 1977 Oct 29;2(8044):892-5
    1. Gastroenterology. 1978 Mar;74(3):521-6
    1. Am J Clin Nutr. 1979 Jan;32(1):258-65
    1. Lancet. 1980 Oct 4;2(8197):712-5
    1. Gut. 1980 Jul;21(7):632-5
    1. Gut. 1980 Sep;21(9):793-8
    1. Biochem Pharmacol. 1980 Oct 15;29(20):2885-7
    1. Gut. 1980 Oct;21(10):885-9
    1. Gastroenterology. 1982 Aug;83(2):424-9
    1. Gut. 1984 Nov;25(11):1271-8
    1. Gut. 1987 Oct;28(10):1221-7
    1. Gut. 1987 Sep;28(9):1084-9
    1. Nihon Shokakibyo Gakkai Zasshi. 1987 Oct;84(10):2337-46
    1. Gut. 1988 May;29(5):608-13
    1. J Appl Bacteriol. 1988 Aug;65(2):103-11
    1. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1988 Nov;54(11):2723-7
    1. J Bacteriol. 1989 Dec;171(12):6689-95
    1. Clin Sci (Lond). 1990 Feb;78(2):119-25
    1. Gut. 1990 Jun;31(6):679-83
    1. Gut. 1990 Nov;31(11):1271-6
    1. Gut. 1995 Nov;37(5):684-9
    1. Gut. 1996 Jul;39(1):1-4
    1. Gut. 1994 Mar;35(3):353-9
    1. Gut. 1994 May;35(5):696-700
    1. J Clin Microbiol. 1994 May;32(5):1229-37
    1. Gut. 1994 Aug;35(8):1098-101
    1. Pharmacol Ther. 1994 Aug;63(2):135-61
    1. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 1995 Jan;7(1):47-51
    1. Gut. 1995 Apr;36(4):570-6
    1. Gut. 1996 Jun;38(6):870-7
    1. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 1997 Feb;9(2):149-53
    1. Aust N Z J Surg. 1997 May;67(5):245-9
    1. Gut. 1997 Apr;40(4):485-91
    1. Am J Gastroenterol. 1998 Jan;93(1):83-7
    1. Dig Dis Sci. 1998 Jan;43(1):162-5
    1. Dig Dis Sci. 1998 Sep;43(9):2080-5
    1. Lancet. 1998 May 23;351(9115):1555
    1. Br Med J. 1955 Oct 29;2(4947):1041-8
    1. J Appl Bacteriol. 1990 Dec;69(6):769-97
    1. Clin Chim Acta. 1991 Feb 15;196(2-3):127-34
    1. Gut. 1991 Jul;32(7):766-73
    1. Gut. 1991 Dec;32(12):1498-501
    1. J Appl Bacteriol. 1992 Jan;72(1):57-64
    1. J Clin Invest. 1992 Apr;89(4):1304-11
    1. Clin Sci (Lond). 1992 Apr;82(4):447-54
    1. FEMS Microbiol Lett. 1992 Nov 1;77(1-3):225-8
    1. J Lab Clin Med. 1993 Feb;121(2):320-7
    1. Gastroenterology. 1993 Mar;104(3):802-9
    1. Int J Syst Bacteriol. 1993 Jul;43(3):533-8
    1. Cell. 1993 Oct 22;75(2):253-61
    1. Gut. 1993 Nov;34(11):1552-8
    1. Gastroenterology. 1994 Feb;106(2):375-80
    1. Gut. 1994 Jan;35(1):73-6
    1. Dig Dis Sci. 1994 Mar;39(3):494-7
    1. Biochem Pharmacol. 1972 Sep 1;21(17):2313-21

Source: PubMed

3
S'abonner