Folia Microbiologica

, Volume 63, Issue 3, pp 283–290 | Cite as

Effect of hyperbaric air on endotoxin from Bacteroides fragilis strains

  • Dittmar Chmelař
  • Adéla Kašíková
  • Petrana Martineková
  • Michal Hájek
  • Miroslav Rozložník
  • Marek Brabec
  • Jana Janečková
  • Jana Vobejdová
  • Ivan Čižnár
Original Article


The aim of the project was to determine any effect of hyperbaric air on Bacteroides fragilis strains cultivated under hyperbaric conditions. Previously, it was hypothesized that there was a correlation between the presence of Bacteroides bacteria in patients preferring a meaty diet and cancer of the small intestine, and particularly of the large intestine and rectum. With respect to the fact that Bacteroides fragilis (BAFR) group are important producers of endotoxins, measurement and statistical evaluation of endotoxin production by individual strains of isolated Bacteroides species were used to compare bacteria isolated from various clinical samples from patients with colon and rectum cancer in comparison with strains isolated from other non-cancer diagnoses. Endotoxin production was proven by quantitative detection using the limulus amebocyte lysate (LAL) test in EU/mL. Production of endotoxins in these bacteria cultured under hyperbaric air conditions was higher than those strains cultured under normobaric anaerobic conditions. But these differences in endotoxin production were not statistically significant (t test with log-transformed data, p value = 0.0910). Based on a two-tier t test for lognormal data, it is possible to cautiously conclude that a statistically significant difference was found between endotoxin production by Bacteroides fragilis strains isolated from non-carcinoma diagnoses (strains (1–6) and strains isolated from colorectal carcinoma diagnoses (strains 7–8; Wilcoxon non-parametric test p = 0.0132; t test = 0.1110; t test with log-transformed data, p value = 0.0294).



This work could be accomplished thanks to the financial contribution granted for the SGS01/LF/2016 project of the specific university research of the Faculty of Medicine, University of Ostrava.

Authors’ contributions

DCh: the author of the article and scenario of experiments and article writing; AK, PM: organization of experimental work in Faculty of Medicine of University of Ostrava; MH, IČ: suggestions and checking the manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Additional informed consent was obtained from all individual patients included in the study article.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. Bang FA (1956) Bacterial disease of Limulus polyphemus. Bull J Hopkins Hosp 98:325–330Google Scholar
  2. Brook I (1989) Pathogenicity of Bacteroides fragilis group. Ann Clin Lab Sci 19:360–376PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Chiu C-M et al (2014) Systematic analysis of the association between gut flora and obesity through high-throughput sequencing and bioinformatics approaches. BioMed Res Int 2014, Article ID 906168, 10 pages.
  4. Chmelař D (2001) Gastrointestinal tract—source of endogenous anaerobic infections. Spr Klin Mikrobiol, SA/2001, Supl A-2001, pp 87–88Google Scholar
  5. Chmelař D, Vrtný J (2010) Endotoxin production in members of the Bacteroides fragilis group in relation to colorectal cancer humans. Klin Mikrobiol Infekc Lek 16(3):97–102PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Chmelař D, Hájek M, Janečková J, Vobejdová J, Martineková P, Kašíková A (2016) The effect of oxygen on endotoxin production in bacteria of the Bacteroides fragilis group isolated from patients with colorectal carcinoma. Epidemiol Mikrobiol Imunol 2:129–135Google Scholar
  7. Čižnár I (1982) Gram-negative bacteria toxins. Veda, Bratislava, pp 15–69Google Scholar
  8. Delahooke DM et al (1995a) A re-appraisal of the biological activity of Basteroides lipopolysaccharide. J Med Microbiol 42:102–112CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Delahooke DM et al (1995b) Tumor necrosis factor induction by an aqueous phenol-extracted lipopolysaccharide complex from Bacteroides species. Infect Immun 63:840–846PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Finegold SM, Orkin BA, Cataldo PA, Marcy SM et al (1986) Anaerobic infections. Year Book Medical Publishers, Chicago, pp 158–223Google Scholar
  11. Gee JM, Rocha ER, Smith CJ (2008) Examination of the contributions of DPS to the oxidative stress response and pathogenesis of the opportunistic pathogen, Bacteroides fragilis. The 9th Biennial Congress of the Anaerobe Society of Americas, 4.
  12. Gibbon GR, MacFarlane GT (1994) Intestine bacteria and disease. Human health: the contribution of microorganisms. Springer, Berlin, pp 53–62Google Scholar
  13. Goldner M, Conquis-Rondon M, Carlier JP (1993) A role of Bacteroides fragilis at different redox levels of potential pathogenicity in a HeLa cell system: demonstration by confocal laser scanning microscopy. Z Bakteriol 278:529–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hardham JM et al (2008) Transfer of Bacteroides splanchnicus to Odoribacter gen. nov. as Odoribacter splanchnicus comb. nov., and description of Odoribacter denticanis sp. nov., isolated from the crevicular spaces of canine periodontitis patients. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 58:103–110CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Heyboer M, Milanova TN, Wojcik S et al (2014) CD34+/CD45-dim stem cell mobilization by hyperbaric oxygen—changes with oxygen dosage. Stem Cells Res 12(3):638–645. 2014.02.005. PMC 4037447 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Joiner KA, McAdam KP, Kasper DL (1982) Lipopolysaccharides from Bacteroides fragilis are mitogenic for spleen cells from endotoxin responder and nonresponder mice. Infect Immun 36(3):1139–1145PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. Kozelská R (2006) Detection of endotoxins in pathogenic gram-negative bacteria. Bachelor thesis, Department of Investigation Methods and Medical Biology, Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, University of Ostrava, pp 29–32Google Scholar
  18. Krásová Z, Matušek A, Chmelař D (1992) Hyperbaric oxygenation in the treatment of necrotizing fasciitis. Vnitr Lek 36(7):640–644Google Scholar
  19. Lewis CJ, Coby BA (2007) Oxidant production by APCs in response to glycoantigens. J Immunol 178:36–39Google Scholar
  20. Malek M et al (2013) Hyperbaric oxygen and hyperbaric air treatment result in comparable neuronal death reduction and improved behavioral outcome after transient forebrain ischemia in the gerbil. Exp Brain Res 224:1–14. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Mathieu D, Favory R, Cesari JF, Wattel (2006) Necrotizing soft tissue infections. In: Mathieu D (ed) Handbook on hyperbaric medicine. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 263–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Matušek A, Martínek L, Chmelař D, Krásová Z (1998) Fournier's gangrene. Rozhl Chir 1:24–26Google Scholar
  23. Morris JG (1991) Characteristics of anaerobic metabolism. In: Duerden BI, Drasar BS (eds) Anaerobes in human disease. Edward Arnold, London, pp 16–37Google Scholar
  24. Namavar F, Theunissen EB, Verweij-Van Vught AMJJ (1989) Epidemiology of the Bacteroides fragilis group in the colonic flora of patients with colonic cancer. J Med Microbiol 29:171–176CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Patrick S (1988) The virulence of Bacteroides fragilis. Rev Med Microbiol 4:40–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Poxton IR, Brown R, Sawyerr A, Ferguson A (1997) Mucosa-associated bacterial flora of the human colon. J Med Microbiol 46:85–91CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Psoinos CM, Flahive JM, Shaw JJ, Li Y, Ng SC, Tseng JF et al (2013) Contemporary trends in necrotizing soft-tissue infections in the United States. Surgery 153(6):819–827CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. Reott MA, Rocha ER, Parker AC, Smith CJ (2008) Thioredoxins in redox maintenance and survival during oxidative stress of Bacteroides fragilis. The 9th Biennial Congress of the Anaerobe Society of Americas:
  29. Sakamoto M, Benno Y (2006) Reclassification of Bacteroides distasonis, Bacteroides goldsteinii and Bacteroides merdae as Parabacteroides distasonis gen. nov., comb. nov., Parabacteroides goldsteinii comb. nov. and Parabacteroides merdae comb. nov. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 56:1599–1605CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Skovsen AP, Bonde J, Andersen JS, Jansen EC, Tvede M (2010) Necrotizing fasciitis. Ugeskr Llaeger 172:440–444Google Scholar
  31. Tang YP, Dallas MM, Malamy MH (1999) Characterization of the Bat I (Bacteroides aerotolerance) operon in Bacteroides fragilis isolation of a B. fragilis mutant with reduced aerotolerance and impaired growth in in vivo model systems. Mol Microbiol 32:139–149CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Thom SR (2011) Hyperbaric oxygen—its mechanism and efficacy. Plast Reconstr Surg 127(Supl 1):131S–134SCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. Wexler HM (2007) Bacteroides: the good, the bad, and the nitty-gritty. Clin Microbiol Rev 20:593–621CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Institute of Microbiology, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, v.v.i. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dittmar Chmelař
    • 1
    • 2
  • Adéla Kašíková
    • 1
  • Petrana Martineková
    • 1
  • Michal Hájek
    • 1
    • 3
  • Miroslav Rozložník
    • 1
  • Marek Brabec
    • 4
    • 5
  • Jana Janečková
    • 6
  • Jana Vobejdová
    • 6
  • Ivan Čižnár
    • 1
    • 7
  1. 1.Department of Biomedical Sciences, Institute of Microbiology and Immunology, Faculty of MedicineUniversity of OstravaOstrava-ZabrehCzech Republic
  2. 2.Czech Anaerobic Bacteria Reference Laboratory, Faculty of MedicineUniversity of OstravaOstrava-ZabrehCzech Republic
  3. 3.Centre of Hyperbaric MedicineOstrava City HospitalOstravaCzech Republic
  4. 4.Department of Nonlinear Modelling, Institute of Computer ScienceAcademy of Science of the Czech RepublicPragueCzech Republic
  5. 5.National Institute of Public HealthPragueCzech Republic
  6. 6.Department of Infection DiagnosticLitomyšl Town Hospital of Pardubice RegionLitomyšlCzech Republic
  7. 7.Faculty of Public HealthSlovak Medical UniversityBratislavaSlovak Republic

Personalised recommendations