Skip to main content

Narrower range of helpful bacteria in guts of C-section infants

Increased rates of C-section births has long been a concern, particularly where it is thought to be unnecessary. Now a new study suggests that crucial development of gut bacteria may be delayed in babies born by C-section. 

The range of helpful bacteria in the guts of infants delivered by caesarean section, during their first two years of life, is narrower than that of infants delivered vaginally, indicates a small study published online in the journal Gut.

This has implications for the development of the immune system, say the researchers, particularly as the C-section infants had lower levels of the major group of gut bacteria associated with good gut health, Bacteroidetes phylum, as well as chemicals that help curb allergic responses.

It is already known that infant gut microbiota diversity increases during the first years of life. It is also known that microbiota composition differs between infants born by caesarean section (CS) or vaginal delivery with a delayed colonisation of the genus Bacteroides. Bacterial colonisation is necessary for the development of the immune system and immune regulation.  An association between CS delivery and the development of allergic disease has been observed in several studies.

The researchers assessed the patterns of bacterial colonisation of the guts of 24 infants, nine of whom had been born by caesarean section one week, and then again at one, three, six, 12 and 24 months after birth.

They also took blood samples at six, 12 and 24 months to test for levels of immune system chemicals known as Th1 and 2 associated chemokines. Excess Th2 chemokines have been implicated in the development of allergies, which Th1 responses can counteract, say the authors.


The results showed that babies delivered by caesarean section, and who therefore did not pass down the mother’s birth canal, either lacked or acquired late one of the major groups of gut bacteria, the Bacteroidetes, compared with the babies born vaginally.

In some C-section infants acquisition of Bacteroidetes did not occur until a year after birth. The total range of bacteria among those born by C-section was also lower than that of their vaginally delivered peers.

The differences in bacterial colonisation between the two groups of infants were not down to their mums having been given antibiotics during C-section or after the procedure to prevent infection: the levels and range of bacteria sampled from both sets of mums were similar, the analysis showed.


Bacteria are important for priming the immune system to respond appropriately to triggers, and not overreact as is the case in allergies, diabetes, and inflammatory bowel disease, say the authors. This includes the development of immune system T cells and the correct balance between their chemical messengers, Th1 and Th2.

The C-section infants had lower circulating levels of Th1 chemical messengers in their blood, indicating an imbalance between Th1 and Th2. “Failure of Th2 silencing during maturation of the immune system may underlie development of Th2-mediated allergic disease,” write the authors.


They point out that previous research has indicated that Bacteroides fragilis, one of the many Bacteroidetes, strongly influences the immune system, which ultimately enhances T cell activity and the Th1-Th2 balance.

“Thus, the lower abundance of Bacteroides among the C-section infants may be a contributing factor to the observed differences in the Th1-associated chemokines,” they write.

Improved knowledge of the impact of delivery mode on microbiota composition and immune regulation may lead to improved allergy preventive strategies.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As