SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

Additional Supporting Information may be found in the online version of this article.

FilenameFormatSizeDescription
HEP_26093_sm_SuppTab1.doc34KSupporting Information Table 1.
HEP_26093_sm_SuppTab2.doc28KSupporting Information Table 2.
HEP_26093_sm_SuppTab3.doc38KSupporting Information Table 3.
HEP_26093_sm_SuppTab4.doc42KSupporting Information Table 4.
HEP_26093_sm_SuppFig1.tif178KSupplementary Figure 1, Reduced species richness but not phylogenetic diversity in the gut microbiome of the obese and the NASH patients. Alpha diversities (phylogenetic distance and species richness) were evaluated based on the rarefied OTU tables. The sampling sizes were 10, 1268, 2526, 3784, and 5042 OTUs. (A) Phylogenetic diversity metric based on PD_whole_tree method. No significant difference was observed. (B) Species richness metric based on Chao1 method. Significant differences were observed at 1268, 2526, 3784, and 5042 OTUs (P<0.05, ANOVA). Tukey's tests indicated significant difference between the normal and the obese groups.
HEP_26093_sm_SuppFig2.tif3604KSupplementary Figure 2, UniFrac based principle coordinates analysis. The gut microbiomes did not cluster by age, ethnicity or gender, but clustered by health status with exceptions.
HEP_26093_sm_SuppFig3.tif1567KSupplementary Figure 3, Phylum distribution of the individual microbiomes of the normal subjects, the obese patients and the NASH patients.
HEP_26093_sm_SuppFig4.tif4285KSupplementary Figure 4, Alignment of the OTU #20341 sequence to the 16s rRNA sequences of the Escherichia species and Cronobacter dubinensis.
HEP_26093_sm_SuppInfo.doc35KSupporting Information

Please note: Wiley Blackwell is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.