Figure 5.
The influence of LIPUS stimulation on gut microbiome composition in MK-801-treated rats. (A) A Venn diagram was employed to evaluate the common and unique operational taxonomic units in the 4 groups. Bar plots of relative abundance show bacterial composition at the (B) phylum, (C) class, and (D) genus level for each group. (E) The class Mollicutes. (F) The genus Roseburia. (G) The species Roseburia hominis. (H) The genus Ligilactobacillus. (I) The species Ligilactobacillus murinus. Alpha diversity comparison based on sample type. Three alpha diversity metrics are visualized: (J) Observed features, (K) Faith’s phylogenetic diversity, and (L) Margalef’s species richness. *, #, and † denote significant differences for each experimental group compared to the Sham group, MK-801 group, and MK-801 + LIPUS group, respectively (*,#, P < .05; **, P < .01; n = 6).

The influence of LIPUS stimulation on gut microbiome composition in MK-801-treated rats. (A) A Venn diagram was employed to evaluate the common and unique operational taxonomic units in the 4 groups. Bar plots of relative abundance show bacterial composition at the (B) phylum, (C) class, and (D) genus level for each group. (E) The class Mollicutes. (F) The genus Roseburia. (G) The species Roseburia hominis. (H) The genus Ligilactobacillus. (I) The species Ligilactobacillus murinus. Alpha diversity comparison based on sample type. Three alpha diversity metrics are visualized: (J) Observed features, (K) Faith’s phylogenetic diversity, and (L) Margalef’s species richness. *, #, and denote significant differences for each experimental group compared to the Sham group, MK-801 group, and MK-801 + LIPUS group, respectively (*,#, P < .05; **, P < .01; n = 6).

Close
This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

Close

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

View Article Abstract & Purchase Options

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Close