Gut Bacteria Research

My major source of data groundwork delves into the research that explains how the restoration of microbiome diet leads to the enchancment of digestion, cognition, emotional and physical wellbeing. The paper postulates that the use of probiotics and prebiotics in the manipulation of gut micro organism has affected both the physical and psychological well-being of an individual. The learn about employs a specific manipulation technique recognised as the ‘Gut Makeover,’ which aims to elicit a positive trade in the gut bacteria in the microbiome. The learn about took twenty-one participants into the study for 4 weeks and underwent the ‘Gut Makeover’ manipulation methods. Results found reduced weight after the intervention as properly as lowered symptoms associated to digestion and harmful bodily and psychological health.

The secondary source involves a review of the human gastrointestinal tract, an analysis of the gut microbiota and their influence on homeostasis processes and disease. The study postulates that diet is a significant factor that influences the presence of gut microbiota over a lifetime. Gut microbiota plays a pivotal role in maintaining metabolic homeostasis processes and giving protection against pathogens. The study interprets the heterogeneity and variance in gut bacteria along the gastrointestinal tract and summarizes the understanding surrounding the development and GI microbiota composition.

Comparisons

One similarity between the primary source and the secondary source is the fact that both scholarly articles contain an abstract. The role of the abstract is to give a summary of what the paper aims to study and achieve. The primary source provides an overview of the study methods employed in the study and the results. It also takes into account the fact of the period of the study, the number of participants and an excerpt analysis of the discussion. The secondary source also summarizes the general information surrounding the primary source of data.

Also, the introductions are similar in the sense that both sources develop a hypothetical stand on the diversity of gut bacteria in the human gastrointestinal tract. They both postulate that the human gut is composed of trillions of gut bacteria and have an influence not only on the health of an individual but also the physical and emotional wellbeing through homeostasis processes. The introduction bit also mentions the effects of altering the state of a person’s microbiota on their overall health. Data from the primary source indicates that use of probiotics, which are beneficial bacteria, have the potential of improving the health condition of a person. An example is the Lactobacillus genus bacteria role in reducing weight through the fermentation of sugars and thus reduce cases of cardiovascular disease.

Another similarity between these two scholarly sources is the fact that they tend to agree on the premise that the use of metabolomics approaches to the study of gut microbiota is critical in assessing the composition of these bacteria in the human gastrointestinal tract and their roles in preventing pathogen infections and improving overall health. Also, both sources take into account the importance of probiotic or prebiotic measures aimed at preventing or reversing the dysbiotic relationship between the host and the gut bacteria thus reducing the spread and effect of a pathogen.

Contrasts

One difference noted between the two sources is the fact that the primary data source contains a section describing the method and materials used in the study and collection of data. The primary source involved the researchers surveying twenty-one participants with the aim of subjecting them to a dietary program which would eventually result in an improvement in health and a subsequent increase in diversity in the microbiome. On the other hand, the secondary source contains no raw data collection techniques but only gives a summary of the various microbes in the gastrointestinal tract and their role in improving health. It also takes into account the integrity of the maintenance of the mucosal barrier, provision of nutrients such as vitamins, protection from pathogens and proper immune function (Thursby, 6).

The other difference basis rests on the fact that the primary source has a section under which a discussion of the results is made. The discussion section postulates that the study conducted produced positive results in the reduction of self-reported weight. The paper goes on to emphasize the notion that the adherence of the subjects to the dietary plan and a subsequent increase in microbiome diversity is in tandem with the research that the microbiome occupies a significant role in body energy regulation (Lawrence et al., 6).

Finally, the other notable difference between the two papers is in the scope of coverage. The primary source focuses on the effect of increased microbiome diversity through a dietary plan on physical, emotional and digestion wellbeing and processes. On the other hand, the secondary source describes a wide range of gut microbiota and their general roles in maintaining health, improving the immune system and preventing pathogen infections.

Works Cited

Thursby, Elizabeth, and Nathalie Juge. "Introduction to the human gut microbiota." Biochemical Journal 474.11 (2017): 1823-1836.

Lawrence, Kate, and Jeannette Hyde. "Microbiome restoration diet improves digestion, cognition and physical and emotional wellbeing." PloS one 12.6 (2017): e0179017.