BACKGROUND: Epidemiological studies demonstrate a link between gastrointestinal cancers and environmental factors such as diet. It has been suggested that environmental cancer risk is determined by the interaction between diet and microbes. Thus, the purpose of this study was to examine the hypothesis that microbiota composition during colorectal cancer (CRC) progression might differ depending on the stage of the disease. METHODS: A total of 28 age-matched and sex-matched subjects, seven with CRC adenocarcinoma, 11 with tubular adenomas and ten healthy subjects with intact colon, were included into the study. Microbiomes from mucosal and fecal samples were analyzed with 16S ribosomal RNA gene pyrosequencing, together with quantitative PCR of specific bacteria and archaea. RESULTS: The principal coordinates analysis clearly separated healthy tissue samples from polyps and tumors, supporting the presence of specific bacterial consortia that are associated with affected sites and that can serve as potential biomarkers of CRC progression. A higher presence of Fusobacterium nucleatum and Enterobacteriaceae was found by qPCR in samples from CRC compared to healthy controls. We observed a correlation between CRC process development and levels of Methanobacteriales (R = 0.537, P = 0.007) and Methanobrevibacterium (R = 0.574, P = 0.03) in fecal samples. CONCLUSION: Differences in microbial and archaeal composition between mucosal samples from healthy and disease tissues were observed in tubular adenoma and adenocarcinoma. In addition, microbiota from mucosal samples represented the underlying dysbiosis, whereas fecal samples seem not to be appropriate to detect shifts in microbial composition. CRC risk is influenced by microbial composition, showing differences according to disease progression step and tumor severity.
BACKGROUND: Epidemiological studies demonstrate a link between gastrointestinal cancers and environmental factors such as diet. It has been suggested that environmental cancer risk is determined by the interaction between diet and microbes. Thus, the purpose of this study was to examine the hypothesis that microbiota composition during colorectal cancer (CRC) progression might differ depending on the stage of the disease. METHODS: A total of 28 age-matched and sex-matched subjects, seven with CRC adenocarcinoma, 11 with tubular adenomas and ten healthy subjects with intact colon, were included into the study. Microbiomes from mucosal and fecal samples were analyzed with 16S ribosomal RNA gene pyrosequencing, together with quantitative PCR of specific bacteria and archaea. RESULTS: The principal coordinates analysis clearly separated healthy tissue samples from polyps and tumors, supporting the presence of specific bacterial consortia that are associated with affected sites and that can serve as potential biomarkers of CRC progression. A higher presence of Fusobacterium nucleatum and Enterobacteriaceae was found by qPCR in samples from CRC compared to healthy controls. We observed a correlation between CRC process development and levels of Methanobacteriales (R = 0.537, P = 0.007) and Methanobrevibacterium (R = 0.574, P = 0.03) in fecal samples. CONCLUSION: Differences in microbial and archaeal composition between mucosal samples from healthy and disease tissues were observed in tubular adenoma and adenocarcinoma. In addition, microbiota from mucosal samples represented the underlying dysbiosis, whereas fecal samples seem not to be appropriate to detect shifts in microbial composition. CRC risk is influenced by microbial composition, showing differences according to disease progression step and tumor severity.
Authors: Bo Hu; Eran Elinav; Samuel Huber; Till Strowig; Liming Hao; Anja Hafemann; Chengcheng Jin; Claudia Wunderlich; Thomas Wunderlich; Stephanie C Eisenbarth; Richard A Flavell Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2013-05-21 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: M Andrea Azcárate-Peril; Michael Sikes; José M Bruno-Bárcena Journal: Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol Date: 2011-06-23 Impact factor: 4.052
Authors: Aleksandar D Kostic; Eunyoung Chun; Lauren Robertson; Jonathan N Glickman; Carey Ann Gallini; Monia Michaud; Thomas E Clancy; Daniel C Chung; Paul Lochhead; Georgina L Hold; Emad M El-Omar; Dean Brenner; Charles S Fuchs; Matthew Meyerson; Wendy S Garrett Journal: Cell Host Microbe Date: 2013-08-14 Impact factor: 21.023
Authors: David Cunningham; Wendy Atkin; Heinz-Josef Lenz; Henry T Lynch; Bruce Minsky; Bernard Nordlinger; Naureen Starling Journal: Lancet Date: 2010-03-20 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Julian R Marchesi; Bas E Dutilh; Neil Hall; Wilbert H M Peters; Rian Roelofs; Annemarie Boleij; Harold Tjalsma Journal: PLoS One Date: 2011-05-24 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Jorge Henao-Mejia; Eran Elinav; Chengcheng Jin; Liming Hao; Wajahat Z Mehal; Till Strowig; Christoph A Thaiss; Andrew L Kau; Stephanie C Eisenbarth; Michael J Jurczak; Joao-Paulo Camporez; Gerald I Shulman; Jeffrey I Gordon; Hal M Hoffman; Richard A Flavell Journal: Nature Date: 2012-02-01 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Vanessa L Hale; Patricio Jeraldo; Michael Mundy; Janet Yao; Gary Keeney; Nancy Scott; E Heidi Cheek; Jennifer Davidson; Megan Greene; Christine Martinez; John Lehman; Chandra Pettry; Erica Reed; Kelly Lyke; Bryan A White; Christian Diener; Osbaldo Resendis-Antonio; Jaime Gransee; Tumpa Dutta; Xuan-Mai Petterson; Lisa Boardman; David Larson; Heidi Nelson; Nicholas Chia Journal: Methods Date: 2018-04-26 Impact factor: 3.608
Authors: Christian Milani; Sabrina Duranti; Francesca Bottacini; Eoghan Casey; Francesca Turroni; Jennifer Mahony; Clara Belzer; Susana Delgado Palacio; Silvia Arboleya Montes; Leonardo Mancabelli; Gabriele Andrea Lugli; Juan Miguel Rodriguez; Lars Bode; Willem de Vos; Miguel Gueimonde; Abelardo Margolles; Douwe van Sinderen; Marco Ventura Journal: Microbiol Mol Biol Rev Date: 2017-11-08 Impact factor: 11.056