| Literature DB >> 27166072 |
Christian Milani1, Andrea Ticinesi2,3, Jacoline Gerritsen4, Antonio Nouvenne2,3, Gabriele Andrea Lugli1, Leonardo Mancabelli1, Francesca Turroni1, Sabrina Duranti1, Marta Mangifesta1, Alice Viappiani5, Chiara Ferrario1, Marcello Maggio3,6, Fulvio Lauretani2, Willem De Vos4, Douwe van Sinderen7, Tiziana Meschi2,3, Marco Ventura1.
Abstract
The gut microbiota composition of elderly hospitalized patients with Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) exposed to previous antibiotic treatment is still poorly investigated. The aim of this study was to compare the microbiota composition by means of 16S rRNA microbial profiling among three groups of hospitalized elderly patients (age ≥ 65) under standard diet including 25 CDI-positive (CDI group), 29 CDI-negative exposed to antibiotic treatment (AB+ group) and 30 CDI-negative subjects not on antibiotic treatment (AB- group). The functional properties of the gut microbiomes of CDI-positive vs CDI-negative subjects were also assessed by shotgun metagenomics. A significantly lower microbial diversity was detected in CDI samples, whose microbiomes clustered separately from CDI-negative specimens. CDI was associated with a significant under-representation of gut commensals with putative protective functionalities, including Bacteroides, Alistipes, Lachnospira and Barnesiella, and over-representation of opportunistic pathogens. These findings were confirmed by functional shotgun metagenomics analyses, including an in-depth profiling of the Peptostreptococcaceae family. In CDI-negative patients, antibiotic treatment was associated with significant depletion of few commensals like Alistipes, but not with a reduction in species richness. A better understanding of the correlations between CDI and the microbiota in high-risk elderly subjects may contribute to identify therapeutic targets for CDI.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27166072 PMCID: PMC4863157 DOI: 10.1038/srep25945
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Clinical characteristics of the studied population (n = 84).
| CDI | AB+ | AB− | p | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| (n = 25) | (n = 29) | (n = 30) | ||
| Age (years) | 82.9 ± 8.5 | 84.2 ± 8.1 | 82.3 ± 6.8 | 0.56 |
| Weight | 63.9 ± 15.9 | 68.4 ± 20.9 | 72.0 ± 15.1 | 0.29 |
| CIRS Severity Index | 2.5 ± 1.3 | 2.0 ± 1.3 | 2.0 ± 1.2 | 0.11 |
| Rockwood Frailty Index | 5.6 ± 1.6 | 5.4 ± 1.9 | 5.2 ± 1.8 | 0.68 |
| Number of Drugs | 14.6 ± 5.3 | 11.7 ± 3.3 | 8.0 ± 2.8 | <.0001 |
| PPI exposure | 64 | 82 | 65 | 0.73 |
| Days of hospitalization | 31 [18–53] | 9 [5.0–24] | 6 [4–14] | <.0001 |
| Days of antibiotic exposure | 8 [1–17] | 3 [2–7.5] | – | 0.007 |
| Levofloxacin exposure | 56 | 45 | – | 0.06 |
| Ceftriaxone exposure | 44 | 41 | – | 0.56 |
| Azithromycin exposure | 16 | 38 | – | 0.87 |
| Piperacillin/tazobactam exposure | 60 | 24 | – | 0.007 |
| Ampicillin exposure | 12 | 17 | – | 0.50 |
(CDI: Clostridium difficile infected samples, n = 25; AB+: Clostridium difficile-negative samples, patients exposed to antibiotic treatment, n = 29; AB−: Clostridium difficile-negative samples, patients not exposed to antibiotic treatment, n = 30). Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation, median [IQR] or percentage where appropriate.
*Age- and sex-adjusted (where appropriated), Kruskal-Wallis test or chi-square test.
Figure 1Evaluation of alpha-diversity in AB−, AB+ and CDI samples.
Panel (a) shows the average rarefaction curves representing variation of the Chao1 diversity index at increasing sequencing depth of AB−, AB+ and CDI samples. Panel (b) displays the average rarefaction curves representing variation of the Shannon diversity index at increasing sequencing depth of AB−, AB+ and CDI samples. Panel (c) represents a box plot showing standard deviation of the Chao1 and Shannon indexes calculated by subsampling AB−, AB+ and CDI datasets at 41,870 sequences (representing the highest subsampling performed). Panel (d) depicts a Venn diagram illustrating the total, unique and shared number of OTUs predicted for AB−, AB+ and CDI datasets.
Figure 2Evaluation of beta-diversity in AB−, AB+ and CDI samples.
The predicted PCoA encompassing all 84 AB−, AB+ and CDI datasets is reported through two three-dimensional images as well as two-dimensional sections. AB−, AB+ and CDI datasets and corresponding clusters are colored in orange, red and blue, respectively.
Figure 3Impact of antibiotic treatments and CDI on the gut microbiota.
Panel a displays a heat map illustrating bacterial taxa with mean relative abundance >0.1% and showing increase >100% or decrease <−50% in CDI compared to AB− datasets. Panel b shows a heat map illustrating bacterial taxa with mean relative abundance >0.1% and exhibiting an increase >100% or decrease <50% in datasets obtained from AB+ samples as compared to those from AB− samples. Taxa falling outside the cut-offs but being of particular relevance are also reported in the heat maps. Taxa detected in at least 50% of the sample constituting AB−, AB+ and CDI groups are marked.
Comparison of the mean relative abundance in fecal microbiota of a selection of taxa among the three study groups (CDI, AB+ and AB−).
| Taxa | AB− | AB+ | CDI | AB+ vs AB− | p-value | p-value | CDI vs AB+ | p-value | p-value | CDI vs AB− | p-value | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.14% | 0.00% | 0.00% | −100.00% | 0.75 | – | 0.01 | 0.05 | −97.24% | 0.47 | |||
| 0.87% | 0.43% | 0.03% | −50.20% | 0.07 | −92.79% | 0.06 | −96.41% | 0.03 | 0.16 | |||
| U. m. of | 1.13% | 2.08% | 0.06% | 83.59% | 0.48 | −97.20% | 0.06 | −94.86% | 0.006 | 0.11 | ||
| U. m. of | 0.42% | 0.27% | 0.02% | −36.72% | 0.76 | −91.29% | 0.03 | 0.08 | −94.49% | 0.09 | ||
| 1.27% | 1.03% | 0.11% | −18.73% | 0.68 | −88.97% | 0.02 | 0.08 | −91.04% | 0.01 | 0.10 | ||
| 0.40% | 0.48% | 0.04% | 21.01% | 0.95 | −92.34% | 0.02 | 0.009 | −90.73% | 0.001 | 0.03 | ||
| 0.39% | 0.26% | 0.04% | −33.80% | 0.4 | −85.93% | 0.006 | 0.02 | −90.68% | 0.03 | 0.19 | ||
| 3.28% | 1.22% | 0.31% | −62.84% | 0.23 | −74.81% | 0.19 | −90.64% | 0.005 | 0.06 | |||
| 10.73% | 4.61% | 1.25% | −57.07% | 0.001 | 0.03 | −72.87% | 0.06 | −88.35% | 0.0002 | 0.03 | ||
| U. m. of | 11.20% | 9.76% | 1.82% | −12.81% | 0.29 | −81.39% | 0.002 | 0.01 | −83.77% | <0.001 | 0.003 | |
| 0.22% | 0.38% | 0.05% | 67.97% | 0.1 | −88.02% | 0.0004 | 0.0009 | −79.88% | 0.0002 | 0.008 | ||
| 0.45% | 1.19% | 0.11% | 161.37% | 0.21 | −90.33% | 0.04 | 0.09 | −74.72% | 0.03 | 0.13 | ||
| U. m. of | 0.76% | 1.32% | 0.25% | 74.93% | 0.13 | −81.47% | 0.008 | 0.004 | −67.59% | 0.001 | 0.02 | |
| U. m. of | 0.28% | 0.24% | 0.10% | −12.77% | 0.3 | −59.83% | 0.07 | −64.96% | 0.02 | 0.39 | ||
| 29.59% | 31.33% | 11.86% | 5.89% | 0.61 | −62.15% | 0.002 | 0.01 | −59.92% | 0.004 | 0.07 | ||
| U. m. of | 13.64% | 11.81% | 6.12% | −13.37% | 0.74 | −48.20% | 0.09 | −55.12% | 0.04 | 0.29 | ||
| 0.12% | 0.04% | 0.09% | −63.75% | 0.02 | 0.04 | 105.74% | 0.56 | −25.42% | 0.67 | |||
| 0.92% | 0.89% | 10.69% | −3.47% | 0.6 | 1105.91% | 0.55 | 1064.02% | 0.006 | 0.45 | |||
| 0.01% | 0.05% | 0.25% | 394.86% | 0.07 | 361.84% | 0.07 | 2185.49% | 0.005 | 0.21 | |||
| 0.00% | 0.01% | 0.11% | 144.16% | 0.38 | 928.75% | 0.02 | 0.04 | 2411.74% | 0.002 | 0.03 | ||
| 0.03% | 0.04% | 0.97% | 62.89% | 0.9 | 2149.13% | 0.02 | 0.04 | 3563.49% | 0.03 | 0.17 | ||
| U. m. of | 0.05% | 0.06% | 2.41% | 20.68% | 0.84 | 3770.70% | 0.02 | 0.006 | 4571.27% | 0.009 | 0.006 | |
| 0.01% | 0.03% | 0.46% | 192.58% | 0.11 | 1623.84% | 0.008 | 0.09 | 4943.66% | 0.02 | 0.38 | ||
| 0.27% | 1.95% | 16.86% | 629.45% | 0.03 | 0.07 | 765.98% | 0.0008 | 0.03 | 6216.91% | 0.0005 | 0.13 | |
| 0.12% | 0.19% | 14.31% | 54.25% | 0.48 | 7429.84% | 0.008 | 0.004 | 11514.90% | 0.002 | 0.003 |
Only taxa with a significant age- and sex-adjusted difference in at least one of the three comparisons (AB+ vs AB−, CDI vs AB+, CDI vs AB−) are reported in this Table. The full Table, including all taxa with an average relative abundance >0.1% in at least one group (77 taxa), is available in Supplemental Material. (CDI: Clostridium difficile infected samples, n = 25; AB+: Clostridium difficile-negative samples, patients exposed to antibiotic treatment, n = 29; AB−: Clostridium difficile-negative samples, patients not exposed to antibiotic treatment, n = 30).
U.m. = Unclassified members.
*Age- and sex-adjusted.
°Fully-adjusted (age, sex, length of hospital stay, number of drugs).
#Taxa in bold show decrease lower than 50% in CDI vs AB− subjects with p-value < 0.005.
♦Taxa underlined show decrease lower than 50% or increase higher than 100% in AB and CDI vs AB− subjects.
Figure 4Role of CDImb in protection from gut microbiota alterations and opportunistic pathogens.
The network representation shows the impact of CDImb (blue dots) on the whole microbiome. Links between the dots represent positive (in green) or negative (in red) correlations based on Kendall tau-rank co-variance analysis. Each link acts as a spring whose attracting or repulsing force as well as line width is proportional to the positive or negative co-variance values, respectively. Taxa with purported health-promoting activities are colored in green while opportunistic pathogens are colored in red.