| Literature DB >> 28038683 |
Brandilyn A Peters1, Christine Dominianni1, Jean A Shapiro2, Timothy R Church3, Jing Wu1, George Miller4,5,6, Elizabeth Yuen7, Hal Freiman7, Ian Lustbader7, James Salik7, Charles Friedlander7, Richard B Hayes1,6, Jiyoung Ahn8,9.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer is a heterogeneous disease arising from at least two precursors-the conventional adenoma (CA) and the serrated polyp. We and others have previously shown a relationship between the human gut microbiota and colorectal cancer; however, its relationship to the different early precursors of colorectal cancer is understudied. We tested, for the first time, the relationship of the gut microbiota to specific colorectal polyp types.Entities:
Keywords: Adenoma; Cancer; Colorectal; Microbiome; Microbiota; Polyp; Serrated
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 28038683 PMCID: PMC5203720 DOI: 10.1186/s40168-016-0218-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Microbiome ISSN: 2049-2618 Impact factor: 14.650
Demographic and polyp characteristics of the study participants
| Controls | CA cases | HP cases | SSA cases | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 323 | 144 | 40 | 33 |
| Male, % | 47.1 | 67.4** | 52.5 | 54.5 |
| Age (years), mean ± SD | 61.3 ± 7.2 | 63.1 ± 6.6* | 64.4 ± 7.5* | 63.1 ± 7.0 |
| Whitea, % | 94.4 | 95.0 | 92.5 | 97.0 |
| Family history of cancerb, % | 25.2 | 29.1 | 41.0 | 25.0 |
| BMI categoryc, % | ||||
| Under or normal-weight (BMI <25 kg/m2) | 39.9 | 31.2 | 32.5 | 24.2 |
| Overweight (25 ≤ BMI < 30 kg/m2) | 38.7 | 43.1 | 42.5 | 45.5 |
| Obese (BMI ≥30 kg/m2) | 21.4 | 25.7 | 25.0 | 30.3 |
| Study, % | ||||
| CDC | 75.5 | 70.1 | 60.0 | 87.9 |
| NYU | 24.5 | 29.9 | 40.0 | 12.1 |
| Polyp histologyd, % | ||||
| TA <1 cm only | 84.0 | |||
| TA ≥1 cm, TVA, or TA and TVA only | 15.3 | |||
| Hyperplastic only | 100.0 | |||
| SSA only | 81.8 | |||
| SSA and hyperplastic only | 18.2 | |||
| Polyp locatione, % | ||||
| Proximal | 60.4 | 15.0 | 90.9 | |
| Distal | 38.2 | 85.0 | 9.1 | |
CA conventional adenoma, HP hyperplastic polyp, SSA sessile serrated adenoma
*p < 0.05, **p < 0.001, different from controls by Wilcoxon rank-sum test or Chi-squared test for continuous or categorical variables, respectively
a n = 4 were missing race
b n = 7 were missing family history
cThose missing BMI (CDC n = 1, NYU n = 3) were re-coded as the median (CDC 27 kg/m2, NYU 25 kg/m2) in order to retain sample size in covariate adjusted analyses
d TA tubular adenoma, TVA tubulovillous adenoma, SSA sessile serrated adenoma, n = 1 subject with a TA could not be classified by size, so conventional adenoma percentage will not sum to 100%
eProximal: polyps only in the cecum, ascending colon, hepatic flexure, transverse colon, or splenic flexure; distal: any polyp located in the descending colon, sigmoid colon, or rectum; see Additional file 1: Table S2 for further breakdown by specific location; n = 2 subjects with CAs could not be classified by location, so CA percentage will not sum to 100%
Fig. 1α-Diversity and community types of colonoscopy-screened participants. a Violin plots of species richness and b Shannon diversity index by polyp histology (controls n = 322, CA cases n = 144, HP cases n = 40, SSA cases n = 33), location (distal CA n = 55, proximal CA n = 87), and advancement level (non-advanced CA n = 121, advanced CA n = 22). These indices were calculated for 500 iterations of rarefied (4000 sequences per sample) OTU tables, and the average over the iterations was taken for each participant (1 control excluded due to sequencing depth = 2088). p values from multiple linear regression are shown. c Fitting to the DMM [24, 56] model indicates optimal classification into 5 community types. d Principal coordinate analysis of Jensen-Shannon divergence values between participants, colored by community type. Green community type 1, blue type 2, purple type 3, yellow type 4, red type 5. e Distribution of the community types in groups distinguished by histology, f location, or g advancement level. p value from Fisher’s exact test with Monte Carlo simulation is shown. CAs conventional adenomas, HPs hyperplastic polyps, SSAs sessile serrated adenomas
Fig. 2Heatmaps of OTUs that were differentially abundant between colorectal polyp cases and controls. All OTUs with q < 0.10 for comparisons of any case group (all CA, non-advanced CA, advanced CA, distal CA, proximal CA, HP, SSA) vs. controls are included in the figure. a Heatmap shows fold change from controls in the DESeq2 models, with white star indicating q < 0.10 for the comparison. b Heatmap shows OTU counts in each participant. For display, counts were normalized for DESeq2 size factors and log2 transformed after adding a pseudocount of 1. n = 1 and n = 2 CA cases were missing advanced status or location information, respectively. CAs conventional adenomas, HPs hyperplastic polyps, SSAs sessile serrated adenomas
Fig. 3Microbial community ecology in controls and conventional adenoma cases. Correlation network of OTUs differentially abundant between a controls and all CA cases, b controls and distal CA cases, and c controls and proximal CA cases. Spearman’s correlation coefficients were estimated using counts (normalized for DESeq2 size factors) and calculated among the samples under comparison. Lines shown between OTUs indicate Spearman’s correlation ≥0.3 (green) or ≤-0.3 (red). Direction of enrichment in relation to all CA/distal CA/proximal CA cases vs. controls was determined from DESeq2 models. OTUs are colored according to family membership. Line thickness represents strength of the correlation, in steps of 0.3–0.4 (thinnest), 0.4–0.5, 0.5–0.6, 0.6–0.7, and >0.7 (thickest). CA conventional adenoma
Differentially abundanta classes and genera between controls and CA cases, HP cases, and SSA cases
| CA cases vs. controls | HP cases vs. controls | SSA cases vs. controls | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Taxon | Mean countb | Fold change (95% CI) |
| Fold change (95% CI) |
| Fold change (95% CI) |
|
| Class | |||||||
| Firmicutes; Bacilli | 506.3 | 2.11 (1.6, 2.78) | 2.45E−06 | 1.23 (0.78, 1.94) | 1.00 | 0.79 (0.49, 1.3) | 0.79 |
| Firmicutes; Erysipelotrichi | 305.8 | 0.92 (0.79, 1.07) | 0.57 | 1.1 (0.85, 1.41) | 1.00 | 0.68 (0.52, 0.89) | 0.09 |
| Proteobacteria; Gammaproteobacteria | 394.4 | 1.81 (1.19, 2.76) | 0.04 | 0.32 (0.16, 0.63) | 0.02 | 0.43 (0.21, 0.88) | 0.18 |
| Genus | |||||||
| Actinobacteria; Actinobacteria; Actinomycetales; Actinomycetaceae; Actinomyces | 9.1 | 1.69 (1.32, 2.17) | 0.0006 | 1.24 (0.82, 1.87) | 0.99 | 1.07 (0.7, 1.64) | 0.98 |
| Actinobacteria; Actinobacteria; Actinomycetales; Corynebacteriaceae; Corynebacterium | 1.0 | 3.73 (1.88, 7.4) | 0.002 | 0.78 (0.28, 2.22) | 0.99 | 0.86 (0.3, 2.5) | 0.98 |
| Firmicutes; Bacilli; Lactobacillales; Streptococcaceae; Streptococcus | 422.2 | 2.38 (1.76, 3.21) | 1.35E−06 | 1.26 (0.78, 2.05) | 0.99 | 0.72 (0.43, 1.21) | 0.65 |
| Firmicutes; Clostridia; Clostridiales; NA; NAd | 2624.0 | 1.44 (1.26, 1.65) | 6.31E−06 | 1.18 (0.94, 1.47) | 0.92 | 0.98 (0.77, 1.25) | 0.98 |
| Firmicutes; Clostridia; Clostridiales; [Mogibacteriaceae]; NAd | 16.2 | 0.78 (0.65, 0.94) | 0.06 | 0.85 (0.63, 1.15) | 0.99 | 0.89 (0.65, 1.22) | 0.88 |
| Firmicutes; Clostridia; Clostridiales; [Tissierellaceae]; Peptoniphilus | 1.6 | 3.41 (1.83, 6.35) | 0.002 | 0.55 (0.21, 1.46) | 0.99 | 0.85 (0.32, 2.28) | 0.98 |
| Firmicutes; Clostridia; Clostridiales; Lachnospiraceae; Anaerostipes | 45.7 | 1.23 (0.98, 1.54) | 0.30 | 1.96 (1.36, 2.84) | 0.03 | 1.02 (0.69, 1.52) | 0.98 |
| Firmicutes; Clostridia; Clostridiales; Lachnospiraceae; Dorea | 216.1 | 1.19 (1.05, 1.35) | 0.06 | 1.09 (0.88, 1.34) | 0.99 | 1 (0.8, 1.25) | 0.99 |
| Firmicutes; Clostridia; Clostridiales; Veillonellaceae; Phascolarctobacterium | 115.4 | 1.91 (1.24, 2.96) | 0.04 | 1.12 (0.57, 2.22) | 0.99 | 0.85 (0.41, 1.76) | 0.98 |
| Firmicutes; Erysipelotrichi; Erysipelotrichales; Erysipelotrichaceae; Coprobacillus | 10.8 | 0.59 (0.39, 0.88) | 0.07 | 0.36 (0.19, 0.68) | 0.07 | 1.03 (0.53, 2.01) | 0.98 |
| Proteobacteria; Betaproteobacteria; Burkholderiales; Alcaligenaceae; Sutterella | 430.2 | 2.06 (1.52, 2.78) | 8.60E−05 | 0.84 (0.52, 1.37) | 0.99 | 0.97 (0.58, 1.65) | 0.98 |
| Tenericutes; Mollicutes; RF39; NA; NAd | 36.4 | 0.42 (0.22, 0.78) | 0.06 | 1.1 (0.44, 2.77) | 0.99 | 1.06 (0.4, 2.81) | 0.98 |
CA, conventional adenoma, HP hyperplastic polyp, SSA sessile serrated adenoma
aDifferential abundance was detected by the “DESeq” function in the DESeq2 package. All classes and genera with an FDR-adjusted q < 0.10 are included in the table. Models were adjusted for sex, age, study, and categorical BMI. See Additional file 1: Table S5 for comparisons at the phylum, order, and family level
bCounts were normalized by dividing raw counts by DESeq2 size factors
cFDR-adjusted p value. FDR adjustment was conducted at each level (i.e., class, genus) separately
dNA: unclassified genus