| Literature DB >> 28274256 |
Mohan Pammi1, Julia Cope2, Phillip I Tarr3, Barbara B Warner3, Ardythe L Morrow4, Volker Mai5, Katherine E Gregory6, J Simon Kroll7, Valerie McMurtry8, Michael J Ferris8, Lars Engstrand9, Helene Engstrand Lilja10, Emily B Hollister11, James Versalovic11, Josef Neu12.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) is a catastrophic disease of preterm infants, and microbial dysbiosis has been implicated in its pathogenesis. Studies evaluating the microbiome in NEC and preterm infants lack power and have reported inconsistent results. METHODS ANDEntities:
Keywords: 16S rRNA sequencing; Intestinal; Microbiome; NEC; Neonate; Preterm
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28274256 PMCID: PMC5343300 DOI: 10.1186/s40168-017-0248-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Microbiome ISSN: 2049-2618 Impact factor: 14.650
Fig. 1PRISMA flow diagram depicts our search results and selection of included studies in this systematic review
Table of excluded studies
| Study | Reason for exclusion |
|---|---|
| Schwiertz 2003 [ | A study of 29 preterm infants by PCR-DGGE analysis of which only one case of NEC was observed. No comparison of NEC and controls. |
| Bjorkstorm 2009 [ | Only stool cultures and fecal calprotectin were measured. |
| LaTuga 2011 [ | A study of eleven ELBW infants was excluded as there were no direct comparison of NEC and controls. |
| Morowitz 2011 [ | Community genomic analysis at the strain level in one premature infant was excluded because the study did not compare NEC and controls. |
| Sharon 2013 [ | Time shifts in community genomics was excluded because the study did not compare NEC and controls. |
| Carlisle 2013 [ | A review was excluded. |
| Grishin 2013 [ | A review was excluded. |
| Torraza 2013 [ | A review was excluded. |
| Taft 2014 [ | Description of the microbiome in preterm infants without NEC or sepsis and not a comparison of NEC with controls. |
| Raveh-Sadka 2015 [ | Not a comparison of NEC with controls. |
Methodological assessment of included studies
| Assessment criteria | Millar 1996 [ | De la Cochetiere 2004 [ | Wang 2009 [ | Mshvildadze 2010 [ | Mai 2011 [ | Smith 2012 [ | Stewart 2012 [ | Norman 2013 [ | Torraza 2013 [ | Morrow 2013 [ | Zhou 2015 [ | McMurtry 2015 [ | Sim 2015 [ | Warner 2016 [ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Do inclusion/exclusion criteria vary across comparison groups? | Yesa | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No |
| Is the selection of the comparison group inappropriate? | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No |
| Were valid and reliable measures (outcomes) applied consistently across all study participants? | Yes | Yes | Yes | Nob | Yes | Yes | Noc | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Are any important primary outcomes missing from the results? | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No |
| Are results believable given the study limitations? (overall quality of the study) | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| To assess confounding | ||||||||||||||
| Any attempt to balance allocation between groups (e.g., stratification, matching) | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Were important confounding variables (gestational age or birth weight) taken into account in the design and/or analysis (by matching, stratification, multivariate analysis, etc.) | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Assessing methodological quality by the key components of study design is recommended over assigning quality scores in observational studies. The inclusion and exclusion criteria were similar in cases and controls in all included studies except Millar et al., where one intestinal sample along with fecal samples was included in the NEC group. Molecular methods of microbiome analysis were reported for all patients in all studies except Mshvildadze [30], Stewart 2012, where data for only a subset of patients were reported. All studies had appropriate comparison groups, reported all of our pre-specified outcomes and results “were believable given the study limitations.” Ten out of 14 included studies addressed the issue of confounding by matching or stratification to avoid known confounders
aOne NEC sample was tissue sample and was obtained post-mortem
bDGGE was performed in 23 infants and pyrosequencing was performed in a subset of 12 infants (6 of whom had NEC or sepsis)
cMolecular assessment of stools by DGGE was assessed in only 27 infants out of 38 (16 infants with NEC or sepsis and 11 control infants)
Fig. 2Histogram of necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) cases by weeks corrected gestational age (CGA). The distribution of 61 cases of NEC plotted against CGA at the time of diagnosis is normal (Shapiro-Wilk test, p = 0.26). The mean ± SD, CGA at the time of NEC diagnosis was 30.1 ± 2.4 weeks.
Fig. 3Alpha and beta diversity-NEC vs. controls. Alpha-diversity comparison for all corrected gestational ages (CGA) by NEC case vs. control by three metrics. a Observed species, b Shannon diversity, and c Simpson diversity, none of the comparisons are significantly different. Data is represented in box and whisker plots with median and whiskers representing 10–90th centiles. Principal co-ordinate (PCoA) plots of weighted UniFrac distance (d) and unweighted UniFrac distance (e) including all time points from all studies shows a lack of clustering between cases and controls. The figure in parenthesis next the axis labels represents the proportion of variation explained along each axis. Orange circles represent samples from preterm infants with NEC, and green triangles represent samples from control preterm infants
Fig. 4Comparison of taxonomic profiles between infants with necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) and controls. a NEC infants had trends of increased relative abundance in Proteobacteria from 24 to 36 weeks corrected gestational age (CGA) accompanied by decreased abundances in Firmicutes and Bacteroidetes, relative to controls. In control infants, the relative abundance of Proteobacteria decreased after 27 weeks and coincided with an increase in Firmicutes and Bacteroidetes. b–d Phylum level differences between NEC cases and controls across CGA (data in means and SD) showed significant differences in Proteobacteria, Firmicutes, and Bacteroidetes (*p < 0.05). e, f Mean relative abundance distributions between NEC cases and controls at the phylum level (e) and genus level (f) when data from all CGAs are included
Fig. 5Heterogeneity assessment by 16S rRNA target region. Observed species (operational taxonomic unit, OTU) richness (a) and Shannon diversity index (SDI) values (b) in cases and controls are subgrouped by 16S rRNA target region (V1-V3 vs. V3-V5). Data is represented in box and whisker plots with median and whiskers representing 10–90th centiles. Significant differences were observed in SDI between controls of V1-V3 compared to controls of V3-V5 (*p < 0.05) and controls of V1-V3 compared to NEC V3-V5. No other significant differences were observed. c, d Depict weighted and unweighted UniFrac distances in PCoA plots of NEC and controls subgrouped 16S rRNA target region (V1-V3 vs V3-V5), and notable clustering was observed. The proportion of variation explained along each axis is listed in parenthesis with the axis labels. e Represents differences in proportion of sequences based on 16S rRNA target regions; V3-V5 targeting resulted in a significant increase in proportion of sequences of Proteobacteria and significant decrease in proportion of sequences of Firmicutes compared to studies targeting V1-V3.
Fig. 6Heterogeneity assessment by study. Observed species (operational taxonomic unit, OTU) richness (a) and Shannon diversity index (SDI) values (b) in cases and controls are subgrouped by study. Data is represented in box and whisker plots with median and whiskers representing 10–90th centiles. c, d Depict weighted and unweighted UniFrac distances in PCoA plots of NEC and controls subgrouped by study, and no notable clustering was observed. The proportion of variation explained along each axis is listed in parenthesis with the axis labels. e Represents differences in proportion of sequences based on study. Studies by Normann [34] and Torraza [56] showed significant increase in proportion of sequences of Firmicutes and significant decrease in proportion of sequences of Proteobacteria compared to other studies (*p < 0.05)