| Literature DB >> 28767339 |
Hao Chung The1, Paola Florez de Sessions2, Song Jie2, Duy Pham Thanh1, Corinne N Thompson1,3,4, Chau Nguyen Ngoc Minh1, Collins Wenhan Chu2, Tuan-Anh Tran1, Nicholas R Thomson4,5, Guy E Thwaites1,3, Maia A Rabaa1,3, Martin Hibberd2,4, Stephen Baker1,3,6.
Abstract
Diarrheal diseases remain the second most common cause of mortality in young children in developing countries. Efforts have been made to explore the impact of diarrhea on bacterial communities in the human gut, but a thorough understanding has been impeded by inadequate resolution in bacterial identification and the examination of only few etiological agents. Here, by profiling an extended region of the 16S rRNA gene in the fecal microbiome, we aimed to elucidate the nature of gut microbiome perturbations during the early phase of infectious diarrhea caused by various etiological agents in Vietnamese children. Fecal samples from 145 diarrheal cases with a confirmed infectious etiology before antimicrobial therapy and 54 control subjects were analyzed. We found that the diarrheal fecal microbiota could be robustly categorized into 4 microbial configurations that either generally resembled or were highly divergent from a healthy state. Factors such as age, nutritional status, breastfeeding, and the etiology of the infection were significantly associated with these microbial community structures. We observed a consistent elevation of Fusobacterium mortiferum, Escherichia, and oral microorganisms in all diarrheal fecal microbiome configurations, proposing similar mechanistic interactions, even in the absence of global dysbiosis. We additionally found that Bifidobacterium pseudocatenulatum was significantly depleted during dysenteric diarrhea regardless of the etiological agent, suggesting that further investigations into the use of this species as a dysentery-orientated probiotic therapy are warranted. Our findings contribute to the understanding of the complex influence of infectious diarrhea on gut microbiome and identify new opportunities for therapeutic interventions.Entities:
Keywords: Bifidobacterium; Fusobacterium; developing country; diarrhea; enterotype; microbiome; oral microbiome
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28767339 PMCID: PMC5914913 DOI: 10.1080/19490976.2017.1361093
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Gut Microbes ISSN: 1949-0976
Summary of the etiologies associated with 142 diarrheal samples contributing to this study.
| Etiological agent | Number | Proportion (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Viral | 39 | 27.5 |
| Norovirus (NoV) | 19 | 13.4 |
| Rotavirus (RoV) | 20 | 14.1 |
| Bacterial | 80 | 56.3 |
| 14 | 9.9 | |
| 15 | 10.6 | |
| 49 | 34.5 | |
| 2 | 1.4 | |
| Mixed | 23 | 16.2 |
| 7 | 4.9 | |
| 1 | 0.7 | |
| 4 | 2.8 | |
| 11 | 7.7 | |
| Total | 142 | 100 |
Figure 1.The impact of diarrhea and demographics on the gut bacterial configurations. Constrained analysis of principal coordinates (CAP) biplot displaying the relationship between bacterial compositions (colored circles and triangles; see legend) and selected metadata. CAP was performed on the genus-level agglomerated weighted Unifrac dissimilarity matrix of 195 fecal samples with complete metadata. Black arrows denote the magnitudes and directions of quantitative demographic variables (age and WAZ score), and black squares represent qualitative variables (centered around relative diarrhea status).
Figure 2.The bacterial compositions of the 4 community state types (CSTs). Heatmap showing the fractional abundance of the 15 most important genera determining the clustering of 199 diarrheal and non-diarrheal children fecal samples, as defined by random forest classification. Clustering was performed on the genus level weighted Unifrac dissimilarity matrix (with 205 genera) using the partitioning around meloids algorithm and identified 4 CSTs. The nature of sample is indicated at the head of the diagram: non-diarrheal control (gray); viral infection (chartreuse); mixed bacterial and viral infection (brown); bacterial infection (salmon); missing data (white). The confirmed major etiologies of infection are indicated in the middle row: non-diarrheal control (gray); Rotavirus (green); Norovirus (blue); Campylobacter (orange); Salmonella (magenta); Shigella (red); Plesiomonas (yellow).
Figure 3.Shannon diversity index for 195 fecal samples, classified by diarrheal status and CST membership. Boxplots showing the Shannon diversity index, the upper whisker extends from the 75th percentile to the highest value within the 1.5 * interquartile range (IQR) of the hinge, the lower whisker extends from the 25th percentile to the lowest value within 1.5 * IQR of the hinge. Data points beyond the end of the whiskers are outliers. The asterisk indicates statistical significant in the pairwise comparison between CST2 and the other CSTs (ANOVA-Tukey's test, p < 0.05).
Demographic and clinical predictors used in multinomial logistic regression for community state types (CSTs).
| Odds ratio of associated factor (95% CI | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Patient characteristics | CST1 | CST3 ( | CST 4 ( |
| Age in months | 0.92 [0.86–0.98]; | 0.95 [0.91–1.00]; | 0.99 [0.94–1.04]; |
| Male | 2.14 [0.62–7.41]; | 2.81 [0.98–8.03]; | 2.12 [0.67–6.65]; |
| Weight-for-age Z score | 0.63 [0.35–1.12]; | 0.69 [0.42–1.12]; | 0.46 [0.26–0.81]; |
| Breastfed and formula-milk fed (compared with breastfed-only) | 0.10 [0.01–0.64]; | 0.81 [0.24–2.76]; | 0.44 [0.11–1.71]; |
| Formula-milk fed only (compared with breastfed-only) | 0.26 [0.06–1.21]; | 1.38 [0.38–5.01]; | 0.25 [0.05–1.36]; |
| Urban residence (compared with rural) | 1.60 [0.29–8.95]; | 2.17 [0.51–9.3]; | 1.5 [0.33–6.8]; |
| Monthly income 145–483 USD (compared with monthly income < 145 USD) | 1.35 [0.31–5.93]; | 0.53 [0.16–1.79]; | 0.48 [0.13–1.74]; |
| Monthly income > 484 USD (compared with monthly income < 145 USD) | 3.75 [0.15–94.77]; | 3.28 [0.26–41.97]; | 2.42 [0.14–41.78]; |
| Vomiting | 0.19 [0.05–0.77]; | 0.68 [0.20–2.26]; | 0.42 [0.11–1.61]; |
| Dysentery | 0.63 [0.17–2.35]; | 0.76 [0.26–2.24]; | 0.56 [0.17–1.86]; |
| Bacterial infection (compared with viral) | 2.12 [0.43–10.52]; | 13.61 [3.01–61.52]; | 4.02 [0.81–20.04]; |
| Mixed infection (compared with viral) | 1.21 [0.19–7.78]; | 5.07 [0.9–28.58]; | 3.31 [0.59–18.74]; |
Note. Figures in bold indicate p < 0.05.
CI: Confidence Interval.
p value calculated through 2 tailed Z test.
Bacterial taxon which is predominant in each CST
Figure 4.Bacterial taxa showing significantly different abundance among the examined classes. OTUs were identified to be of significantly differential abundance between groups in examination, as detected and filtered by DESeq2. In short, only OTUs with adjusted p values < 0.05, estimated fold change >4 or <1/4, and estimated base mean >30 were considered significantly differentially abundant and included in the plot. (A) Ratio of the log2 fold change of OTUs that differ between diarrheal and control stools, accounting for the different general microbial configurations in 4 CSTs (N = 199). (B) Ratio of the log2 fold change of OTUs that differ between bacterial and viral diarrheal infections, accounting for the different general microbial configurations in 4 CSTs (N = 119). (C) Relative abundances of OTUs that differ between dysenteric and non-dysenteric stools, accounting for different types of infection (N = 142).
Figure 5.Correlation network of the healthy and diarrheal microbiome. Figure shows the correlation network of the 92 most represented OTUs sampled from 199 stool isolates, defined as OTUs with occurrence in at least 10 samples, constructed using the SparCC wrapper from package ‘SpiecEasi’. Only correlations with calculated p value ≤ 0.05 and absolute magnitude ≥ 0.25 were shown in the network. Positive and negative interactions were denoted as a red and blue solid line respectively, with line weight proportional to correlation strength. The OTUs (nodes) were colored based on taxonomic family (see legend), with sizes proportional to their relative abundances. The light green shaded area covers OTUs identified as members of normal human oral microbiota (through comparison with the Human Oral Microbiome Database).