David M Golombos1, Abimbola Ayangbesan2, Padraic O'Malley3, Patrick Lewicki2, LaMont Barlow2, Christopher E Barbieri2, Chrystal Chan4, Casey DuLong4, Galeb Abu-Ali5, Curtis Huttenhower5, Douglas S Scherr2. 1. Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York, NY. Electronic address: dgolombos@gmail.com. 2. Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York Presbyterian Hospital, New York, NY. 3. Department of Urology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia. 4. Department of Biostatistics, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA. 5. Department of Biostatistics, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA; Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, Cambridge, MA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To elucidate potential biomarkers or mechanistic principles involved with the gut microbiota and its impact on prostate cancer pathogenesis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a prospective case-control pilot study evaluating the gut microbiome of 20 men with either benign prostatic conditions (n = 8) or intermediate or high risk clinically localized prostate cancer (Gleason ≥4 + 3 cN0M0) (n = 12) undergoing care at tertiary referral center from September 1, 2015 to March 1, 2016. Key exclusion criteria included recent antibiotic use, significant gastrointestinal disorders, hormonal or systemic therapy for prostate cancer. Computational genomics analysis was performed on collected stool samples using MetaPhlAn2 and HUMAnN2 platforms. Linear discriminant analysis effect size method was used to support high-dimensional class comparisons to find biologically relevant features. Kruskal-Wallis sum-rank test was used to detect features with significant differential abundance with respect to class, with biological consistency investigated using a set of pairwise tests among subclasses using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test, both to an α ≤0.05. RESULTS: Higher relative abundance of Bacteriodes massiliensis was seen in prostate cancer cases compared to controls. Faecalibacterium prausnitzii and Eubacterium rectalie had higher relative abundance among controls. Biologically significant differences were also found in relative gene, pathway, and enzyme abundance. CONCLUSION: Biologically significant differences exist in the gut microbial composition of men with prostate cancer compared to benign controls. These differences may play a role in the pathobiology of prostate cancer, and warrant further exploration.
OBJECTIVE: To elucidate potential biomarkers or mechanistic principles involved with the gut microbiota and its impact on prostate cancer pathogenesis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a prospective case-control pilot study evaluating the gut microbiome of 20 men with either benign prostatic conditions (n = 8) or intermediate or high risk clinically localized prostate cancer (Gleason ≥4 + 3 cN0M0) (n = 12) undergoing care at tertiary referral center from September 1, 2015 to March 1, 2016. Key exclusion criteria included recent antibiotic use, significant gastrointestinal disorders, hormonal or systemic therapy for prostate cancer. Computational genomics analysis was performed on collected stool samples using MetaPhlAn2 and HUMAnN2 platforms. Linear discriminant analysis effect size method was used to support high-dimensional class comparisons to find biologically relevant features. Kruskal-Wallis sum-rank test was used to detect features with significant differential abundance with respect to class, with biological consistency investigated using a set of pairwise tests among subclasses using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test, both to an α ≤0.05. RESULTS: Higher relative abundance of Bacteriodes massiliensis was seen in prostate cancer cases compared to controls. Faecalibacterium prausnitzii and Eubacterium rectalie had higher relative abundance among controls. Biologically significant differences were also found in relative gene, pathway, and enzyme abundance. CONCLUSION: Biologically significant differences exist in the gut microbial composition of men with prostate cancer compared to benign controls. These differences may play a role in the pathobiology of prostate cancer, and warrant further exploration.
Authors: K S Smith; A D Frugé; W van der Pol; N E Caston; C D Morrow; W Demark-Wahnefried; T L Carson Journal: Benef Microbes Date: 2021-04-01 Impact factor: 4.205
Authors: Lindsey K Ly; Joe L Rowles; Hans Müller Paul; João M P Alves; Camdon Yemm; Patricia M Wolf; Saravanan Devendran; Matthew E Hudson; David J Morris; John W Erdman; Jason M Ridlon Journal: J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol Date: 2019-12-20 Impact factor: 4.292
Authors: Johann S de Bono; Christina Guo; Bora Gurel; Angelo M De Marzo; Karen S Sfanos; Ram S Mani; Jesús Gil; Charles G Drake; Andrea Alimonti Journal: Nat Rev Cancer Date: 2020-06-16 Impact factor: 60.716