| Literature DB >> 29246012 |
Fengping Liu1,2, Zongxin Ling3,4, Yonghong Xiao3,4, Qing Yang4, Li Zheng1, Ping Jiang1, Lanjuan Li3,4, Wei Wang1.
Abstract
Evidence shows that urine has complex bacterial profiles with considerable variation between individuals. Aging and age-related conditions can lead to the changes to the composition of urine, which means that the available nutrition for bacteria in the bladder changes with age. We explored the characteristics of the urinary microbiota of elderly women and whether these are associated with age-related conditions such as diabetes and urinary tract infections. An elderly and a non-elderly cohort of women were included. Magnetic beads were used to isolate bacterial genomic DNA, which was analyzed based on the V3-V4 hypervariable region of the 16S rRNA gene. There were significant differences between the elderly and non-elderly regarding thirteen genera of bacteria. For example, the relative abundance of Lactobacillus was dramatically reduced in the elderly compared with the non-elderly; it also decreased with age in the elderly cohort and it was not correlated with urine pH. The relative abundance of Peptococcus increased with age in the elderly while the abundance of Bifidobacteria decreased with age. The abundance of Escherichia coli was the same in the two cohorts, and it increased with water intake and was not associated with urinary tract infection events. Higher levels of Lactobacillus (including Lactobacillus iners) in the elderly were associated with diabetes, and lower levels of Peptoniphilus and Dialister were correlated with asymptomatic bacteriuria. The urinary microbiota of women is affected by ageing, type 2 diabetes mellitus and asymtomatic bacteriuria.Entities:
Keywords: elderly women; lactobacillus; type 2 diabetes mellitus; urinary microbiota; urinary tract infection
Year: 2017 PMID: 29246012 PMCID: PMC5725054 DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.21126
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Oncotarget ISSN: 1949-2553
Descriptive data of participants in the study
| Parameter | Value for cohort (na)b or statistic | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| E ( | NE ( | ||
| Age | 71.86 ± 6.70 | 50.06 ± 7.51 | 0.000 |
| T2DM [no. (%)] | 24 (48) | 26 (52) | 0.842 |
| Taking metformin [no. (%)] | 24 (48) | 26 (52) | 0.842 |
| Marital status [no. (%)] | |||
| Married | 41 (82) | 47 (94) | 0.121 |
| Single | 1 (2) | 1 (2) | 1.000 |
| Widowed | 8 (16) | 2 (4) | 0.092 |
| Menstrual status [no. (%)] | |||
| Premenstrual | 0 (0) | 19 (38) | 0.000 |
| Postmenstrual | 48 (96) | 28 (56) | 0.000 |
| Hysterectomy | 2 (4) | 3 (6) | 1.000 |
| Body mass index (kg/m2) | 23.64 ± 5.15 | 23.49 ± 3.36 | 0.867 |
| Water intake d (ml) | 2453.65 ± 833.93 | 2445.28 ± 747.86 | 0.958 |
| Events of UTIs | 0.60 ± 1.36 | 0.34 ± 0.69 | 0.229 |
| Asymptomatic bacteriuria e [no. (%)] | 7 (14) | 2 (4) | 0.160 |
| Urine pH | 5.83 ± 0.68 | 5.94 ± 0.58 | 0.386 |
| Urine glucose POS [no. (%)] | 5 (10) | 6 (12) | 1.000 |
an, no. of subjects; bMean ± SD or no.(%); cPearson’s chi-square and Fisher’s exact tests were used with categorical variables. Independent t-test was used with continuous variables, P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant; d The amount of water intake included drinking water intake and dietary fluid intake, which was examined by the Chinese Food Frequency Questionnaire; e Asymptomatic bacteriuria was defined according to whether the cultures tested positive for E. coli (no tested positive for other bacteria in the present study), which was with greater than 105 colony forming units /mL of E. coli.
Figure 1Structural comparison of urinary microbiota between two cohorts
The Good’s coverage (A) was used to assess the sequencing depth. Principal coordinate analysis plot of the urinary microbiota based on the unweighted UniFrac metric (B). Venn diagram demonstrating overlap of OTUs in urinary microbiota between two cohorts (C). Red and blue lines and dot represent Es and NEs respectively. E and NE mean elderly female and non-elderly female respectively.
Comparison of richness and diversity estimators between the E and NE cohort, EDM and ENDM group, EAB and ENAB group
| Parametera | E ( | NE ( | EDM ( | ENDM ( | EAB ( | ENAB ( | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OTUs c | 2073.86 ± 1084.31 | 2351.60 ± 1691.51 | 0.331 | 1590.54 ± 660.78 | 2520.00 ± 1213.04 | 0.002 | 1373.86 ± 594.87 | 2187.81 ± 1107.32 | 0.012 |
| Chao1 | 2083.26 ± 1046.69 | 2927.40 ± 3549.12 | 0.110 | 1805.04 ± 967.20 | 3754.96 ± 4629.43 | 0.045 | 1314.05 ± 379.23 | 2208.48 ± 1069.18 | 0.035 |
| Shannon | 4.82 ± 2.58 | 4.66 ± 2.72 | 0.773 | 4.40 ± 2.08 | 5.31 ± 3.19 | 0.241 | 2.91 ± 2.03 | 5.13 ± 2.54 | 0.029 |
| Simpson | 0.72 ± 0.28 | 0.69 ± 0.25 | 0.618 | 0.72 ± 0.24 | 0.72 ± 0.27 | 0.965 | 0.52 ± 0.29 | 0.75 ± 0.26 | 0.078 |
a The parameters were calculated by QIIME software; b independent t-test was used to compare the value of parameters. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant; c the operational taxonomic units (OTUs) were defined at the 97% similarity level.
Figure 2Bacterial diversity
The value of OTUs, Chao1 (A), Shannon and Simpson (B) in sub-age groups in the elderly cohort. The operational taxonomic units (OTUs) were defined at the 97% similarity level; the parameters were calculated by QIIME software.
The relative abundance of bacteria at genus level in groups
| Taxon | E | NE | Taxon | EDM | ENDM | Taxon | EAB | ENAB | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lactobacillus | 6.04 ± 18.33 | 13.22 ± 20.52 | 0.001 | Aeromonas | 0.44 ± 2.04 | 2.47 ± 10.57 | 0.011 | Peptoniphilus | 0.01 ± 0.02 | 0.02 ± 0.03 | 0.012 |
| Sneathia | 0.45 ± 1.39 | 1.88 ± 4.00 | 0.001 | Agrobacterium | 0.03 ± 0.08 | 0.18 ± 0.63 | 0.008 | Dialister | 0.01 ± 0.01 | 0.02 ± 0.02 | 0.016 |
| Shuttleworthia | 0.36 ± 1.00 | 2.12 ± 5.48 | 0.040 | Anaeromyxobacter | 0.06 ± 0.24 | 0.05 ± 0.09 | 0.017 | ||||
| Bacillus | 0.51 ± 0.83 | 2.24 ± 7.44 | 0.033 | Bdellovibrio | 0.01 ± 0.03 | 0.01 ± 0.02 | 0.012 | ||||
| Gemella | 0.01 ± 0.05 | 0.20 ± 0.58 | 0.004 | Bilophila | 0.04 ± 0.10 | 0.12 ± 0.18 | 0.048 | ||||
| Bdellovibrio | 0.01 ± 0.03 | 0.11 ± 0.34 | 0.005 | Butyricimonas | 0.01 ± 0.03 | 0.07 ± 0.09 | 0.004 | ||||
| Sphingobium | 0.03 ± 0.07 | 0.02 ± 0.07 | 0.012 | Clostridium | 0.18 ± 0.26 | 0.46 ± 0.51 | 0.029 | ||||
| Hydrogenophaga | 0.01 ± 0.04 | 0.05 ± 0.13 | 0.039 | Desulfovibrio | 0.04 ± 0.09 | 0.09 ± 0.12 | 0.026 | ||||
| Proteus | 0.01 ± 0.03 | 0.04 ± 0.12 | 0.036 | Eggerthella | 0.05 ± 0.22 | 0.04 ± 0.10 | 0.033 | ||||
| Geobacillus | 0.02 ± 0.07 | 0.12 ± 0.62 | 0.031 | Enterobacter | 0.02 ± 0.05 | 0.32 ± 0.67 | 0.039 | ||||
| Novosphingobium | 0.01 ± 0.03 | 0.03 ± 0.06 | 0.019 | Enterococcus | 0.21 ± 0.60 | 1.06 ± 3.76 | 0.026 | ||||
| Bosea | 0.01 ± 0.03 | 0.00 ± 0.01 | 0.030 | Erwinia | 0.03 ± 0.09 | 0.63 ± 1.24 | 0.014 | ||||
| Catenibacterium | 0.01 ± 0.02 | 0.01 ± 0.03 | 0.031 | Fusobacterium | 0.59 ± 2.52 | 0.85 ± 0.94 | 0.001 | ||||
| Hydrogenophaga | 0.01 ± 0.05 | 0.01 ± 0.02 | 0.028 | ||||||||
| Klebsiella | 0.07 ± 0.19 | 4.83 ± 11.91 | 0.001 | ||||||||
| Lachnobacterium | 0.01 ± 0.04 | 0.07 ± 0.11 | 0.002 | ||||||||
| Lysobacter | 0.05 ± 0.15 | 0.40 ± 1.62 | 0.006 | ||||||||
| Microbacterium | 0.07 ± 0.20 | 0.01 ± 0.02 | 0.017 | ||||||||
| Mitsuokella | 0.01 ± 0.04 | 0.02 ± 0.03 | 0.012 | ||||||||
| Modestobacter | 0.18 ± 0.90 | 0.01 ± 0.03 | 0.020 | ||||||||
| Nitrospirae | 0.14 ± 0.37 | 1.03 ± 1.50 | 0.014 | ||||||||
| Odoribacter | 0.03 ± 0.10 | 0.12 ± 0.18 | 0.024 | ||||||||
| Parvimonas | 0.38 ± 0.89 | 0.31 ± 0.73 | 0.036 | ||||||||
| Phascolarctobacterium | 2.19 ± 4.25 | 2.90 ± 2.59 | 0.029 | ||||||||
| Ramlibacter | 0.01 ± 0.02 | 0.03 ± 0.05 | 0.009 | ||||||||
| Rhodoplanes | 0.01 ± 0.02 | 0.04 ± 0.08 | 0.038 | ||||||||
| Stenotrophomonas | 0.07 ± 0.18 | 0.37 ± 1.25 | 0.041 | ||||||||
| Thiobacillus | 0.01 ± 0.03 | 0.01 ± 0.03 | 0.022 | ||||||||
| Turicibacter | 0.01 ± 0.02 | 0.00 ± 0.00 | 0.022 |
The Mann-Whitney U-test was used to compare the relative abundant difference in two groups. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Figure 3Relative abundance of Lactobacillus in age subgroups
The relative abundance of Lactobacillus in age subgroups in the elderly cohort was compared. P-values were based on ANOVA test and corrected for multiple comparisons.