| Literature DB >> 29312210 |
Ingeborg Klymiuk1, Ceren Bilgilier2, Alexander Stadlmann2, Jakob Thannesberger2, Marie-Theres Kastner2, Christoph Högenauer3, Andreas Püspök4, Susanne Biowski-Frotz5, Christiane Schrutka-Kölbl5, Gerhard G Thallinger6,7, Christoph Steininger2.
Abstract
The human gastric lumen is one of the most hostile environments of the human body suspected to be sterile until the discovery of Helicobacter pylori (H.p.). State of the art next generation sequencing technologies multiply the knowledge on H.p. functional genomics as well as on the colonization of supposed sterile human environments like the gastric habitat. Here we studied in a prospective, multicenter, clinical trial the 16S rRNA gene amplicon based bacterial microbiome in a total of 30 homogenized and frozen gastric biopsy samples from eight geographic locations. The evaluation of the samples for H.p. infection status was done by histopathology and a specific PCR assay. CagA status was determined by a CagA-specific PCR assay. Patients were grouped accordingly as H.p.-negative, H.p.-positive but CagA-negative and H.p.-positive and CagA-positive (n = 10, respectively). Here we show that H.p. infection of the gastric habitat dominates the gastric microbiota in most patients and is associated with a significant decrease of the microbial alpha diversity from H.p. negative to H.p. positive with CagA as a considerable factor. The genera Actinomyces, Granulicatella, Veillonella, Fusobacterium, Neisseria, Helicobacter, Streptococcus, and Prevotella are significantly different between the H.p.-positive and H.p.-negative sample groups. Differences in microbiota found between CagA-positive and CagA-negative patients were not statistically significant and need to be re-evaluated in larger sample cohorts. In conclusion, H.p. infection dominates the gastric microbiome in a multicentre cohort of patients with varying diagnoses.Entities:
Keywords: 16S rRNA gene analysis; CagA; Helicobacter pylori; gastric microbiota; multicenter study
Year: 2017 PMID: 29312210 PMCID: PMC5735373 DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2017.02508
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Microbiol ISSN: 1664-302X Impact factor: 5.640
Samples' H.p. and CagA status, patient age and sex, indication and the diagnosis for gastroscopy and histopathological score (**score).
| P005-Z08 | 11346 | H.p.− | 23 | F | cd | nf | na |
| P002-Z18 | 11460 | H.p.− | 38 | F | rs | g, r | na |
| P003-Z10 | 13651 | H.p.− | 56 | M | uap | g | na |
| P001-Z14 | 17305 | H.p.− | 56 | F | uap | ci | na |
| P004-Z10e | 18310 | H.p.− | 83 | M | bl | g, r, u | na |
| P001-Z12 | 29111 | H.p.− | 54 | M | uap | g, r, öv | na |
| P007-Z08 | 35447 | H.p.− | 50 | M | uap | r | na |
| P001-Z13 | 36680 | H.p.− | 66 | M | rs | nf | na |
| P004-Z17 | 39276 | H.p.− | 27 | M | uap | nf | na |
| P001-Z18 | 45063 | H.p.− | 50 | M | un | r | na |
| P052-Z10 | 15743 | H.p.+/CagA− | 50 | F | un | g | 3+ |
| P107-Z15 | 16451 | H.p.+/CagA− | 51 | M | rs | g, r, he | 2+ |
| P033-Z12 | 26728 | H.p.+/CagA− | 66 | F | un | g, r | 1+ |
| P008-Z17 | 26941 | H.p.+/CagA− | 34 | F | uap | nf | 2+ |
| P058-Z14 | 27627 | H.p.+/CagA− | 43 | M | rs | g, ci | 3+ |
| P080-Z15 | 44882 | H.p.+/CagA− | 76 | F | uap | g, he | 2+ |
| P003-Z15 | 48255 | H.p.+/CagA− | 69 | F | cu | g | 2+ |
| P022-Z12 | 48502 | H.p.+/CagA− | 75 | F | un | g, he, di | 3+ |
| P066-Z10 | 57636 | H.p.+/CagA− | 64 | M | bl | g, he | 2+ |
| P022-Z13 | 188261 | H.p.+/CagA− | 71 | F | cu | g | 2+ |
| P121-Z15 | 11223 | H.p.+/CagA+ | 33 | M | uap | g | 2+ |
| P029-Z13 | 13309 | H.p.+/CagA+ | 37 | F | rs | nf | 3+ |
| P047-Z15 | 13310 | H.p.+/CagA+ | 40 | M | uap | g, ud | 2+ |
| P060-Z15 | 16297 | H.p.+/CagA+ | 59 | F | rs | g, r | 2+ |
| P062-Z14 | 20451 | H.p.+/CagA+ | 51 | F | rs | ci | 3+ |
| P021-Z12 | 27768 | H.p.+/CagA+ | 21 | F | ibs | g | 3+ |
| P008-Z08 | 33557 | H.p.+/CagA+ | 32 | M | uap | g | 3+ |
| P022-Z17 | 59142 | H.p.+/CagA+ | 50 | M | an | nf | 2+ |
| P061-Z10 | 73327 | H.p.+/CagA+ | 32 | F | ibs | g, di, l | 3+ |
| P045-Z10-A | 79271 | H.p.+/CagA+ | 51 | M | bl | g | 3+ |
Total Reads after quality filtering but before rarefaction to 11.200 reads for Qiime analysis. na: not applicable. e: not included to statistical analysis. Indication: an: anemia, bl: bleeding, cd: celiac disease, cu: check-up, ibs: irritable bowel syndrome, rs: reflux symptoms, uap: upper abdominal pain, un: unknown. Diagnosis: ci: cardiac insufficiency, di: duodenal inflammation, g: gastritis, he: hernia, l: lymphoedema, nf: no finding, öv: ösophagus varizen, r: reflux, u: ulcer, ud: ulcer duodenum.
Figure 1Box plot of the median relative abundances of the most dominant phyla in the three sample groups (Firmicutes, Bacteroidetes, Proteobacteria, Actinobacteria, and Fusobacteria). The phylum Proteobacteria (with the genus Helicobacter) increased in its relative abundance from the H.p.- over the H.p.+/CagA− to the H.p.+/CagA+ group. Significant differences were only found between the H.p.− vs the H.p.+/CagA− and the H.p.− vs H.p.+/CagA+ groups, respectively.
Figure 2Principal Component Analysis (PCA) ordination plots of relative abundance of genera (A) and OTUs (B). Statistically significant differences were found between H.p.− and the H.p.+/CagA− (adj. p-value OTU = 0.000001, adj. p-value genera = 0.000001) as well as between the H.p.− and the H.p.+/CagA+ groups (adj. p-value OTU = 0.000009, adj. p-value genera = 0.000023). No statistically significant differences were found between H.p.+/CagA− vs. H.p.+/CagA+ sample groups (adj. p-value OTU = 0.236619, adj. p-value genera = 0.095089). Ellipses denote the 95% confidence.
Figure 3(A) Chao1, (B) PD-wholetree, and (C) observed species rarefied alpha diversity of the three sample groups (H.p.−, H.p.+/CagA−, H.p.+/CagA+). A significant difference was found between the H.p. negative and the H.p.+/CagA+ groups with a not significant intermediate phenotype of the H.p.+/CagA− group. Error bars denote standard error.
Alpha diversity calculations for Chao1, observed species and PD whole tree.
| chao1 | H.p.– vs. H.p.+/CagA− | 0.201 | 0.402 |
| chao1 | H.p.– vs. H.p.+/CagA+ | 0.009 | 0.028 |
| chao1 | H.p.+/CagA- vs. H.p.+/CagA+ | 0.535 | 0.535 |
| observed_species | H.p.– vs. H.p.+/CagA− | 0.067 | 0.133 |
| observed_species | H.p.– vs. H.p.+/CagA+ | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| observed_species | H.p.+/CagA- vs. H.p.+/CagA+ | 0.507 | 0.507 |
| PD_whole_tree | H.p.– vs. H.p.+/CagA− | 0.026 | 0.052 |
| PD_whole_tree | H.p.– vs. H.p.+/CagA+ | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| PD_whole_tree | H.p.+/CagA- vs. H.p.+/CagA+ | 0.943 | 0.943 |
Significant differences were found in the H.p.– vs. H.p.+/CagA+ comparison.
p-value < 0.05,
p-value < 0.01.
Figure 4Venn diagram visualizing the number of group specific genera (A) and OTUs (B).
Figure 5Linear discriminant Effect Size analysis (LefSe) analysis revealed over 40 taxa (H.p.− vs. H.p.+/CagA+ 45, H.p.− vs. H.p.+/CagA− 41) significantly different in their relative abundances between the sample groups in the pairwise comparisons H.p.− vs. H.p.+/CagA+, H.p.− vs. H.p.+/CagA− and H.p.+/CagA− vs. H.p.+/CagA+. Only taxa with a relative abundance of at least 1% in at least 50% of all samples out of one sample group were considered.