| Literature DB >> 29933394 |
Sama Kalyana Chakravarthy1, Rajagopalaboopathi Jayasudha1, Konduri Ranjith1, Anirban Dutta2, Nishal Kumar Pinna2, Sharmila S Mande2, Savitri Sharma1, Prashant Garg3, Somasheila I Murthy3, Sisinthy Shivaji1.
Abstract
Dysbiosis in the gut microbiome has been implicated in several diseases including auto-immune diseases, inflammatory diseases, cancers and mental disorders. Keratitis is an inflammatory disease of the eye significantly contributing to corneal blindness in the developing world. It would be worthwhile to investigate the possibility of dysbiosis in the gut microbiome being associated with Keratitis. Here, we have analyzed fungal and bacterial populations in stool samples through high-throughput sequencing of the ITS2 region for fungi and V3-V4 region of 16S rRNA gene for bacteria in healthy controls (HC, n = 31) and patients with fungal keratitis (FK, n = 32). Candida albicans (2 OTUs), Aspergillus (1 OTU) and 3 other denovo-OTUs were enriched in FK samples and an unclassified denovo-OTU was enriched in HC samples. However, the overall abundances of these 'discriminatory' OTUs were very low (< 0.001%) and not indicative of significant dysbiosis in the fungal community inhabiting the gut of FK patients. In contrast, the gut bacterial richness and diversity in FK patients was significantly decreased when compared to HC. 52 OTUs were significantly enriched in HC samples whereas only 5 OTUs in FK. The OTUs prominently enriched in HC were identified as Faecalibacterium prausnitzii, Bifidobacterium adolescentis, Lachnospira, Mitsuokella multacida, Bacteroides plebeius, Megasphaera and Lachnospiraceae. In FK samples, 5 OTUs affiliated to Bacteroides fragilis, Dorea, Treponema, Fusobacteriaceae, and Acidimicrobiales were significantly higher in abundance. The functional implications are that Faecalibacterium prausnitzii, an anti-inflammatory bacterium and Megasphaera, Mitsuokella multacida and Lachnospira are butyrate producers, which were enriched in HC patients, whereas Treponema and Bacteroides fragilis, which are pathogenic were abundant in FK patients, playing a potential pro-inflammatory role. Heatmap, PCoA plots and functional profiles further confirm the distinct patterns of gut bacterial composition in FK and HC samples. Our study demonstrates dysbiosis in the gut bacterial microbiomes of FK patients compared to HC. Further, based on inferred functions, it appears that dysbiosis in the gut of FK subjects is strongly associated with the disease phenotype with decrease in abundance of beneficial bacteria and increase in abundance of pro-inflammatory and pathogenic bacteria.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29933394 PMCID: PMC6014669 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0199640
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Bar plot depicting abundance of different fungal phyla in HC and FK samples.
Fig 2Box-plots illustrating alpha diversity indices (Shannon diversity, Simpson index and Observed OTUs) in fungal microbiomes of FK and HC samples.
Median values and interquartile ranges have been indicated in the plots.
Discriminating fungal OTUs between HC and FK samples (BH corrected P < 0.1).
| OTU ID | Taxonomic affiliation | Median Abundance (%) | Wilcoxon test | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HC Samples | FK Samples | |||
| AB369915 | 0 | 1.11E-03 | 0.095 | |
| JN851052 | 0 | 7.78E-04 | 0.064 | |
| Denovo_OTU335 | Unclassified | 0 | 2.33E-04 | 0.064 |
| Denovo_OTU14 | Unclassified | 0 | 1.05E-04 | 0.092 |
| FJ662389 | 0 | 7.43E-05 | 0.092 | |
| Denovo_OTU1686 | Unclassified | 0 | 5.84E-05 | 0.071 |
| Denovo_OTU1057 | Unclassified | 1.86E-04 | 0 | 0.064 |
Fig 3Box-plots illustrating alpha diversity indices (Shannon diversity, Simpson index and Observed OTUs) in bacterial microbiomes of FK and HC samples.
Median values and interquartile ranges have been indicated in the plots. * indicates significant difference between HC and FK (p-value <0.05).
Fig 4Taxonomic abundance of different bacterial phyla, across HC and FK samples.
Only those phyla with > 1% mean abundance are depicted in the plot.
Core bacterial OTUs* identified in HC and FK samples.
| Taxonomic Affiliation (Family Level) of Core OTUs | Number of OTUs |
|---|---|
| k__Bacteria; p__Firmicutes; c__Clostridia; o__Clostridiales; f__Lachnospiraceae | 18 |
| k__Bacteria; p__Firmicutes; c__Clostridia; o__Clostridiales; f__Ruminococcaceae | 15 |
| k__Bacteria; p__Bacteroidetes; c__Bacteroidia; o__Bacteroidales; f__Bacteroidaceae | 6 |
| k__Bacteria; p__Firmicutes; c__Clostridia; o__Clostridiales; f__Veillonellaceae | 4 |
| k__Bacteria; p__Actinobacteria; c__Actinobacteria; o__Bifidobacteriales; f__Bifidobacteriaceae | 3 |
| k__Bacteria; p__Actinobacteria; c__Coriobacteriia; o__Coriobacteriales; f__Coriobacteriaceae | 3 |
| k__Bacteria; p__Bacteroidetes; c__Bacteroidia; o__Bacteroidales; f__Prevotellaceae | 3 |
| k__Bacteria; p__Firmicutes; c__Clostridia; o__Clostridiales | 2 |
| k__Bacteria; p__Firmicutes; c__Erysipelotrichi; o__Erysipelotrichales; f__Erysipelotrichaceae | 2 |
| k__Bacteria; p__Proteobacteria; c__Gammaproteobacteria; o__Enterobacteriales; f__Enterobacteriaceae | 2 |
| k__Bacteria; p__Bacteroidetes; c__Bacteroidia; o__Bacteroidales; f__[Paraprevotellaceae] | 1 |
| k__Bacteria; p__Bacteroidetes; c__Bacteroidia; o__Bacteroidales; f__Porphyromonadaceae | 1 |
| k__Bacteria; p__Bacteroidetes; c__Bacteroidia; o__Bacteroidales; f__S24-7 | 1 |
| k__Bacteria; p__Firmicutes; c__Bacilli; o__Lactobacillales; f__Lactobacillaceae | 1 |
| k__Bacteria; p__Firmicutes; c__Clostridia; o__Clostridiales; f__Clostridiaceae | 1 |
| k__Bacteria; p__Proteobacteria; c__Betaproteobacteria; o__Burkholderiales; f__Alcaligenaceae | 1 |
| k__Bacteria; p__Proteobacteria; c__Deltaproteobacteria; o__Desulfovibrionales; f__Desulfovibrionaceae | 1 |
| k__Bacteria; p__Proteobacteria; c__Gammaproteobacteria; o__Aeromonadales; f__Succinivibrionaceae | 1 |
| k__Bacteria; p__Firmicutes; c__Clostridia; o__Clostridiales; f__Ruminococcaceae | 3 |
| k__Bacteria; p__Firmicutes; c__Clostridia; o__Clostridiales; f__Lachnospiraceae | 2 |
| k__Bacteria; p__Bacteroidetes; c__Bacteroidia; o__Bacteroidales; f__Bacteroidaceae | 2 |
| k__Bacteria; p__Proteobacteria; c__Gammaproteobacteria; o__Enterobacteriales; f__Enterobacteriaceae | 1 |
| k__Bacteria; p__Proteobacteria; c__Deltaproteobacteria; o__Desulfovibrionales; f__Desulfovibrionaceae | 1 |
| k__Bacteria; p__Firmicutes; c__Clostridia; o__Clostridiales | 1 |
| k__Bacteria; p__Firmicutes; c__Bacilli; o__Lactobacillales; f__Streptococcaceae | 1 |
| k__Bacteria; p__Bacteroidetes; c__Bacteroidia; o__Bacteroidales; f__S24-7 | 1 |
| k__Bacteria; p__Firmicutes; c__Clostridia; o__Clostridiales; f__Ruminococcaceae | 15 |
| k__Bacteria; p__Firmicutes; c__Clostridia; o__Clostridiales; f__Lachnospiraceae | 12 |
| k__Bacteria; p__Bacteroidetes; c__Bacteroidia; o__Bacteroidales; f__Bacteroidaceae | 4 |
| k__Bacteria; p__Firmicutes; c__Clostridia; o__Clostridiales; f__Veillonellaceae | 4 |
| k__Bacteria; p__Bacteroidetes; c__Bacteroidia; o__Bacteroidales; f__Prevotellaceae | 3 |
| k__Bacteria; p__Firmicutes; c__Clostridia; o__Clostridiales | 3 |
| k__Bacteria; p__Firmicutes; c__Clostridia; o__Clostridiales; f__Clostridiaceae | 3 |
| k__Bacteria; p__Proteobacteria; c__Gammaproteobacteria; o__Enterobacteriales; f__Enterobacteriaceae | 3 |
| k__Bacteria; p__Bacteroidetes; c__Bacteroidia; o__Bacteroidales; f__Porphyromonadaceae | 2 |
| k__Bacteria; p__Firmicutes; c__Bacilli; o__Lactobacillales; f__Streptococcaceae | 2 |
| k__Bacteria; p__Firmicutes; c__Erysipelotrichi; o__Erysipelotrichales; f__Erysipelotrichaceae | 2 |
| k__Bacteria; p__Proteobacteria; c__Betaproteobacteria; o__Burkholderiales; f__Alcaligenaceae | 2 |
| k__Bacteria; p__Bacteroidetes; c__Bacteroidia; o__Bacteroidales; f__[Barnesiellaceae] | 1 |
| k__Bacteria; p__Proteobacteria; c__Gammaproteobacteria; o__Pasteurellales; f__Pasteurellaceae | 1 |
* Core OTU, an OTU present ubiquitously in a set of samples (in over 80% of the samples) with a minimum abundance (≥ 0.01%).
Bacterial OTUs exhibiting significant (BH corrected P < 0.05) differential abundance across HC and FK samples.
| OTU2200896 | 0.01 | 0.07 | 0.007 | |
| OTU659361 | 0.00 | 0.02 | 0.007 | |
| OTU514045 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.003 | |
| OTU298592 | [Family] Fusobacteriaceae | 0.00 | 0.07 | 0.028 |
| OTU849612 | [Order] Acidimicrobiales | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.008 |
| OTU185659 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.005 | |
| OTU183480 | 0.22 | 0.04 | 0.008 | |
| OTU339013 | 0.05 | 0.01 | 0.028 | |
| OTU364903 | 0.02 | 0.00 | 0.019 | |
| OTU365496 | 0.35 | 0.08 | 0.007 | |
| OTU584375 | 0.67 | 0.19 | 0.019 | |
| OTU1105343 | 0.07 | 0.02 | 0.046 | |
| OTU583746 | 0.14 | 0.01 | 0.021 | |
| OTU523542 | 0.03 | 0.01 | 0.015 | |
| OTU851865 | 0.68 | 0.47 | 0.045 | |
| OTU813217 | 0.11 | 0.05 | 0.027 | |
| OTU369486 | 0.43 | 0.13 | 0.001 | |
| OTU309433 | 0.23 | 0.07 | 0.015 | |
| OTU314095 | 0.17 | 0.04 | 0.001 | |
| OTU349257 | 0.17 | 0.02 | 0.001 | |
| OTU264967 | 3.98 | 0.22 | 0.002 | |
| OTU817140 | 0.24 | 0.01 | 0.001 | |
| OTU298050 | 0.14 | 0.01 | 0.006 | |
| OTU266210 | 0.06 | 0.01 | 0.001 | |
| OTU151623 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.033 | |
| OTU149335 | 0.03 | 0.00 | 0.001 | |
| OTU687245 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.001 | |
| OTU306124 | 0.41 | 0.07 | 0.005 | |
| OTU531436 | 0.14 | 0.04 | 0.000 | |
| OTU4332082 | 0.02 | 0.00 | 0.009 | |
| OTU328892 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.013 | |
| OTU362947 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.015 | |
| OTU304211 | 0.12 | 0.01 | 0.013 | |
| OTU344523 | 0.07 | 0.01 | 0.016 | |
| OTU215097 | 0.06 | 0.00 | 0.002 | |
| OTU315846 | [Family] Barnesiellaceae | 0.05 | 0.01 | 0.005 |
| OTU780650 | [Family] Clostridiaceae | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.021 |
| OTU366392 | [Family] Coriobacteriaceae | 0.04 | 0.00 | 0.017 |
| OTU816299 | [Family] Coriobacteriaceae | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.001 |
| OTU821080 | [Family] Enterobacteriaceae | 0.23 | 0.08 | 0.027 |
| OTU581021 | [Family] Enterobacteriaceae | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.004 |
| OTU708680 | [Family] Lachnospiraceae | 2.11 | 0.59 | 0.005 |
| OTU369027 | [Family] Lachnospiraceae | 0.19 | 0.10 | 0.042 |
| OTU211935 | [Family] Lachnospiraceae | 0.05 | 0.01 | 0.003 |
| OTU338992 | [Family] Lachnospiraceae | 0.04 | 0.02 | 0.005 |
| OTU186968 | [Family] Lachnospiraceae | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.036 |
| OTU846141 | [Family] Lachnospiraceae | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.022 |
| OTU176306 | [Family] Lachnospiraceae | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.004 |
| OTU191332 | [Family] Ruminococcaceae | 0.19 | 0.03 | 0.010 |
| OTU355685 | [Family] Ruminococcaceae | 0.13 | 0.05 | 0.026 |
| OTU539328 | [Family] Ruminococcaceae | 0.05 | 0.02 | 0.024 |
| OTU359175 | [Family] Ruminococcaceae | 0.03 | 0.01 | 0.030 |
| OTU350121 | [Family] Ruminococcaceae | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.012 |
| OTU820764 | [Family] Veillonellaceae | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.000 |
| OTU4429981 | [Order] Clostridiales | 0.02 | 0.00 | 0.005 |
| OTU357471 | [Order] Clostridiales | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.013 |
| OTUdenovo11856 | 0.12 | 0.02 | 0.003 | |
# Denovo OTU
* Differentially abundant OTUs having a median abundance > 0.01% in at least one group of samples are listed
Fig 5Box plots indicating relative abundance of different bacterial OTUs which exhibit significant (BH corrected P < 0.05) differential abundance across HC and FK samples.
Differentially abundant OTUs having a median abundance > 0.1% in at least one group of samples has been depicted. The median abundances and the interquartile ranges have been indicated in the plots.
Fig 6Box plots indicating relative abundance of different bacterial genera which exhibited significant (BH corrected P < 0.05) differential abundance across HC and FK samples.
Differentially abundant genera having a median abundance > 0.1% in at least one group of samples has been depicted. Median abundances and interquartile ranges have been indicated in the plots.
Fig 7Two dimensional heatmap depicting rank normalized abundances (scaled between 0 and1) of 12 bacterial genera which were significantly enriched either in HC or FK samples.
The discriminating genera, as well as the samples (HC and FK) have been arranged along the two dimensions (axes) based on hierarchical clustering.
Fig 8Principal Coordinate Analysis (PCoA) based on JSD distances between bacterial OTU abundance profiles of different FK (red) and HC (blue) microbiome samples.
Samples plotted along first two principal coordinates showed distinct clustering of HC and FK samples.
Discriminating functional pathways (KEGG) between HC and FK samples.
| KEGG Pathway | Log2 Fold change | Wilcoxon test—P value | KEGG Functional Hierarchy level 1 | KEGG Functional Hierarchy level 2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Endocytosis | 13.041 | 0.002 | Cellular Processes | Transport and Catabolism |
| Indole alkaloid biosynthesis | 4.378 | 0.018 | Metabolism | Biosynthesis of Other Secondary Metabolites |
| Betalain biosynthesis | 4.335 | 0.017 | Metabolism | Biosynthesis of Other Secondary Metabolites |
| Biosynthesis of unsaturated fatty acids | 0.181 | 0.029 | Metabolism | Lipid Metabolism |
| Phosphatidylinositol signaling system | 0.113 | 0.033 | Environmental Information Processing | Signal Transduction |
| Propanoate metabolism | 0.104 | 0.034 | Metabolism | Carbohydrate Metabolism |
| Fatty acid biosynthesis | 0.103 | 0.038 | Metabolism | Lipid Metabolism |
| Pantothenate and CoA biosynthesis | -0.047 | 0.015 | Metabolism | Metabolism of Cofactors and Vitamins |
| Phenylalanine, tyrosine and tryptophan biosynthesis | -0.052 | 0.037 | Metabolism | Amino Acid Metabolism |
| Carbon fixation in photosynthetic organisms | -0.072 | 0.015 | Metabolism | Energy Metabolism |
| Other ion-coupled transporters | -0.112 | 0.038 | Unclassified | Cellular Processes and Signaling |
| Biosynthesis of ansamycins | -0.191 | 0.012 | Metabolism | Metabolism of Terpenoids and Polyketides |
| Butirosin and neomycin biosynthesis | -0.193 | 0.038 | Metabolism | Biosynthesis of Other Secondary Metabolites |
Fig 9Principal Coordinate Analysis (PCoA) based on functional abundance profiles (KEGG modules) of FK (red) and HC (blue) microbiome samples.
Samples plotted along first two principal coordinates showed distinct clustering of HC and FK samples.
Fig 10Random forest classifier for microbiome based detection of fungal Keratitis.
Fig 11Bacteria-Fungi interaction network for the HC samples (based on correlation of genera-level abundance).
The node sizes in the network correspond to their degree. The bacterial genera have been highlighted as red nodes, whereas the fungal genera have been highlighted as green nodes. The positive and negative correlations / interactions have been indicated with green edges and red edges respectively.
Fig 12Bacteria-Fungi interaction network for the FK samples (based on correlation of genera-level abundance).
The node sizes in the network correspond to their degree. The bacterial genera have been highlighted as red nodes, whereas the fungal genera have been highlighted as green nodes. The positive and negative correlations / interactions have been indicated with green edges and red edges respectively.