| Literature DB >> 29985435 |
Giorgia Mori1, Simone Rampelli2, Beatrice Silvia Orena3, Claudia Rengucci4, Giulia De Maio4, Giulia Barbieri3, Alessandro Passardi5, Andrea Casadei Gardini5, Giovanni Luca Frassineti5, Stefano Gaiarsa6,7, Alessandra M Albertini3, Guglielmina Nadia Ranzani3, Daniele Calistri4, Maria Rosalia Pasca8.
Abstract
Gut microbiota has been implicated in the etiopathogenesis of colorectal cancer. The development of colorectal cancer is a multistep process by which healthy epithelium slowly develops into preneoplastic lesions, which in turn progress into malignant carcinomas over time. In particular, sporadic colorectal cancers can arise from adenomas (about 85% of cases) or serrated polyps through the "adenoma-carcinoma" or the "serrated polyp-carcinoma" sequences, respectively. In this study, we performed 16 S rRNA gene sequencing of bacterial DNA extracted from faecal samples to compare the microbiota of healthy subjects and patients with different preneoplastic and neoplastic lesions. We identified putative microbial biomarkers associated with stage-specific progression of colorectal cancer. In particular, bacteria belonging to the Firmicutes and Actinobacteria phyla, as well as members of the Lachnospiraceae family, proved to be specific of the faecal microbiota of patients with preneoplastic lesions, including adenomas and hyperplastic polyps. On the other hand, two families of the Proteobacteria phylum, Alcaligeneaceae and Enterobacteriaceae, with Sutterella and Escherichia/Shigella being the most representative genera, appeared to be associated with malignancy. These findings, once confirmed on larger cohorts of patients, can represent an important step towards the development of more effective diagnostic strategies.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29985435 PMCID: PMC6037773 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-28671-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Evaluation of α-diversity in the 5 groups of patients and controls. (A) Chao1 measure of microbial richness; (B) Observed OTUs; (C) Phylogenetic diversity.
Figure 2Relative abundance of the main bacterial phyla in faecal microbiota of 7 groups of subjects. Histograms based on the proportion of OTUs per average of each group.
Wilcoxon Test: comparison of faecal microbiome from healthy subjects with that of the patients’ groups (HP, HRA, ADK and ADK-T).
|
| |||
|
| |||
| Phylum: Actinobacteria | 2.3 ± 0.6 | 0.7 ± 0.2 | 0.004 |
| Phylum: Proteobacteria | 1.6 ± 0.6 | 19.7 ± 6.6 | 0.00004 |
| Phylum: Unassigned | 0.9 ± 0.1 | 1.3 ± 1.1 | 0.003 |
| Genus: | 0.8 ± 0.1 | 0.4 ± 0.1 | 0.006 |
| Genus: | 1.0 ± 0.3 | 0.4 ± 0.3 | 0.008 |
| Genus: | 1.3 ± 0.2 | 0.5 ± 0.2 | 0.0007 |
|
| |||
|
|
|
| |
| Phylum: Proteobacteria | 1.6 ± 0.6 | 5.4 ± 1.3 | 0.008 |
| Family: Porphyromonadaceae | 1.7 ± 0.3 | 4.6 ± 1.0 | 0.004 |
| Family: Prevotellaceae | 5.0 ± 3.1 | 8.1 ± 2.7 | 0.009 |
| Family: Alcaligenaceae | 0.2 ± 0.1 | 1.5 ± 0.6 | 0.001 |
| Family: Enterobacteriaceae | 0.9 ± 0.4 | 2.8 ± 0.8 | 0.008 |
| Genus: | 0.8 ± 0.2 | 0.2 ± 0.1 | 0.001 |
| Genus: | 0.08 ± 0.04 | 0.7 ± 0.2 | 0.001 |
| Genus: | 0.8 ± 0.3 | 2.7 ± 0.8 | 0.007 |
|
| |||
|
|
|
| |
| Family: Erysipelotrichaceae | 0.6 ± 0.2 | 2.0 ± 0.5 | 0.0008 |
| Genus: | 6.7 ± 2.9 | 10.8 ± 2.2 | 0.007 |
|
| |||
|
|
|
| |
| Genus: | 4.2 ± 3.0 | 0.0007 ± 0.0004 | 0.001 |
Each group of patients was compared with the group of healthy subjects. Significant P-values are reported. No statistically significant differences were detected between LRA patients and healthy subjects (data not reported).
Figure 3Bacterial taxa differentiate 3 clusters: ADK and ADK patients; HP and HRA patients; LRA patients and H subjects. (A) PCoA based on Unweighted UniFrac distances; (B) Superimposition of bacterial genera on the PCoA plot.
Figure 4Bacterial taxa abundance differentiates ADK from HP, LRA, HRA and ADK-T patients and healthy subjects. (A) PCoA based on Weighted UniFrac distances; (B) Superimposition of microbial genera on the PCoA plot.
Figure 5Range of microbial diversity in the investigated groups.
Figure 6Putative faecal biomarkers of sporadic CRC cancerogenesis.
Putative microbial biomarkers identified in this study.
| Phylum | Family | Genus | Purported functions |
|---|---|---|---|
| Actinobacteria | Protective action[ | ||
| Firmicutes | Lachnospiraceae |
| Butyrate producer; improve intestinal defense protecting the host[ |
|
| Acetate producer; improve intestinal defense protecting the host[ | ||
|
| Protective action[ | ||
| Butyrate producer; Protective action[ | |||
|
| Butyrate-producer[ | ||
| Erysipelotrichaceae | — | Potential candidate in the aetiology and progression of colorectal cancer[ | |
| Bacteroidetes | Porphyromonadaceae | — | Pro-carcinogenic[ |
| Prevotellaceae | Pro-carcinogenic[ | ||
| Proteobacteria | Enterobacteriaceae |
| Genotoxin-producers; Pro- carcinogenic[ |
| Alcaligenaceae |
| Frequently associated with human diseases[ |