| Literature DB >> 30227892 |
Christopher Staley1,2, Thomas Kaiser1,2, Byron P Vaughn3, Carolyn T Graiziger3, Matthew J Hamilton2, Tauseef Ur Rehman3, Kevin Song3, Alexander Khoruts2,3, Michael J Sadowsky4,5,6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) is an effective treatment for recurrent Clostridium difficile infection (rCDI). The use of freeze-dried, encapsulated donor material for FMT (cap-FMT) allows for an easy route of administration and remains clinically effective in the majority of rCDI patients. We hypothesized that specific shifts in the microbiota in response to cap-FMT could predict clinical outcome. We further evaluated the degree of donor microbiota engraftment to determine the extent that donor transfer contributed to recovery.Entities:
Keywords: Clostridium difficile; Encapsulated microbiota; Fecal microbiota transplantation; Machine learning; Microbial community structure; Prediction model
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30227892 PMCID: PMC6145197 DOI: 10.1186/s40168-018-0549-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Microbiome ISSN: 2049-2618 Impact factor: 14.650
Fig. 1Shannon indices of donor and patient communities. The number of samples (n) is shown in parentheses. Letters indicate significant differences as assessed by Tukey’s post hoc test (P < 0.05), where sample groups sharing the same letter did not differ significantly
Fig. 2Distribution of abundant phyla among A) donor and pre-FMT samples, B) post-FMT samples from responders, and C) post-FMT samples from patients who had recurrence. Numbers in parentheses reflect the numbers of samples in each group. Letters on family abundances reflect significant differences by Tukey’s post hoc test (P < 0.05) across all groups (all panels) for each family, separately. No significant differences were observed for abundances of Porphyromonadaceae. Less abundant families represent those present at mean abundance ≤ 5% of sequence reads among all samples
Fig. 3Ordination of Bray-Curtis dissimilarity matrices by PCoA (r2 = 0.23) and the five most abundant families. Panels reflect the same analysis but are colored by time point for clarity: a) pre-FMT, b) days (2–6 days post-FMT), c) weeks (7–20 days), and d) months (21–60 days) and long-term (> 60 days). A total of 471 axes were used to explain all variation with the remaining axes explain < 2.3% of the variation individually. Family abundances were significantly related to x-axis position by Spearman correlation (P < 0.05). Legend: black circle—donor, ex mark—pre-FMT, green circle—responder/months, orange circle—recurrence, blue circle—long-term, gray circle—sample not associated with time point
Genus-level classification and relative abundances of OTUs found to be significantly indicative (LDA ≥ 2.0, P < 0.05) of time point and clinical outcome by LEfSe analysis. Only the 15 most abundant genera are shown
| Family | Genus | Response | Recurrence | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Donor | Pre-FMT | Days | Weeks | Months | Long-term | Days | Weeks | ||
|
|
| 13.1 ± 3.3 | 2.1 ± 0.4 | 0.5 ± 0.1 | 0.1 ± 0.1 | 2.7 ± 0.3 | 1.9 ± 0.4 | 2.7 ± 0.8 | 1.5 ± 0.5 |
|
| 3.2 ± 1.0 | 0.9 ± 0.5 | 0.0 ± 0.0 | 8.5 ± 0.9 | 0.2 ± 0.1 | 0.2 ± 0.1 | 0.1 ± 0.0 | 0.2 ± 0.1 | |
|
|
| 5.7 ± 1.3 | 0.6 ± 0.4 | 0.5 ± 0.1 | 5.0 ± 0.8 | 1.3 ± 0.4 | 2.1 ± 0.5 | 0.9 ± 0.2 | 0.8 ± 0.2 |
|
|
| 9.4 ± 1.1 | 0.7 ± 0.2 | 1.0 ± 0.2 | 2.5 ± 0.5 | 2.1 ± 0.3 | 3.2 ± 0.4 | 1.1 ± 0.2 | 1.3 ± 0.1 |
|
|
| 13.0 ± 1.6 | 0.9 ± 0.4 | 1.3 ± 0.3 | 1.6 ± 0.4 | 2.1 ± 0.3 | 2.6 ± 0.4 | 0.7 ± 0.1 | 1.3 ± 0.2 |
|
| 12.3 ± 1.4 | 1.3 ± 0.4 | 1.1 ± 0.2 | 1.8 ± 0.6 | 2.7 ± 0.4 | 2.9 ± 0.4 | 0.7 ± 0.1 | 1.4 ± 0.2 | |
|
| 3.4 ± 1.8 | 0.5 ± 0.5 | 0.8 ± 0.5 | 10.6 ± 3.4 | 2.0 ± 1.1 | 0.9 ± 0.5 | 0.5 ± 0.2 | 0.7 ± 0.4 | |
|
| 7.9 ± 2.1 | 0.0 ± 0.0 | 1.1 ± 0.3 | 5.3 ± 1.5 | 1.8 ± 0.5 | 2.1 ± 0.8 | 0.7 ± 0.2 | 1.0 ± 0.3 | |
|
| 13.1 ± 3.3 | 2.1 ± 0.4 | 0.5 ± 0.1 | 0.1 ± 0.1 | 2.7 ± 0.3 | 1.9 ± 0.4 | 2.7 ± 0.8 | 1.5 ± 0.5 | |
|
| 3.2 ± 1.0 | 0.9 ± 0.5 | 0.0 ± 0.0 | 8.5 ± 0.9 | 0.2 ± 0.1 | 0.2 ± 0.1 | 0.1 ± 0.0 | 0.2 ± 0.1 | |
|
| 5.7 ± 1.3 | 0.6 ± 0.4 | 0.5 ± 0.1 | 5.0 ± 0.8 | 1.3 ± 0.4 | 2.1 ± 0.5 | 0.9 ± 0.2 | 0.8 ± 0.2 | |
|
|
| 9.4 ± 1.1 | 0.7 ± 0.2 | 1.0 ± 0.2 | 2.5 ± 0.5 | 2.1 ± 0.3 | 3.2 ± 0.4 | 1.1 ± 0.2 | 1.3 ± 0.1 |
|
|
| 13.0 ± 1.6 | 0.9 ± 0.4 | 1.3 ± 0.3 | 1.6 ± 0.4 | 2.1 ± 0.3 | 2.6 ± 0.4 | 0.7 ± 0.1 | 1.3 ± 0.2 |
|
|
| 12.3 ± 1.4 | 1.3 ± 0.4 | 1.1 ± 0.2 | 1.8 ± 0.6 | 2.7 ± 0.4 | 2.9 ± 0.4 | 0.7 ± 0.1 | 1.4 ± 0.2 |
|
|
| 3.4 ± 1.8 | 0.5 ± 0.5 | 0.8 ± 0.5 | 10.6 ± 3.4 | 2.0 ± 1.1 | 0.9 ± 0.5 | 0.5 ± 0.2 | 0.7 ± 0.4 |
Confusion matrices showing the accuracy of CHAID-regression tree model to (A) training data (post-FMT day 7 composition), (B) validation data (using 10 samples withheld from the training data) and (C) test data (post-FMT day 8–20 composition)
| From/to | Response | Recurrence | Total | % Correct |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | ||||
| Response | 44 | 0 | 44 | 100 |
| Recurrence | 0 | 10 | 10 | 100 |
| Total | 44 | 10 | 54 | 100 |
| B | ||||
| Response | 6 | 0 | 6 | 100 |
| Recurrence | 3 | 1 | 4 | 25.0 |
| Total | 9 | 1 | 10 | 70.0 |
| C | ||||
| Response | 55 | 2 | 57 | 96.5 |
| Recurrence | 0 | 10 | 10 | 100 |
| Total | 55 | 12 | 67 | 97.0 |
Fig. 4SourceTracker analysis of engraftment in patient samples. A) average engraftment in patient samples with analysis performed using all donors pooled (“composite”, blue) or only samples associated with a single donor lot (“individual”, green). Letters indicated significant differences by Tukey’s post hoc test (P < 0.05) for the composite analysis only, where sample groups sharing the same letter did not differ significantly. B) Classification and abundance of OTUs determined to engraft by SourceTracker in the composite analysis. C) Similarity of responder fecal communities to unique donor lots at the ‘weeks’ time point (separate analysis than that shown in A). Numbers in parentheses reflect the number of samples. Fecal material from donor 42 was not available for sequencing. In all panels, error bars reflect SEM
Similarity (%) to individual donor lots. Similarity was assessed only on patients who were treated using the individual donor lot. Fecal material from donor 42 was not available for sequencing
| Clinical outcome | Time point | 06 | 20 | 41A | 41B | 41C | 44 | 62 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 22 | 3 | 1 | 30 | 5 | 19 | 10 | ||
| pre-FMT | 13.3 ± 4.6 | 18.7 ± 16.0 | 67.0 | 6.1 ± 1.8 | 8.2 ± 9.2 | 12.0 ± 4.5 | 25.0 ± 6.9 | |
| Response | Days | 34.5 ± 5.8 | 45.9 ± 14.4 | 50.3 | 16.7 ± 3.9 | 24.2 ± 1.6 | 35.0 ± 5.7 | 51.7 ± 9.2 |
| Weeks | 49.8 ± 4.4 | 47.0 ± 17.1 | 56.4 | 34.8 ± 2.7 | 23.9 ± 17.0 | 45.0 ± 5.3 | 52.3 ± 5.1 | |
| Months | 55.0 ± 5.0 | NC | NC | 39.2 ± 3.9 | 57.8 | 57.1 ± 5.1 | 47.5 ± 6.8 | |
| Long-term | 53.8 ± 6.2 | NC | 38.2 | 34.2 ± 3.2 | 73.4 | 42.2 ± 5.1 | NC | |
| Recurrence | Days | 29.0 ± 12.7 | NC | NC | 23.2 ± 9.4 | 36.5 ± 51.6 | 22.6 ± 11.1 | 37.8 ± 12.4 |
| Weeks | 42.0 ± 7.9 | NC | NC | 26.9 ± 5.8 | 34.8 ± 26.6 | 35.3 ± 6.9 | 53.9 ± 10.9 |
NC not collected
*n refers to total number of cap-FMTs performed using each donor lot
Similarity (%) among donor lots determined by SourceTracker. Sequence data were not available for donor 42
| From/to | 06 | 20 | 41A | 41B | 41C | 44 | 62 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 06 | 100.0 | 53.0 | 37.4 | 51.0 | 54.6 | 48.1 | 25.6 |
| 20 | 52.7 | 100.0 | 26.3 | 34.5 | 56.9 | 33.5 | 24.7 |
| 41A | 40.7 | 46.2 | 100.0 | 91.7 | 65.6 | 25.9 | 20.2 |
| 41B | 46.2 | 47.9 | 83.6 | 100.0 | 65.8 | 33.3 | 21.7 |
| 41C | 48.3 | 45.8 | 74.9 | 84.6 | 100.0 | 40.8 | 23.5 |
| 44 | 34.5 | 39.8 | 19.2 | 31.1 | 43.6 | 100.0 | 26.5 |
| 62 | 48.4 | 36.3 | 43.4 | 39.4 | 45.9 | 34.4 | 100.0 |