| Literature DB >> 30247561 |
Ira Praharaj1, Edward P K Parker2, Sidhartha Giri1, David J Allen3,4, Sophia Silas1, R Revathi1, Saravanakumar Puthupalayam Kaliappan1, Jacob John5, Jasmine Helan Prasad5, Beate Kampmann6, Miren Iturriza-Gómara7, Nicholas C Grassly2, Gagandeep Kang1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Oral poliovirus vaccine (OPV) is less immunogenic in low- or middle-income than in high-income countries. We tested whether bacterial and viral components of the intestinal microbiota are associated with this phenomenon.Entities:
Keywords: 16S rRNA; Nonpolio enteroviruses; OPV; bacterial microbiota; next generation sequencing
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30247561 PMCID: PMC6601701 DOI: 10.1093/infdis/jiy568
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Infect Dis ISSN: 0022-1899 Impact factor: 5.226
Figure 1.Association between nonpolio enteroviruses (NPEVs) and seroconversion. A, Study design. Circles represent stool samples; square, serum sample. “No.” column lists numbers of per-protocol infants. B, Enterovirus (EV) serotypes with a prevalence of ≥1%. The diameter of the circle at each branch tip is proportional to serotype prevalence. Phylogenetic relationships are as described by Oberste and colleagues [7]. Branch lengths are not proportional to phylogenetic distance. C, Enterovirus prevalence by seroconversion status. Error bars indicate 95% confidence intervals. *P < .01; †P < .05. Abbreviations: CV, coxsackievirus; E, echovirus; mOPV3, monovalent type 3 oral poliovirus vaccine.
Co-occurrence of Enterovirus Species
| Enterovirus Subset | Prevalence of ≥1 Heterotypic Enterovirus, Number of Infants/Total (%)a |
|---|---|
| Species A positive | 59/90 (65.6) |
| Species A negative | 157/614 (25.6) |
| Species B positive | 65/184 (35.3) |
| Species B negative | 63/520 (12.1) |
| Species C positive | 52/65 (80.0) |
| Species C negative | 182/639 (28.5) |
a P < .001 for all comparisons (Fisher exact test).
Association Between Viral Infection Subclasses and OPV3 Seroconversiona
| Infection Status by Pathogen | Infants, No. | Seropositive Infants, No. (%) | OR (95% CI) |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Adenovirus | |||||
| Absent | 507 | 269 (53.1) | … | … | … |
| Resolved | 74 | 45 (60.8) | 1.36 (.83–2.27) | .23 | … |
| Recently acquired | 88 | 40 (45.5) | 0.73 (.46–1.16) | .19 | … |
| Persistent | 35 | 13 (37.1) | 0.53 (.26–1.07) | .08 | .43 |
| Astrovirus | |||||
| Absent | 684 | 355 (51.9) | … | … | … |
| Resolved | 10 | 5 (50.0) | 1.10 (.30–4.05) | .89 | … |
| Recently acquired | 10 | 7 (70.0) | 2.30 (.58–10.81) | .24 | … |
| Persistent | 0 | … | … | … | … |
| Enterovirus | |||||
| Absent | 313 | 178 (56.9) | … | … | … |
| Resolved | 135 | 82 (60.7) | 1.24 (.82–1.90) | .30 | … |
| Recently acquired | 127 | 44 (34.6) | 0.38 (.25–.59) | <.001 | … |
| Persistent | 129 | 63 (48.8) | 0.70 (.46–1.06) | .09 | .02 |
| Norovirus | |||||
| Absent | 604 | 318 (52.6) | … | … | … |
| Resolved | 39 | 22 (56.4) | 1.18 (.61–2.32) | .62 | … |
| Recently acquired | 46 | 20 (43.5) | 0.70 (.38–1.28) | .25 | … |
| Persistent | 15 | 7 (46.7) | 0.67 (.23–1.89) | .44 | >.99 |
| Rotavirus | |||||
| Absent | 685 | 362 (52.8) | … | … | … |
| Resolved | 6 | 2 (33.3) | … | … | … |
| Recently acquired | 12 | 3 (25.0) | 0.34 (.07–1.16) | .11 | … |
| Persistent | 1 | 0 (0.0) | … | … | … |
| Sapovirus | |||||
| Absent | 671 | 348 (51.9) | … | … | … |
| Resolved | 15 | 8 (53.3) | 1.11 (.39–3.23) | .84 | … |
| Recently acquired | 16 | 9 (56.2) | 1.30 (.47–3.7) | .62 | … |
| Persistent | 2 | 2 (100.0) | … | … | … |
Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; OPV3, type 3 oral poliovirus vaccine; OR, odds ratio.
aAge and study arm were included as covariates in all logistic regression models.
Figure 2.Association between microbiota composition on day of vaccination (day 0) and seroconversion. A, Operational taxonomic unit (OTU) count and Shannon index (presented as means with standard errors). B, Class-level composition of the bacterial microbiota. C, Unweighted UniFrac distances between samples, visualized using principal coordinate analysis. Mean values for each principal coordinate are indicated by dotted lines. D, Cross-validation accuracy of Random Forest models based on OTU abundance data (medians with interquartile ranges). The baseline accuracy is the expected accuracy if all individuals are assigned to the majority class. *P < .05; Abbreviations: PC, principal coordinate 1. Note- d 0 (day of vaccination) , d -14 (day of starting azithromycin or placebo)
Association Between Bacterial Microbiota Comparison at the Time of Vaccination (Day 0) and Oral Poliovirus Vaccine Response
| Comparison | Test | Age/Arm as Covariates | Seroconversion | Shedding | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Seropositive (n = 62)a | Seronegative (n = 52) |
| Shedders (n = 42) | Nonshedders (n = 33) |
| |||
| Alpha diversity | ||||||||
| OTU count, mean (SD) | LR | Yes | 68.8 (14.1) | 73.4 (15.3) | .20 | 65.4 (14.5) | 72.0 (16.4) | .03 |
| Shannon index, mean (SD) | LR | Yes | 2.62 (0.47) | 2.82 (0.55) | .08 | 2.57 (0.50) | 2.84 (0.59) | .03 |
| Beta diversity | ||||||||
| UniFrac distance between samples | Adonis function | Yes |
| .04 |
| .007 | ||
| Microbiota age, mean (SD), UniFrac distance from samples collected from noncohabiting adults | LR | Yes | 0.833 (0.042) | 0.811 (0.050) | .01 | 0.838 (0.046) | 0.806 (0.052) | .001 |
| Microbiota stability, mean (SD), UniFrac distance between d 0 and d–14 | LR | Yes | 0.470 (0.071) | 0.460 (0.085) | .70 | 0.476 (0.078) | 0.455 (0.088) | .20 |
| Taxon abundance: phylum-, class-, genus-, and OTU-level relative abundance | WRS | Nob | No discrepancies with FDR | Clostridia enriched in nonsheddersc | ||||
| Cross-validation accuracy for Random Forest algorithm, median (IQR; baselined), % | … | Nob | 54.5 (45.5–63.6; 54.5) | 62.5 (50.0–75.0; 56.0) | ||||
Abbreviations: FDR, adjusted for false discovery rate; IQR, interquartile range; LR, linear regression; OTUs, operational taxonomic units; SD, standard deviation; WRS, Wilcoxon rank sum test.
aA total of 120 infants were included in the microbiota subset, of whom 114 completed the study per protocol and were included in the final analyses.
bAlthough age and study arm could be included as covariates when applying linear regression or the adonis function, it was not possible to adjust for these variables when applying the WRS test (a nonparametric test) or the Random Forest algorithm.
cSee Supplementary Table 5 for full results.
dExpected accuracy if all individuals are assigned to the majority class.