| Literature DB >> 30249275 |
Yan He1, Wei Wu2,3, Shan Wu2, Hui-Min Zheng1,2, Pan Li1,2, Hua-Fang Sheng1, Mu-Xuan Chen1, Zi-Hui Chen3, Gui-Yuan Ji3, Zhong-Dai-Xi Zheng2, Prabhakar Mujagond1, Xiao-Jiao Chen1, Zu-Hua Rong1,2, Peng Chen4, Li-Yi Lyu5, Xian Wang5, Jia-Bao Xu6, Chong-Bin Wu5, Nan Yu1, Yan-Jun Xu7, Jia Yin8, Jeroen Raes9,10,11, Wen-Jun Ma12, Hong-Wei Zhou13.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The metabolic syndrome (MetS) epidemic is associated with economic development, lifestyle transition and dysbiosis of gut microbiota, but these associations are rarely studied at the population scale. Here, we utilised the Guangdong Gut Microbiome Project (GGMP), the largest Eastern population-based gut microbiome dataset covering individuals with different economic statuses, to investigate the relationships between the gut microbiome and host physiology, diet, geography, physical activity and socioeconomic status.Entities:
Keywords: 16S rRNA gene sequencing; Economic status; Epidemiology; Faecal microbiome; Guangdong Gut Microbiome Project; Metabolic syndrome; Population level survey
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30249275 PMCID: PMC6154942 DOI: 10.1186/s40168-018-0557-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Microbiome ISSN: 2049-2618 Impact factor: 14.650
Characteristics of the study participants
| Female ( | Male ( | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years, mean ± SD) | 51.9 ± 14.4 | 53.7 ± 14.9 | < 0.001 |
| Waist ≥ 90 cm (male) or ≥ 85 cm (female), | 963 (25.3) | 678 (21.9) | 0.001 |
| BP ≥ 130/85 mmHg, | 1775 (46.7) | 1636 (52.9) | < 0.001 |
| SBP ≥ 130 mmHg, | 1709 (44.9) | 1557 (50.3) | < 0.001 |
| DBP ≥ 85 mmHg, | 773 (20.3) | 916 (29.6) | < 0.001 |
| TG ≥ 1.7 mmol/L, | 728 (19.1) | 836 (27.0) | < 0.001 |
| HDL < 1.04 mmol/L, | 799 (21.0) | 1107 (35.8) | < 0.001 |
| FBG ≥ 6.1 mmol/L, | 628 (16.5) | 584 (18.9) | 0.011 |
| MetS, | 657 (17.3) | 747 (24.2) | < 0.001 |
Significant differences were determined by a t test for age and chi-square tests for the remaining factors
Fig. 1The overall gut microbial community is associated with MetS. a Significance, represented by log10 transformed (1/p) value, of ADONIS test associating gut microbiota variations and MetS at different sample sizes, with 50 replicates at each step. The red line indicates p = 0.05. b Shannon indices comparing MetS subjects (MetS, N = 1404) with the remainder of the population (non-MetS, N = 5492). c PD whole tree indices comparing MetS subjects (MetS, N = 1404) with the remainder of the population (non-MetS, N = 5492). Wilcoxon rank-sum test adjusted by the Benjamini and Hochberg method (b, c). ***P < 0.001, **P < 0.01. d Proportions of OTUs associated with MetS in terms of OTU number and accumulated abundance
Fig. 2Associations between MetS and OTUs from Bacteroidetes and Proteobacteria. Network showing significant associations between (a) Bacteroidetes and (b) Proteobacteria OTUs and MetS. Squares represent metadata, and circles represent OTUs, which are connected with red or blue edges where significantly positively or negatively associated, respectively. Edges are bundled for clearer visualisation. The actual number of associations is summarised below the network
Fig. 3Associations between MetS and OTUs from Firmicutes. Network showing the significant associations between Firmicutes OTUs and MetS. The figure structure is similar to that of Fig. 2
Fig. 4Associations between OTUs and host economic status. a Stacked plot showing the number of OTUs that are positively or negatively associated with income or spending. Colours correspond to taxonomies in the legend. b Four-quadrant diagram showing the coefficients of OTUs with MetS (x-axis) and spending (y-axis). OTUs that are significantly associated with MetS and economic status simultaneously were plotted
Fig. 5Validating the MetS index and its association with economic status. a, b The MetS index compared between MetS subjects and non-MetS subjects in individuals with different economic status using boxplots (a) and in individuals from different sampling regions using a radar chart (b). In (b), the median MetS index values of MetS and non-MetS subjects in each region were plotted along with radar angles, and each angle represents one sampled region. Wilcoxon rank-sum test adjusted by the Benjamini and Hochberg method (c, d). ***P < 0.001, **P < 0.01, *P < 0.05. c Correlations between the MetS index and spending in MetS and non-MetS subjects evaluated by Spearman correlation tests
Fig. 6Relationships among host economic status, MetS prevalence and lifestyle. a MetS prevalence in individuals of differing economic status. Individuals were classified into low-spending (N = 1170), moderate-spending (N = 2394) and high-spending (N = 1099) groups, and the ratios of MetS subjects of each group were compared by a chi-square test, with adjustment by the Benjamini and Hochberg method; ***P < 0.001, *P < 0.05. b Bar plot illustrating correlation coefficient values for host spending and lifestyle. A longer bar indicates a higher coefficient, and the R values are labelled on the x-axis. Correlation coefficients were calculated by Spearman correlation, and the Benjamini and Hochberg method was used to adjust for multiple comparisons. ***P < 0.001. c Comparison of MetS prevalence between subjects with low MetS index values (N = 1719) and high MetS index values (N = 1714), with analysis performed via a chi-square test. d MetS prevalence in individuals with different MetS index values. Individuals were quarterised according to their MetS index values, and the ratio of MetS subjects in each quartile was compared by a chi-square test. The top 16-grid plot shows the MetS prevalence in different subpopulations. Individuals were divided into 16 groups according to the quarterisation of their MetS index (x-axis) and sedentary time values (y-axis). The colour gradient of the cell indicates MetS prevalence, which is also indicated in each cell. The results of the statistical tests between all pair of cells are provided in Additional file 2: Table S4. The three bottom 16-grid plots show population distributions within each spending level. Individuals were first divided into high-(the second plot), moderate-(the third plot) and low-spending (the fourth plot) groups, and the proportion of individuals in each cell at their economic level was calculated. The greyscale of the cell indicates the proportion, which is also indicated in each cell