| Literature DB >> 30279959 |
Gwénaëlle Le Gall1, Kiran Guttula2, Lee Kellingray1, Ashraf Ibrahim2, Arjan Narbad1, Adrian J Tett3, Rogier Ten Hoopen2, E Kate Kemsley1, George M Savva1.
Abstract
Colorectal cancer (CRC), a primary cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide is expected to rise in the coming years. A better understanding of the metabolic changes taking place during the disease progression is needed for effective improvements of screening strategies and treatments. In the present study, Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) metabolomics was used to quantify the absolute concentrations of metabolites in faecal extracts from two cohorts of CRC patients and healthy controls. The quantification of over 80 compounds revealed that patients with CRC had increased faecal concentrations of branched chain fatty acids (BCFA), isovalerate and isobutyrate plus valerate and phenylacetate but diminished concentrations of amino acids, sugars, methanol and bile acids (deoxycholate, lithodeoxycholate and cholate). These results suggest that alterations in microbial activity and composition could have triggered an increase in utilisation of host intestinal slough cells and mucins and led to an increase in BCFA, valerate and phenylacetate. Concurrently, a general reduction in the microbial metabolic function may have led to reduced levels of other components (amino acids, sugars and bile acids) normally produced under healthy conditions. This study provides a thorough listing of the most abundant compounds found in human faecal waters and presents a template for absolute quantification of metabolites. The production of BCFA and phenylacetate in colonic carcinogenesis warrants further investigations.Entities:
Keywords: NMR; colorectal cancer; markers; metabolite; metabolomics
Year: 2018 PMID: 30279959 PMCID: PMC6161785 DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.26022
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Oncotarget ISSN: 1949-2553
Patient demographics and tumour characteristics
| set 1 | set 2 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Patients | Colorectal cancer | Healthy | Colorectal cancer | Healthy | |
| Age, years | Mean | 67 | 67 | 66 | 66 |
| Range | 61–72 | 60–74 | 60–74 | 60–74 | |
| Sex | Women | 8 | 8 | 9 | 9 |
| Men | 12 | 12 | 21 | 21 | |
| Tumour site | caecum | 2 | 3 | ||
| ascending | 2 | 2 | |||
| transversal | 3 | 0 | |||
| descending | 1 | 2 | |||
| sigmoid | 4 | 17 | |||
| rectum | 6 | 6 | |||
| Cancer size, mm | Mean | 35 | 24 | ||
| Range | 12–70 | 15–40 | |||
| Dukes's stage | A | 3 | 3 | ||
| B | 7 | 2 | |||
| C | 5 | 11 | |||
Figure 1Typical 600 MHz 1H NMR spectra of aqueous faecal extracts from 4 CRC patients and age and sex matched controls
High and mid (A) and low (B) field regions of the 1H NMR spectra. Key: *, 3-hydroxyphenylpropionate; ** p-cresol.
Figure 2(A) The predicted probability of cancer estimated by PLS-DA predictive power using each set and validated by applying to the other. AUC = area under the receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve, and reflects the probability that a randomly selected CRC patient has a higher predicted probability of cancer than a randomly selected control. (B) Left panel shows the predicted probability of cancer estimated by scaled PLS-DA models using Box-Cox transformed metabolite concentrations, stratified by cancer status. 11-fold cross-validation was used, hence each predicted probability is estimated independently of the true cancer status of the patient. Right hand panel shows the ROC curve estimated using the same data (AUC = 0.8) with solid lines indicating sensitivity and specificity of 80%.
The ratio of metabolite concentrations between CRC patients and controls
| Metabolite | Mean concentration ratio (CRC/control) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower among cancer patients | ||||
| Cholate | 0.13 | −5.06 | 0.00000 | 0.0002 |
| Taurine | 0.39 | −4.59 | 0.00001 | 0.001 |
| Glutamine | 0.67 | −4.24 | 0.00005 | 0.002 |
| ß-Alanine | 0.35 | −4.13 | 0.00008 | 0.002 |
| Glucose | 0.38 | −3.91 | 0.00018 | 0.003 |
| Lithodeoxycholate | 0.01 | −4.02 | 0.00015 | 0.003 |
| Xylose | 0.38 | −3.31 | 0.00134 | 0.012 |
| Deoxycholate | 0.44 | −3.28 | 0.00145 | 0.012 |
| Ornithine | 0.59 | −3.33 | 0.00124 | 0.012 |
| Glycerol | 0.68 | −3.20 | 0.00189 | 0.015 |
| Guanosine | 0.21 | −3.16 | 0.00248 | 0.018 |
| Isoleucine | 0.70 | −3.01 | 0.00339 | 0.021 |
| Methanol | 0.62 | −2.77 | 0.00679 | 0.040 |
| Galactose | 0.61 | −2.66 | 0.00913 | 0.048 |
| 4-Aminohippurate | 0.39 | −2.61 | 0.01058 | 0.050 |
| Higher among cancer patients | ||||
| Isovalerate | 1.75 | 3.59 | 0.00052 | 0.007 |
| Hexose-phosphate* | 2.02 | 3.37 | 0.00107 | 0.012 |
| Phenylacetate | 1.73 | 3.01 | 0.00335 | 0.021 |
| Isobutyrate | 1.54 | 2.74 | 0.00741 | 0.041 |
| Valerate | 1.42 | 2.62 | 0.01029 | 0.050 |
T-statistics and p-values are calculated using Box-Cox transformed concentrations. Adjusted p-values are calculated using the false discovery rate method of Benjamini and Hochberg to correct for the large number of hypotheses being tested.
*signal at 5.61 ppm, most likely glucose- or galactose-1-phosphate.
Figure 3Beta-diversity analysis of faecal microbiota of healthy controls (grey) and colorectal cancer patients (black)
The data-points associated with the subset of CRC patients (K13, K15, K21, & K37) identified from the metabolomic analyses are labelled. (A) unweighted beta-diversity analysis and (B) weighted beta-diversity analysis were performed using the Unifrac metric in QIIME 1.9.1, and visualised as 3D principal coordinates analysis plots using Emperor.
Statistically significant taxa that differ between healthy and colorectal cancer patients
| Microbial taxa | Healthy (%) | CRC (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| o_Clostridiales | 2.14 ± 2.96 | 4.66 ± 4.14 | 0.027 |
| o_RF39 | 0.20 ± 0.55 | 1.95 ± 2.26 | 0.006 |
| o_Clostridiales; f_Ruminococcaceae | 1.29 ± 1.62 | 3.76 ± 2.47 | 0.001 |
| f_Christensenellaceae | 0.12 ± 0.31 | 0.81 ± 0.75 | 0.002 |
| f_Mogibacteriaceae | 0.13 ± 0.14 | 0.37 ± 0.26 | 0.002 |
| f_Coriobacteriaceae | 0.20 ± 0.19 | 0.58 ± 0.49 | 0.001 |
| f_Erysipelotrichaceae;g_Clostridium | 0.45 ± 1.07 | 0.05 ± 0.15 | 0.044 |
| f_Ruminococcaceae;g_Ruminococcus | 5.98 ± 6.70 | 11.40 ± 5.23 | 0.015 |
| g_Methanobrevibacter | <0.01 ± 0.03 | 0.10 ± 0.15 | 0.01 |
| g_Parabacteroides | 1.47 ± 1.77 | 0.62 ± 0.52 | 0.014 |
| g_Clostridium | 0.37 ± 0.53 | 0.05 ± 0.07 | 0.012 |
| g_Peptostreptococcus | <0.01 ± 0.01 | 0.05 ± 0.08 | 0.029 |
| g_Anaerofilum | <0.01 ± 0 | 0.03 ± 0.05 | 0.011 |
| g_Oscillospira | 1.23 ± 1.07 | 2.64 ± 1.89 | 0.006 |
| g_Sporobacter | 0 ± 0 | <0.01 ± 0.01 | 0.045 |
| g_Eubacterium | 1.58 ± 3.01 | 4.21 ± 6.21 | 0.049 |
| g_cc_115 | <0.01 ± 0.01 | 0.07 ± 0.16 | 0.03 |
Preceding letter indicates taxonomic level: o = order; f = family; g = genus. Values shown are mean ± SD.