Jennifer F Wu1, Amutha Muthusamy2, Gabriel A Al-Ghalith3, Dan Knights4, Bin Guo5, Baolin Wu5, Rory P Remmel6, David P Schladt2, Maria-Luisa Alegre7, William S Oetting8, Pamala A Jacobson8, Ajay K Israni1,2. 1. Department of Medicine, Nephrology Division, Hennepin Healthcare, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 2. Hennepin Healthcare Research Institute, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 3. Bioinformatics and Computational Biology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 4. Department of Computer Science and Biotechnology Institute, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 5. Division of Biostatistics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 6. Department of Medicinal Chemistry, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 7. Department of Medicine, Section of Rheumatology, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois. 8. Department of Experimental and Clinical Pharmacology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We performed a study to identify differences in the urinary microbiome associated with chronic allograft dysfunction (CAD) and compared the urinary microbiome of male and female transplant recipients with CAD. METHODS: This case-control study enrolled 67 patients within the Deterioration of Kidney Allograft Function (DeKAF) Genomics cohort at two transplant centers. CAD was defined as a greater than 25% rise in serum creatinine relative to a 3 month post-transplant baseline. Urine samples from patients with and without CAD were analyzed using 16S V4 bacterial ribosomal DNA sequences. RESULTS: Corynebacterium was more prevalent in female and male patients with CAD compared to non-CAD female patients (P = 0.0005). A total 21 distinct Operational Taxonomic Unit (OTUs) were identified as significantly different when comparing CAD and non-CAD patients using Kruskal-Wallis (P < 0.01). A subset analysis of female patients with CAD compared to non-CAD females identified similar differentially abundant OTUs, including the genera Corynebacterium and Staphylococcus (Kruskal-Wallis; P = 0.01; P = 0.004, respectively). Male CAD vs female CAD analysis showed greater abundance of phylum Proteobacteria in males. CONCLUSION: There were differences in the urinary microbiome when comparing female and male CAD patients with their female non-CAD counterparts and these differences persisted in the subset analysis limited to female patients only.
BACKGROUND: We performed a study to identify differences in the urinary microbiome associated with chronic allograft dysfunction (CAD) and compared the urinary microbiome of male and female transplant recipients with CAD. METHODS: This case-control study enrolled 67 patients within the Deterioration of Kidney Allograft Function (DeKAF) Genomics cohort at two transplant centers. CAD was defined as a greater than 25% rise in serum creatinine relative to a 3 month post-transplant baseline. Urine samples from patients with and without CAD were analyzed using 16S V4 bacterial ribosomal DNA sequences. RESULTS:Corynebacterium was more prevalent in female and male patients with CAD compared to non-CAD female patients (P = 0.0005). A total 21 distinct Operational Taxonomic Unit (OTUs) were identified as significantly different when comparing CAD and non-CADpatients using Kruskal-Wallis (P < 0.01). A subset analysis of female patients with CAD compared to non-CAD females identified similar differentially abundant OTUs, including the genera Corynebacterium and Staphylococcus (Kruskal-Wallis; P = 0.01; P = 0.004, respectively). Male CAD vs female CAD analysis showed greater abundance of phylum Proteobacteria in males. CONCLUSION: There were differences in the urinary microbiome when comparing female and male CADpatients with their female non-CAD counterparts and these differences persisted in the subset analysis limited to female patients only.
Authors: Alan J Wolfe; Evelyn Toh; Noriko Shibata; Ruichen Rong; Kimberly Kenton; MaryPat Fitzgerald; Elizabeth R Mueller; Paul Schreckenberger; Qunfeng Dong; David E Nelson; Linda Brubaker Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2012-01-25 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: Z Zhang; L Liu; H Tang; W Jiao; S Zeng; Y Xu; Q Zhang; Z Sun; A Mukherjee; X Zhang; X Hu Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2018-02-03 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Steven Z Josefowicz; Rachel E Niec; Hye Young Kim; Piper Treuting; Takatoshi Chinen; Ye Zheng; Dale T Umetsu; Alexander Y Rudensky Journal: Nature Date: 2012-02-08 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: B D Modena; R Milam; F Harrison; J A Cheeseman; M M Abecassis; J J Friedewald; A D Kirk; D R Salomon Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2016-10-11 Impact factor: 8.086
Authors: Asha Rani; Ravi Ranjan; Halvor S McGee; Kalista E Andropolis; Dipti V Panchal; Zahraa Hajjiri; Daniel C Brennan; Patricia W Finn; David L Perkins Journal: Transl Res Date: 2016-09-09 Impact factor: 7.012
Authors: Judith A Anesi; Emily A Blumberg; Jennifer H Han; Dong Heun Lee; Heather Clauss; Richard Hasz; Esther Molnar; Darcy Alimenti; Andrew R Motzer; Sharon West; Warren B Bilker; Pam Tolomeo; Ebbing Lautenbach Journal: Transpl Infect Dis Date: 2022-01-10
Authors: Virginia Perez-Carrasco; Ana Soriano-Lerma; Miguel Soriano; José Gutiérrez-Fernández; Jose A Garcia-Salcedo Journal: Front Cell Infect Microbiol Date: 2021-05-18 Impact factor: 5.293
Authors: Matthew M Munch; Laura C Chambers; Lisa E Manhart; Dan Domogala; Anthony Lopez; David N Fredricks; Sujatha Srinivasan Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-09-24 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Paul M Campbell; Gavin J Humphreys; Angela M Summers; Joanne E Konkel; Christopher G Knight; Titus Augustine; Andrew J McBain Journal: Front Cell Infect Microbiol Date: 2020-12-23 Impact factor: 5.293
Authors: Wen Yan Xie; Kevin Kim; Naeem Goussous; Cinthia B Drachenberg; Joseph R Scalea; Matthew R Weir; Jonathan S Bromberg Journal: Transplant Direct Date: 2021-03-05