| Literature DB >> 30555804 |
Yanfei Chen1, Jing Guo1, Ding Shi1, Daiqiong Fang1, Chunlei Chen1, Lanjuan Li1.
Abstract
Ascites bacterial burden is associated with poor clinical outcomes in patients with end-stage liver disease. However, the impact of ascitic microbial composition on clinical course was still not clear. In this study, the ascitic microbiota composition of 100 cirrhotic patients with culture-negative and non-neutrocytic ascites were researched with 16S rRNA pyrosequencing and enterotype-like cluster analysis.Entities:
Keywords: ascitic fluids; bacterial translocation; cytokines; end-stage liver disease; microbiome
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30555804 PMCID: PMC6284044 DOI: 10.3389/fcimb.2018.00420
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Cell Infect Microbiol ISSN: 2235-2988 Impact factor: 5.293
Figure 1Two clusters were observed in ascitic fluids microbiota. (A) The principal coordinate analysis of the Jensen-Shannon distance generated from the OTU-level relative abundance profiles. Samples are colored by clusters identified by the partitioning around medoids clustering algorithm. Dark blue, Cluster 1; red, Cluster 2. (B) Two clusters were supported with the highest Calinski-Harabasz (CH) pseudo F-statistic value, as the optimal number of clusters. (C) Boxplot comparison of the number of observed OTUs between Cluster 1 and Cluster 2. (D) Boxplot comparison of the Chao1 index between Cluster 1 and Cluster 2. **p < 0.01 based upon Mann-Whitney U-tests with Benjamini & Hochberg correction.
Figure 2Compositional analysis of ascitic microbial clusters. (A) Pie chart comparison of bacterial phyla represented in two clusters (upper: Cluster 1, lower: Cluster 2). (B) Histograms showing differentially enriched bacterial classes between Cluster 1 and Cluster 2. Blue histograms, Cluster 1; red histograms, Cluster 2. (C). LEfSe analysis revealed differentially enriched bacterial families associated either with Cluster 1 (blue) or Cluster 2 (red). (D) LEfSe analysis revealed differentially enriched bacterial genus associated either with Cluster 1 (blue) or Cluster 2 (red).
Figure 3Plasma cytokine levels with statistical difference between Cluster 1 and Cluster 2. Blue histograms, Cluster 1 (n = 68); red histograms, Cluster 2 (n = 10). Significance values are indicated: * p < 0.05 **p < 0.01 based upon Mann-Whitney U-tests with Benjamini & Hochberg correction.
Figure 4Correlation analysis of ascitic bacterial OTUs and plasma cytokines. Spearman rank correlation was performed. Only correlations with a coefficient r > 0.40 are displayed. The colors of OTU nodes and lines indicate bacterial families as labeled on the lower right.
Clinical characteristics of patients with different ascitic microbiota clusters.
| Age (year) | 56 ± 11 | 54 ± 15 | 0.7 |
| Gender (M/F) | 16/70 | 4/10 | 0.7 |
| Child-Pugh score | 9 ± 2 | 9 ± 2 | 0.98 |
| MELD score | 1.45 ± 0.99 | 1.43 ± 0.57 | 0.81 |
| 90-day mortality | 33.7% | 0% | 0.01 |
| 90-day SBP | 31.4% | 57.1% | 0.06 |
SBP, Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis.
Figure 5Ninety-days Kaplan–Meier survival curves for different ascitic microbiota clusters. P-values were calculated by the Log Rank-test.
Cox regression analysis for variables and 90-day mortality.
| Ascitic microbial Cluster 1 | 0.038 | 0.132 | ||||
| MELD score | 1.07 | 1.018–1.124 | 1.075 | 1.021–1.132 | ||
| TNF-α | 1.001 | 1.000–1.001 | 1.001 | 1.000–1.001 | ||
| IL-12P70 | 1.002 | 1.000–1.003 | ||||
| IL-15 | 1.008 | 1.001–1.014 | ||||
| IL-2 | 1.004 | 1.000–1.008 | ||||
| IL-1β | 1.002 | 1.002–1.005 | ||||
HR, hazard ratio; 95% CI, 95% confidence interval of hazard ratio. Calculated by univariate and multivariate Cox regression analysis, P-values considered significant (< 0.05) was bold.