| Literature DB >> 30562947 |
Chiharu Ishii1,2, Yumiko Nakanishi3,4, Shinnosuke Murakami5,6, Ryoko Nozu7, Masami Ueno8, Kyoji Hioki9, Wanping Aw10,11, Akiyoshi Hirayama12,13, Tomoyoshi Soga14,15,16, Mamoru Ito17, Masaru Tomita18,19,20, Shinji Fukuda21,22,23,24,25.
Abstract
Intestinal microbiota and their metabolites are strongly associated with host physiology. Developments in DNA sequencing and mass spectrometry technologies have allowed us to obtain additional data that enhance our understanding of the interactions among microbiota, metabolites, and the host. However, the strategies used to analyze these datasets are not yet well developed. Here, we describe an original analytical strategy, metabologenomics, consisting of an integrated analysis of mass spectrometry-based metabolome data and high-throughput-sequencing-based microbiome data. Using this approach, we compared data obtained from C57BL/6J mice fed an American diet (AD), which contained higher amounts of fat and fiber, to those from mice fed control rodent diet. The feces of the AD mice contained higher amounts of butyrate and propionate, and higher relative abundances of Oscillospira and Ruminococcus. The amount of butyrate positively correlated with the abundance of these bacterial genera. Furthermore, integrated analysis of the metabolome data and the predicted metagenomic data from Phylogenetic Investigation of Communities by Reconstruction of Unobserved States (PICRUSt) indicated that the abundance of genes associated with butyrate metabolism positively correlated with butyrate amounts. Thus, our metabologenomic approach is expected to provide new insights and understanding of intestinal metabolic dynamics in complex microbial ecosystems.Entities:
Keywords: American diet; CE-TOFMS; intestinal microbiota; metabologenomics; metabolome; microbiome; multi-omics; next-generation sequencing
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30562947 PMCID: PMC6321133 DOI: 10.3390/ijms19124079
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Mol Sci ISSN: 1422-0067 Impact factor: 5.923
Figure 1Overview of metabologenomic analysis workflow. Steps used for evaluation of metabolome profiles are summarized in the top row (yellow shading). This process starts with measurement of the amount of fecal metabolites to obtain profiles for the 100–200 metabolites. These metabolome profiles then are compared using Principal Component Analysis (PCA), discriminant analysis, and pathway analysis. Steps used for evaluation of microbiome profiles are summarized in the bottom row (pink shading). This process starts with the sequencing of the community’s 16S rRNA-encoding genes to clarify the relative abundance of operational taxonomic units (OTUs). Microbial memberships and structures are compared using UniFrac principal coordinate analysis (PCoA) and discriminant analysis. Additionally, Phylogenetic Investigation of Communities by Reconstruction of Unobserved States (PICRUSt) is used to predict metagenomic profiles. Steps for metabologenomic analysis are summarized in the central part of the figure (middle row; orange shading). The PCoA and/or PCA plots are used for Procrustes analyses. The relative abundances of microbial taxonomy and/or metagenome profiles and amounts of metabolites then are used for correlation analysis and network analysis.
Figure 2AD consumption alters intestinal metabolome profiles in mouse. (A) Heatmap showing the concentrations of quantified metabolites using a rainbow scheme. Gray indicates the concentrations of metabolites that fell below the detection limit. Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) pathways that each metabolite belongs to are shown to the right of the heatmap. Labels at the top of the panel indicate dietary group and mouse age (in weeks); (B) PCA of the intestinal metabolome profiles normalized by Pareto and analysis of similarity (ANOSIM). The ellipse denotes the 95% significance limit of the model, as defined by Hotelling’s t-test; (C) Bar graph showing PC2 values for metabolites that had |PC2 coefficients| > 0.11 in loading of PCA; (D) Bar graph showing OPLS-DA covariance values for metabolites that had |OPLS-DA covariance| > 0.16 based on OPLS-DA of metabolome profiles of control and AD mice. The model resulted in one predictive and one orthogonal four components with the cross-validated predictive ability Q2 (cum) = 0.863 and the total explained variance R2X (cum) = 0.791; (E) Box plots indicating fecal amounts of metabolites that had |PC2 coefficient values| > 0.11 in PCA, |OPLS-DA covariance values| > 0.16 in OPLS-DA, and false discovery rate (FDR) < 0.05 based on Mann–Whitney U test and Benjamini-Hochberg correction when comparing between the control and AD groups. Significant differences are indicated by * FDR < 0.05, ** FDR < 0.01.
Metabolic pathways significantly changed in AD compared to control as assessed by MSEA.
| Pathway | Total 1 | Hits 2 | Expect 3 | Fold Change 4 | Hit Metabolites | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Methionine Metabolism | 43 | 11 | 3.44 | 3.20 | <0.001 | AMP, Adenosine, |
| Glycine and Serine Metabolism | 59 | 11 | 4.72 | 2.33 | 0.005 | AMP, Creatine, |
| Purine Metabolism | 74 | 11 | 5.93 | 1.85 | 0.028 | Adenine, AMP, Adenosine, Gly, Guanine, Guanosine, Hypoxanthine, Xanthine, dAMP, ADP-ribose, ADP |
| Thiamine Metabolism | 9 | 3 | 0.72 | 4.16 | 0.029 | AMP, Thiamine, ADP |
| Alanine Metabolism | 17 | 4 | 1.36 | 2.94 | 0.041 | AMP, Gly, Ala, ADP |
1 Total numbers of metabolites that corresponded in each pathway. 2 Observed numbers of metabolites that derived from given dataset in each pathway. 3 Expected observed numbers of metabolites that are calculated by given dataset in each pathway. 4 Hits/expect.
Figure 3AD consumption alters intestinal microbiome profiles. (A) Bar graph showing the relative abundance of top 10 most-abundant genera (average abundance in all samples >1%) in control and AD mice; (B) Unweighted and (C) weighted UniFrac PCoA and ANOSIM comparing the intestinal microbiome profiles of control and AD mice; (D) Bar graph showing bacterial genera that had |OPLS-DA covariance| > 0.11 based on OPLS-DA of the microbiome profiles of control and AD mice. The model resulted in one predictive and one orthogonal four components with the cross-validated predictive ability Q2 (cum) = 0.832 and the total explained variance R2X (cum) = 0.918; (E) Box plots indicating relative abundance of genera that have |LDA score| > 2.0, |OPLS-DA covariance| > 0.11 in OPLS-DA, and FDR < 0.05 based on Mann–Whitney U test and Benjamini-Hochberg correction between the control and AD groups. Significant differences are indicated by * FDR < 0.05, ** FDR < 0.01.
Relative abundance of microbial taxa that differ significantly between control and AD mice.
| Taxon | Control | AD | FDR | Fold Change | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean ± S.D. | Mean ± S.D. | (AD/Control) | |||
| Unclassified Erysipelotrichaceae | 0.339 ± 0.302 | 0.042 ± 0.056 | 0.0020 | 0.0190 | 0.13 |
| [Eubacterium] | 0.007 ± 0.009 | 0.002 ± 0.003 | 0.0022 | 0.0196 | 0.24 |
| Unclassified Clostridiaceae | 0.681 ± 0.279 | 0.173 ± 0.109 | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | 0.25 |
| Unclassified RF39 | 0.149 ± 0.074 | 0.038 ± 0.026 | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | 0.26 |
|
| 0.055 ± 0.056 | 0.018 ± 0.013 | 0.0004 | 0.0048 | 0.32 |
|
| 2.043 ± 1.070 | 1.006 ± 0.661 | 0.0003 | 0.0037 | 0.49 |
| Unclassified S24-7 | 38.452 ± 13.486 | 27.053 ± 13.126 | 0.0050 | 0.0336 | 0.70 |
| Unclassified Prevotellaceae | 3.059 ± 1.890 | 4.913 ± 2.817 | 0.0044 | 0.0336 | 1.61 |
|
| 1.840 ± 1.258 | 3.559 ± 1.631 | 0.0002 | 0.0026 | 1.93 |
| Unclassified Clostridiales | 0.536 ± 0.409 | 1.052 ± 0.561 | 0.0006 | 0.0066 | 1.96 |
|
| 0.389 ± 0.309 | 0.832 ± 0.728 | 0.0044 | 0.0336 | 2.14 |
|
| 0.221 ± 0.135 | 0.609 ± 0.305 | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | 2.75 |
| Unclassified Bacillaceae | 0.001 ± 0.002 | 0.015 ± 0.031 | 0.0049 | 0.0336 | 23.62 |
|
| 0.000 ± 0.000 | 0.007 ± 0.011 | 0.0002 | 0.0026 | - |
|
| 0.000 ± 0.000 | 0.093 ± 0.086 | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | - |
Figure 4Metabologenomic approach reveals the interactions among abundances of microbial genus, predicted gene set, and metabolite concentration. (A) Procrustes analysis combining PCA of intestinal metabolome profiles (end of white line) and weighted UniFrac PCoA of microbiome profiles (end of orange line). The fit of Procrustes transformation over the first three dimensions is reported as the M2 value; Autocorrelation maps of (B) metabolites, (C) bacterial genera, and (D) predicted bacterial gene sets (KEGG pathway) based on Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients. Red and blue indicate positive and negative correlation, respectively. Hierarchical clustering based on Euclidean distance was used to separate each metabolite/genus/gene set into clusters shown as side bars (to the right of the respective panels); (E) Bacterial genera, predicted gene sets, and metabolites that differed significantly between control and AD were assessed by network analysis. The pairs that yielded significant correlation between each bacterial genus, predicted gene set, and metabolites based on Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients (FDR < 0.05) are portrayed in this network graph. Node shapes denote the type of dataset (circle, metabolites; triangle, genera; square, predicted gene set). Green and red outline colors of nodes denote significantly higher abundance in control or AD group, respectively. Inside color of nodes indicate the clusters defined in Figure 4B–D. Pink and light blue lines denote positive and negative correlation, respectively. Positive correlations (F) between relative abundances of Oscillospira/Ruminococcus and butyrate amount (r = 0.638, FDR < 0.001 for Oscillospira; r = 0.622, FDR < 0.001 for Ruminococcus), (G) between relative abundance of Oscillospira/Ruminococcus, and abundance of genes associated with butyrate metabolism (r = 0.894, FDR < 0.001 for Oscillospira; r = 0.805, FDR < 0.001 for Ruminococcus), and (H) between abundance of genes associated with butyrate metabolism and butyrate concentration (r = 0.587, FDR < 0.001).