| Literature DB >> 30845929 |
Luz A González-Hernández1,2, Mariana Del Rocio Ruiz-Briseño1,3, Karina Sánchez-Reyes1, Monserrat Alvarez-Zavala1, Natali Vega-Magaña1, Alvaro López-Iñiguez1, Julio A Díaz-Ramos4, Pedro Martínez-Ayala1,2, R A Soria-Rodriguez1, Moises Ramos-Solano5, Jaime F Andrade-Villanueva6,7.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The study of stool microbiota has taken great relevance in the last years, given its role in the maintenance of the intestinal metabolic, physiological, and immunological homeostasis, as well as, its effect over HIV biomarkers levels such as CD4/CD8 ratio, high sensitivity C-Reactive Protein (hs-CRP), related to poor outcomes (rapid progression to AIDS). Several efforts have been made to characterize the gut microbiome. In HIV infection, most of the studies report the presence of a dysbiotic pattern; however, few of them have made an approach in elderly HIV-positive subjects despite the fact that nowadays this subgroup is rising. In this study, we compared the composition of faecal microbiota, Short Chain Fatty Acids (SCFAs), and systemic biomarkers between elderly HIV-positive and HIV-negative subjects.Entities:
Keywords: Biomarkers; Elderly population; HIV-infection; SCFAs; Stool microbiota
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30845929 PMCID: PMC6407185 DOI: 10.1186/s12879-019-3867-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Infect Dis ISSN: 1471-2334 Impact factor: 3.090
Information of the oligonucleotides used for the qPCR analysis
| Primer | Sequence (5′-3′) | Temp. (°C) | Prod. size (bp) | Reference | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 16S rRNA | 16S-F | AGTTTGATCCTGGCTCAG | 62 | 500 | González et al.; 2012 |
| 16S-R | GWATTACCGCGGCKGCTG | ||||
| Bacteroidetes | Bact-F | GGARCATGTGGTTTAATTCGATGAT | 63 | 126 | Guo et al.; 2008 |
| Bact-R | AGCTGACGACAACCATGCAG | ||||
| Firmicutes | Firm-F | GGAGYATGTGGTTTAATTCGAAGCA | 63 | 126 | Guo et al.; 2008 |
| Firm-R | AGCTGACGACAACCATGCAC | ||||
| Proteobacterias | Prot-F | TCGTCAGCTCGTGTYGTGA | 56 | 170 | Bacchetti De Gregoris et al.; 2011 |
| Prot-R | CGTAAGGGCCATGATG | ||||
| Actinobacterias | Acti-F | TACGGCCGCAAGGCTA | 57 | 170 | Liang et al.; 2016 |
| Acti-R | TCRTCCCCACCTTCCTCCG | ||||
| Lactobacillus (genero) | Lacto-F | GCGGTGAAATTCCAAACG | 56 | 216 | Hermann et al.; 2013 |
| Lacto-R | GGGACCTTAACTGGTGAT | ||||
| Bifidobacterium | Bifi-F | CGGGTGAGTAATGCGTGACC | 56 | 139 | Furet et al.; 2009 |
| Bifi-R | TGATAGGACGCGACCCCA | ||||
|
| Clep-F | CCTTCCGTGCCGSAGTTA | 60 | 115 | Furet et al.; 2009 |
| Clep-R | GAATTAAACCACATACTCCACTGCTT | ||||
|
| Ccoc-F | GACGCCGCGTGAAGGA | 56 | 199 | Furet et al.; 2009 |
| Ccoc-R | AGCCCCAGCCTTTCACATC | ||||
Demographic and clinical HIV patients and control group characteristics
| HIV-negative ( | HIV-positive ( | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 68 ± 5 | 57 ± 5 | |
| Gender | |||
| Male | 11 (61.1%) | 16 (80.0%) | |
| Female | 7 (38.9%) | 4 (20.0%) | |
| CD4 T cells count; cell/μL | – | 409 (IQR: 279,744) | – |
| CD4 nadir T cells count; cell/μL | – | 74 (IQR: 39,220) | – |
| CD4/CD8 ratio | – | 0.71 (IQR: 0.37,1.16) | – |
| HIV-1 viral load; copies/μL | – | 34 ± 9.4 | – |
| Tobacco Use: | |||
| No risk | 3 (16.7%) | 5 (25.0%) | |
| Moderate | 4 (22.2%) | 1 (5.0%) | |
| Moderate/intense | 2 (11.1%) | 1 (5.0%) | |
| High | 1 (5.6%) | 1 (5.0%) | |
| No consumption | 8 (44.4%) | 12 (60.0%) | |
| Alcohol use | |||
| Yes | 10 (55.6%) | 5 (25.0%) | |
| No | 8 (44.4%) | 15 (75.0%) | |
| Drugs antecedent | |||
| Yes | 1 (5.6%) | 13 (65.0%) | |
| No | 17 (94.4%) | 7 (35.0%) | |
| Body Mass Index | |||
| Normal | 8 (44.4%) | 11 (55.0%) | |
| Overweight | 10 (55.6%) | 9 (45.0%) | |
| Waist diameter | |||
| Men | |||
| < 90 cm | 6 (54.5%) | 8 (50.0%) | |
| ≥ 90 cm | 5 (45.5%) | 8 (50.0%) | |
| Women | |||
| < 80 cm | 2 (28.6%) | 1 (25.0%) | |
| ≥ 80 cm | 5 (71.4%) | 3 (75.0%) | |
| Hypertension | |||
| Yes | 1 (5.6%) | 2 (10.0%) | |
| No | 17 (94.4%) | 18 (90.0%) | |
| Hypercholesterolemia | |||
| Yes | 8 (55.6%) | 11 (55.0%) | |
| No | 10 (44.4%) | 8 (40.0%) | |
| Unknown | – | 1 (5.0%) | |
| Depression PHQ-9 | |||
| Yes | 1 (5.6%) | 1 (5.0%) | |
| No | 17 (94.4%) | 19 (95.0%) | |
| IBS QoL | 2.8 ± 1.8 | 2.9 ± 1.8 | |
| VACS | 15.9 ± 9.3 | – | |
| Fragility score | |||
| No-fragility | 9 (50) | 5 (25.0) | |
| Pre-fragility | 4 (22.2) | 14 (70.0) | |
| Fragility | 5 (27.8) | 1 (5.0) | |
| Albumin; g/dL | 4.1 ± 0.4 | 4.3 ± 0.5 | |
| hs-CRP; μg/mL | 3.5 ± 2.19 | 2.12 ± 2.05 | |
| sCD14; ng/mL | 1131.0 (887.1–1559.3) | 819.7 (739.6–1030.2) | |
| SCFAs; mM | |||
| Total | 46.17 ± 12.9 | 57.12 ± 13.49 | |
| Acetic acid | 3.86 ± 3.79 | 1.52 ± 1.9 | |
| Propionic acid | 41.07 ± 15.62 | 55.05 ± 14.25 | |
| Butyric acid | 0.99 ± 1.55 | 0.32 ± 0.41 | |
| Firmicutes/Bacteroidetes ratio | 1.7 ± 0.62 | 2.37 ± 0.92 | |
aStudent’s t-test, bFisher exact, cChi square, dU of Mann-Whitney test
Fig. 1Intestinal bacterial populations assessment by qPCR. Bacterial phylum detections in HIV-positive and HIV-negative elderly subjects were performed by calculation of the delta CT values between tested experimental gene and reference gene. a) Universal 16S rRNA raw data. b) Actinobacteria, c) Bacteroidetes, d) Firmicutes, and e) Proteobacteria, results were expressed as mean ± SD
Fig. 2Intestinal commensal bacterial assessment in HIV-positive and HIV-negative elderly subjects. Bacterial determinations were performed by calculation of the delta CT values between tested experimental gene and reference gene a) Bifidobacterium spp, b) Lactobacillus spp, c) Clostridium coccoides, and d) Clostridium leptum, results were expressed as mean ± SD
Fig. 3Short Chain Fatty Acids assessment in HIV-positive and HIV-negative elderly subjects. SCFAs levels in faecal samples were determined by HPLC. The figure shows total levels of SCFAs and separate levels of acetic, propionic, and butyric acids. Results were expressed as mean ± SD
Fig. 4hs-CRP and sCD14 levels in HIV-positive and HIV negative subjects. Serum samples were submitted to sandwich enzyme immunoassay technique (CUSABIO®). a) hs-CRP serum levels, b) sCD14 serum levels, and c) Spearman correlation between hs-CRP and sCD14 in HIV positive subjects Results were expressed as the mean ± SD