| Literature DB >> 31595156 |
Fang Liu1, Jingjing Li2, Yubin Guan3, Yanfeng Lou1, Huiying Chen2, Mingyu Xu2, Dequan Deng1, Jun Chen1, Beibei Ni4, Lan Zhao5, Hongwei Li2, Hong Sang1, Xiangsheng Cai1,3.
Abstract
Lung cancer is a malignancy with high morbidity and mortality worldwide. More evidences indicated that gut microbiome plays an important role in the carcinogenesis and progression of cancers by metabolism, inflammation and immune response. However, the study about the characterizations of gut microbiome in lung cancer is limited. In this study, the fecal samples were collected from 16 healthy individuals and 30 lung cancer patients who were divided into 3 groups based on different tumor biomarkers (cytokeratin 19 fragment, neuron specific enolase and carcinoembryonic antigen, respectively) and were analyzed using 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing. Each lung cancer group has characterized gut microbial community and presents an elimination, low-density, and loss of bacterial diversity microbial ecosystem compared to that of the healthy control. The microbiome structures in family and genera levels are more complex and significantly varied from each group presenting more different and special pathogen microbiome such as Enterobacteriaceae, Streptococcus, Prevotella, etc and fewer probiotic genera including Blautia, Coprococcus, Bifidobacterium and Lachnospiraceae. The Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) and COG annotation demonstrated decreased abundance of some dominant metabolism-related pathways in the lung cancer. This study explores for the first time the features of gut microbiome in lung cancer patients and may provide new insight into the pathogenesis of lung cancer system, with the implication that gut microbiota may serve as a microbial marker and contribute to the derived metabolites, development and differentiation in lung cancer system. © The author(s).Entities:
Keywords: 16SrRNAsequencing; Carcinoembryonic antigen; Cytokeratin 19 fragment; Fecal; Gut microbiome; Lung cancer; Neuron specific enolase
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31595156 PMCID: PMC6775324 DOI: 10.7150/ijbs.35980
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Biol Sci ISSN: 1449-2288 Impact factor: 6.580
Descriptive data of included subjects in the study
| Groups(n) | Gender(M/F) | Age | Weight | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD | ||||
| CYFRA (n=10) | 7/3 | 60.4 ± 12.2 | 56.45 ± 8.42 | ||
| CEA (n=11) | 6/5 | 56.82 ± 10.08 | 58.95 ± 10.42 | ||
| NSE (n=9) | 8/1 | 62.39 ± 9.20 | 56.67 ± 10.43 | ||
| Control (n=16) | 9/7 | 59.12 ± 7.76 | 60.44 ± 8.03 | ||
Figure 1(A) The species tree and distribution of gut microbial community. (B) Venn diagrams shared OTUs between different groups.
Figure 2The taxonomic profile demonstrated the OTUs are assigned to prevalent microbiome of Firmicutes, Bacteroidetes, Acidobacteria and Proteobacteria at phylum level.
Figure 3(A) Taxonomic summary of the gut microbiota of four groups at family level. (B) The comparison of relative abundant microbiome at family level between each group.
Figure 4(A) LEfSe comparison of gut microbiota among CYF, NSE, CEA and Control groups. (B) Taxonomic summary of the gut microbiota of four groups at genera level.
Figure 5The comparison of gut microbiota alpha diversity between each group, including species richness (represented by Chao1, observed species) and evenness (represented by Shannon and Simpson index). Microbial community showed that the NSE and CEA group had less diversity, richness and evenness than the control group, whereas the CYF group showed a similar trend without significance compared to healthy control. Starred samples (*) were used to demonstrate the significant difference between the group.
Figure 6(A) Principal coordinate analysis, Principle coordinate analysis, (B) Non-metric multi-dimensional scaling (C) and Analysis of similarities (D) illustrating the grouping patterns of the CYF, NSE, CEA and control groups based on the Bray-Curtis and Unweighted UniFrac Distances. Each dot represents a sample, and the corresponding group can be found in the legend. Distances between any pair of samples represent the dissimilarities between each sample. There was significant difference in β-diversity between the four groups.
Figure 7(A) KEGG pathway was less abundant in lung cancer groups than healthy control. (B) COG pathway was less abundant in lung cancer groups than healthy control.