| Literature DB >> 31675917 |
Gabriela Guimaraes Sousa Leite1, Walter Morales1, Stacy Weitsman1, Shreya Celly1, Gonzalo Parodi1, Ruchi Mathur1,2, Rashin Sedighi1, Gillian M Barlow1, Ali Rezaie1,3, Mark Pimentel4,5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The human small intestine plays a central role in the processes of digestion and nutrient absorption. However, characterizations of the human gut microbiome have largely relied on stool samples, and the associated methodologies are ill-suited for the viscosity and low microbial biomass of small intestine samples. As part of the REIMAGINE study to examine the specific roles of the small bowel microbiome in human health and disease, this study aimed to develop and validate methodologies to optimize microbial analysis of the small intestine.Entities:
Keywords: 16S rRNA gene sequencing; Methodology optimization; Microbial culture; Microbiome; Mucus layer; Small intestine
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31675917 PMCID: PMC6824053 DOI: 10.1186/s12866-019-1617-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Microbiol ISSN: 1471-2180 Impact factor: 3.605
Fig. 1Workflow for pretreatment and microbial culture, including the number of subjects in each group
Fig. 2Workflow for DNA extraction and 16S rRNA gene sequencing of duodenal aspirate (DA) samples, including the number of subjects in each group
Fig. 3Final quantification of 16S libraries from DA-U (N = 112) and DA-DTT (N = 43) samples after 35 PCR cycles. The Mann-Whitney test was used to compare the median value of groups
Fig. 4Sunburst representation of the overall distribution of the small intestinal microbiome as determined by 16S rRNA sequencing. On the left: Relative microbial abundance detected in DA-U (no pretreatment, N = 112). On the right: Relative microbial abundance detected in DA-DTT (pretreatment with DTT, N = 43)
Differential abundance of the top six phyla in DA-DTT versus DA-U
| DA-DTT (n = 43) versus DA-U ( | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Taxonomy | Average Relative abundance % | Average Relative abundance % | Fold Change | FDR | |
| Firmicutes | 49.3 | 62.25 | 1.05 | 0.65 | 0.70 |
| Proteobacteria | 28.97 | 14.8 | 6.22 |
|
|
| Actinobacteria | 8.91 | 12.02 | −1.23 | 0.21 | 0.42 |
| Fusobacteria | 5.36 | 3.93 | 1.96 |
|
|
| Bacteroidetes | 6.16 | 4.63 | 2.19 |
|
|
| TM7 | 1.17 | 1.86 | −1.34 | 0.32 | 0.48 |
P-value< 0.05 and FDR P-value< 0.05 are shown in bold. aThe relative abundances were calculated from the original counts (number of sequences in the OTU table). bFold changes were calculated from the GLM, which corrects for differences in library size between the samples and the effects of confounding factors. It is therefore not possible to derive these fold changes from the original counts (number of sequences in the OTU table) by simple algebraic calculations
Differential abundance of anaerobic bacteria in DA-DTT versus DA-U
| DA-DTT ( | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Taxonomy | Average Relative abundance % | Average Relative abundance % | Fold Change (calculated from the GLM)b | FDR | |
| p_Firmicutes, c_Clostridia, f_Clostridiaceae, g_Clostridium | 0.032 | 0.024 | 4.06 |
|
|
| p_Firmicutes, c_Bacilli, f_Enterococcaceae, g_Enterococcus | 0.661 | 0.009 | 42.18 |
|
|
| p_Fusobacteria, c_Fusobacteriia, f_Fusobacteriaceae, g_Fusobacterium | 3.625 | 2.471 | 2.29 |
|
|
| p_Bacteroidetes, c_Bacteroidia, f_Bacteroidaceae, g_Bacteroides | 0.626 | 0.073 | 28.08 |
|
|
P-value< 0.05 and FDR P-value< 0.05 are shown in bold. aThe relative abundances were calculated from the original counts (number of sequences in the OTU table). bFold changes were calculated from the GLM, which corrects for differences in library size between the samples and the effects of confounding factors. It is therefore not possible to derive these fold changes from the original counts (number of sequences in the OTU table) by simple algebraic calculations
Differential abundance of members of the phylum Proteobacteria in DA-DTT versus DA-U
| DA-DTT ( | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Taxonomy | Average relative abundance % | Average relative abundance % | Fold Change | FDR | |
| p_Proteobacteria, c_Gammaproteobacteria | 23.823 | 10.492 | 8.44 |
|
|
| p_Proteobacteria, c_Alphaproteobacteria | 1.294 | 0.145 | 7.94 |
|
|
| p_Proteobacteria, c_Deltaproteobacteria | 0.008 | 0.001 | 6.35 |
|
|
| p_Proteobacteria, c_Betaproteobacteria | 3.569 | 4.029 | −1.26 | 0.41 | 0.56 |
| p_Proteobacteria, c_Epsilonproteobacteria | 0.281 | 0.167 | 1.74 | 0.14 | 0.29 |
P-value< 0.05 and FDR P-value< 0.05 are shown in bold. aThe relative abundances were calculated from the original counts (number of sequences in the OTU table). bFold changes were calculated from the GLM, which corrects for differences in library size between the samples and the effects of confounding factors. It is therefore not possible to derive these fold changes from the original counts (number of sequences in the OTU table) by simple algebraic calculations
Differential abundance of members of the family Enterobacteriaceae in DA-DTT versus DA-U
| DA-DTT (n = 43) vs. DA-U (n = 112) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Taxonomy | Average relative abundance % | Average relative abundance % | Fold Change | FDR | |
| c_Gammaproteobacteria, o_Enterobacteriales, f_Enterobacteriaceae | 19.193 | 6.068 | 5.46 |
|
|
| f_Enterobacteriaceae, g_unknown | 14.984 | 5.227 | 17.00 |
|
|
| f_Enterobacteriaceae, g_Klebsiella | 3.812 | 0.784 | 24.10 |
|
|
| f_Enterobacteriaceae, g_Providencia | 0.224 | 0.00025 | 13.57 |
|
|
| f_Enterobacteriaceae, g_Morganella | 0.018 | 0.006 | 36.71 |
|
|
| f_Enterobacteriaceae, g_Salmonella | 0.006 | 0.001 | 3.71 |
|
|
P-value< 0.05 and FDR P-value< 0.05 are shown in bold. aThe relative abundances were calculated from the original counts (number of sequences in the OTU table). bFold changes were calculated from the GLM, which corrects for differences in library size between the samples and the effects of confounding factors. It is therefore not possible to derive these fold changes from the original counts (number of sequences in the OTU table) by simple algebraic calculations
Fig. 5Alpha diversity rarefaction curves for DA-DTT (N = 112) and DA-U (N = 43) samples. Samples were rarefied to the least numbers of sequences obtained
Fig. 6Alpha diversity indices of DA samples pre-treated with DTT (DA-DTT, N = 112) and untreated DA (DA-U, N = 43). Left: Shannon entropy diversity for DA-DTT and DA-U samples. Right: Simpson’s index diversity for DA-DTT and DA-U samples
Fig. 7Beta diversity of DA-U and DA-DTT based on the weighted UniFrac metric. Principal Coordinates Analysis plot of binary and abundance-weighted Unifrac distances between DA-DTT (shown in orange, N = 43) and DA-U (shown in blue, N = 112)