| Literature DB >> 32051205 |
Yun Kit Yeoh1,2, Zigui Chen1,2, Martin C S Wong1,3, Mamie Hui1,2, Jun Yu1,4, Siew C Ng1,4, Joseph J Y Sung4, Francis K L Chan1,4, Paul K S Chan5,2.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Fusobacteria are not common nor relatively abundant in non-colorectal cancer (CRC) populations, however, we identified multiple Fusobacterium taxa nearly absent in western and rural populations to be comparatively more prevalent and relatively abundant in southern Chinese populations. We investigated whether these represented known or novel lineages in the Fusobacterium genus, and assessed their genomes for features implicated in development of cancer.Entities:
Keywords: colonic bacteria; colorectal cancer; intestinal microbiology
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32051205 PMCID: PMC7569397 DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2019-319635
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Gut ISSN: 0017-5749 Impact factor: 23.059
Figure 1Microbial community composition of the typical human gut. (A) Average relative abundances of microbial phyla detected in human stool metagenomes from the HKGutMicMap cohort (this study) and previously described non-colorectal cancer (CRC) individuals from various geographical backgrounds. (B) Average relative abundances of fusobacterial species. The stacked bars represent cohorts from: Hong Kong (HKGutMicMap and two others),2 29 Austria,4 China,30 31 Denmark,32 France, Germany,5 Israel,33 Spain,32 Sweden34 35 and the USA,3 27 as well as several rural populations from El Salvador, Peru,36 Fiji,37 Mongolia38 and Tanzania.39 40 Relative abundances were calculated using MetaPhlAn2 on quality-filtered metagenome sequences. Values shown in (B) for fusobacterial species are percentages of the total community. For case-control studies with CRC cohorts,2–5 29 only non-CRC individuals were included in the calculation of relative abundances.
Prevalence and average relative abundances of fusobacterial species in non-CRC subjects
| Country |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Hong Kong (China) | ||||||||
| Prevalence (%) | 0.384 | 15.493 | 0.128 | 4.609 | 0.640 | 0.128 | 9.475 | 13.828 |
| Relative abundance (%) | 0.000 | 0.236 | 0.000 | 0.002 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.025 | 0.044 |
| Shenzhen (China) | ||||||||
| Prevalence (%) | 0.000 | 10.526 | 0.000 | 13.158 | 7.895 | 0.000 | 23.684 | 39.474 |
| Relative abundance (%) | 0.000 | 0.299 | 0.000 | 0.001 | 0.001 | 0.000 | 0.077 | 0.167 |
| Zhejiang (China) | ||||||||
| Prevalence (%) | 0.000 | 30.345 | 0.000 | 0.690 | 0.690 | 0.000 | 10.345 | 6.207 |
| Relative abundance (%) | 0.000 | 0.525 | 0.000 | 0.001 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.030 | 0.003 |
| Israel | ||||||||
| Prevalence (%) | 2.667 | 0.667 | 0.000 | 3.333 | 0.667 | 0.000 | 2.000 | 0.000 |
| Relative abundance (%) | 0.007 | 0.013 | 0.000 | 0.006 | 0.001 | 0.000 | 0.009 | 0.000 |
| Austria | ||||||||
| Prevalence (%) | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Relative abundance (%) | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Denmark | ||||||||
| Prevalence (%) | 0.565 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.565 | 0.565 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Relative abundance (%) | 0.005 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| France | ||||||||
| Prevalence (%) | 1.639 | 1.639 | 0.000 | 1.639 | 1.639 | 0.000 | 1.639 | 0.000 |
| Relative abundance (%) | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.024 | 0.000 |
| Germany | ||||||||
| Prevalence (%) | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Relative abundance (%) | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Spain | ||||||||
| Prevalence (%) | 4.110 | 1.826 | 1.370 | 6.849 | 3.196 | 0.000 | 1.370 | 0.000 |
| Relative abundance (%) | 0.085 | 0.130 | 0.000 | 0.085 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.032 | 0.000 |
| Sweden | ||||||||
| Prevalence (%) | 2.098 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 1.399 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.699 | 0.000 |
| Relative abundance (%) | 0.003 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| USA | ||||||||
| Prevalence (%) | 0.980 | 1.471 | 0.000 | 2.451 | 2.941 | 0.000 | 2.941 | 0.490 |
| Relative abundance (%) | 0.000 | 0.010 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| El Salvador | ||||||||
| Prevalence (%) | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Relative abundance (%) | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Fiji | ||||||||
| Prevalence (%) | 4.545 | 6.818 | 0.000 | 1.705 | 2.273 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Relative abundance (%) | 0.003 | 0.039 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Mongolia | ||||||||
| Prevalence (%) | 0.000 | 2.727 | 0.000 | 0.909 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Relative abundance (%) | 0.000 | 0.030 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Peru | ||||||||
| Prevalence (%) | 1.299 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Relative abundance (%) | 0.001 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Tanzania | ||||||||
| Prevalence (%) | 1.493 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 1.493 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Relative abundance (%) | 0.011 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.002 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
CRC, colorectal cancer.
Figure 2Phylogenetic tree showing evolutionary relationships among 218 fusobacterial genomes. Seven Cetobacterium genomes serve as outgroup to root the tree. Genomes in this figure are from a dereplicated set of 676 fusobacterial and Cetobacterium genomes assembled from gut metagenomes from Hong Kong (HKGutMicMap, Yu et al 2 and Coker et al 29) and other regions,42–44 and reference genomes downloaded from RefSeq (release 89). Reference genomes obtained from RefSeq are labelled with their corresponding accession numbers, while metagenome-assembled genomes have branch labels showing their country of origin (those from Hong Kong are in red text). All 676 genomes were >90% complete and had <5% contamination based on the lineage workflow in CheckM,51 and were dereplicated using dRep53 to highlight existing genome diversity of the Fusobacterium genus in this figure. A concatenated amino acid alignment was produced to infer taxonomy of the genomes according to the genome taxonomy database (GTDB),52 and subsequently used to construct maximum likelihood trees using RAxML.54 Four major monophyletic clades in the Fusobacterium genus are shaded and denoted with suffixes according to the GTDB. Branch colours are intended to delineate species boundaries (indicated by labels) and do not represent any taxa in particular; genomes without species designations have black branches. Black circles at nodes represent 100% bootstrap support unless otherwise indicated (no less than 90% bootstrap). Scale bar indicates number of amino acid substitutions per site.
Figure 3Distribution of FadA and Fap2 homologues in the Fusobacterium genus. Red and blue ticks next to branch tips indicate detection of FadA and Fap2 homologues, respectively, in the corresponding genomes. Homologues were identified using the eggNOG-mapper58 with reference to the eggNOG database V.5.0. This phylogenetic tree consists of 663 fusobacterial and 13 Cetobacterium genomes assembled from gut metagenomes from Hong Kong (HKGutMicMap cohort from this study, Yu et al 2 and Coker et al 29 cohorts) and other regions,42–44 and reference genomes downloaded from RefSeq (release 89). Reference genomes obtained from RefSeq are labelled with their corresponding accession numbers, while metagenome-assembled genomes are labelled with bin IDs. Genomes from Hong Kong have labels in red. All genomes were >90% complete and had <5% contamination based on the lineage workflow in CheckM.51 A concatenated amino acid alignment was produced to infer taxonomy of the genomes according to the genome taxonomy database (GTDB),52 and subsequently used to construct maximum likelihood trees using RAxML.54 Four major monophyletic clades in the Fusobacterium genus are shaded and denoted with suffixes according to the GTDB. Branch colours are intended to delineate species boundaries (indicated by labels) and do not represent any taxa in particular; genomes without species designations have black branches. Scale bar indicates number of amino acid substitutions per site.
Figure 4Phylogenetic relationships of FadA protein homologues identified in fusobacterial genomes. Figure shows a maximum-likelihood tree of aligned amino acid sequences of FadA homologues rooted at the midpoint. Each tip represents a homologue and is coloured according to species of the genome homologues were found in. Text labels next to tree tips indicate the corresponding seed orthologues in the eggNOG database. Background shading is according to the four major monophyletic clades identified in the genome-based phylogenetic tree in figure 2. Scale bars indicate amino acid substitutions per site.