| Literature DB >> 32169051 |
Xiaofang Hu1,2, Jie Du1,2, Yuhong Xie1,2, Qiong Huang1,2, Yi Xiao1,2, Juan Chen3, Siyuan Yan3, Zhicheng Gong4,5, Shaxi Ouyang6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Growing evidence has shown that the gut-renal connection and gut microbiota dysbiosis play a critical role in immunoglobulin A nephropathy (IgAN). However, the fecal microbiome profile in Chinese patients with IgAN remains unknown. A cross-sectional study was designed for the first time to investigate the fecal microbiota compositions in patients with primary IgAN in China and to evaluate the relationship between the fecal microbiome and IgAN clinical presentation.Entities:
Keywords: Bacterial diversity; Fecal microbiota; Gut microbiota dysbiosis; Immunoglobulin A nephropathy
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32169051 PMCID: PMC7071635 DOI: 10.1186/s12882-020-01741-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Nephrol ISSN: 1471-2369 Impact factor: 2.388
Clinical and demographic features of IgAN patients and healthy controls
| Healthy group ( | IgAN group ( | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Sex (Female/Male) | 4/14 | 3/14 | 0.735 |
| Age (years) | 49.72 ± 8.39 | 44.76 ± 10.53 | 0.132 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 23.16 ± 1.39 | 22.18 ± 2.09 | 0.108 |
| CysC (mg/L) | 0.55 ± 0.08 | 0.82 ± 0.43 | 0.011 |
| BUN (mmol/L) | 4.88 ± 0.99 | 5.64 ± 2.29 | 0.208 |
| Scr (μmol/L) | 56.35 ± 8.65 | 101.43 ± 87.04 | 0.036 |
| eGFR (ml/min/1.73m2) | 107.13 ± 12.52 | 83.16 ± 32.49 | 0.006 |
| uACR (mg/g) | 9.61 ± 3.00 | 949.49 ± 814.11 | 0.000 |
| GLU (mmol/L) | 5.03 ± 0.54 | 5.08 ± 0.51 | 0.764 |
| TC (mmol/L) | 4.43 ± 0.71 | 4.84 ± 0.99 | 0.160 |
| TG (mmol/L) | 1.29 ± 0.23 | 1.54 ± 0.62 | 0.119 |
| CRP | 0.47 ± 0.29 | 1.12 ± 1.17 | 0.030 |
| Frequency of pathologic features (percentages) in 17 biopsies scored according to Oxford Classification | |||
| mesangial hypercellularity (M) M0 = 12% M1 = 88% | |||
| endocapillary hypercellularity (E) E0 = 88% E1 = 12% | |||
| segmental glomerulosclerosis (S) S0 = 71% S1 = 29% | |||
| tubular atrophy/interstitial fibrosis (T) T0 = 76% T1 = 18% T2 = 6% | |||
Note: Results are expressed as the mean ± SD and ratio. Abbreviations: SD standard deviation; BMI body mass index; CysC Cystatin C; BUN blood urea nitrogen; Cr creatinine; eGFR estimated glomerular filtration rate; uACR urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio; GLU glucose; TC total cholesterol; TG Triglyceride; CRP C-reactive protein
Frequency list of dietary habits in IgAN patients and healthy controls
| Healthy group (F/S/O/N) | IgAN group (F/S/O/N) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Refined carbohydrates | 13/3/2/0 | 12/4/1/0 | 0.783 |
| Meats and Eggs | 10/6/2/0 | 11/4/2/0 | 0.811 |
| Dairy products | 8/6/2/2 | 7/5/2/3 | 0.954 |
| Vegetables and fruits | 14/3/1/0 | 13/2/2/0 | 0.763 |
| intotal | 18 | 17 |
Note: F frequently; S sometimes; O occasionally; N none;
Fig. 1Comparison of diversity indexes between the IgAN patients and healthy controls. (a) The differences of α-diversity indexes (Chao1, ACE, Observed species, and Shannon index) between the IgAN patients and healthy controls. (b) Principal coordinates analysis (PCoA) with weighted UniFrac distance for bacterial communities between the IgAN patients and healthy controls. (c) Analysis of similarities (ANOSIM) based on the weighted UniFrac distance between the IgAN patients and healthy controls
Fig. 2Relative abundance and taxonomic differences of fecal microbiota in the IgAN patients and healthy controls. (a) Microbiome composition in the two groups at the phylum level. (b) Microbiome composition in the two groups at the genus level. The figure shows the top 10 species in each group based on their relative abundances. (c) The predictive model based on the relative abundances at genus level by using a RF model. The importance of each genus in the predictive model was evaluated by the mean decreasing accuracy and the Gini coefficient. (d) ROC curve analysis generated by the RF using 7 genera in the fecal microbiota
Relative abundance of fecal microbiota in IgAN patients and healthy controls
| Healthy group | IgAN group | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Phylum level | |||
| 0.2269 | 2.2622 | 0.031 | |
| 0.0297 | 0.0097 | 0.026 | |
| Family level | |||
| 5.9760 | 12.4897 | 0.031 | |
| 0.0297 | 0.0097 | 0.026 | |
| Genus level | |||
| 3.0358 | 8.8629 | 0.048 | |
| 2.5503 | 0.9346 | 0.018 | |
| 0.5212 | 0.2121 | 0.021 | |
| 0.3045 | 0.0806 | 0.024 | |
| 0.1767 | 0.1188 | 0.011 | |
| 0.2161 | 7.059e-05 | 0.003 | |
| 0.1134 | 0.05403 | 0.007 | |
| 0.0062 | 0.1444 | 0.026 | |
| 0.1037 | 0 | 0.002 | |
| 0.0414 | 0.0187 | 0.014 | |
| 0.0156 | 0.0417 | 0.001 | |
| 0.0293 | 0.0089 | 0.004 | |
Note: Only P-values < 0.05 are shown
Fig. 3Heatmaps showing correlations between fecal microbiota and IgAN clinical parameters. (a) Correlations between microbiota phyla and IgAN clinical characteristics. (b) Correlations between microbiota genera and IgAN clinical characteristics. The intensity of the color indicates the r value (correlation). The red color represent positive score and the blue color represent negative score. *P < 0.05 and **P < 0.01
Fig. 4Predicted microbial functions using Tax4fun. (a) The top 20 KOs with significantly different abundances between the IgAN patients and healthy controls. (b) Significant KEGG pathways at level 2 and 3 between the IgAN patients and healthy controls. *P < 0.05 and **P < 0.01