| Literature DB >> 32204538 |
Ming-Chao Tsai1,2, Yu-Yin Liu3, Chih-Che Lin4, Chih-Chi Wang4, Yi-Ju Wu4, Chee-Chien Yong4, Kuang-Den Chen5, Seng-Kee Chuah1, Chih-Chien Yao1, Pao-Yuan Huang1, Chien-Hung Chen1, Tsung-Hui Hu1, Chao-Long Chen4.
Abstract
The gut microbiota plays a role in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), but data about gut dysbiosis in Asians with NAFLD remains scarce. We analyzed the differences in fecal microbiota between adults with and without NAFLD. This cross-sectional study examined adults with histology-proven NAFLD (25 nonalcoholic fatty liver (NAFL) patients, 25 nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) patients, and 25 living liver donors (healthy controls)). The taxonomic composition of the gut microbiota was determined by 16S ribosomal RNA gene sequencing of stool samples. The NAFL and NASH groups showed lower total bacterial diversity and richness than the controls. NAFLD patients had higher levels of the phylum Bacteroidetes and lower levels of Firmicutes than controls. The genus Ruminococcaceae UCG-010, family Ruminococcaceae, order Clostridiales, and class Clostridia were less abundant in patients with NAFL or NASH than healthy individuals. The lipopolysaccharide biosynthesis pathway was differentially enriched in the NASH group. This study examined the largest number of Asian patients with biopsy-proven NAFL and NASH in terms of dysbiosis of the gut microbiota in NAFLD patients. NAFLD patients had higher levels of Bacteroidetes and lower levels of Firmicutes. These results are different from research from western countries and could provide different targets for therapies by region.Entities:
Keywords: Ruminococcus; gut microbiota; nonalcoholic fatty liver (NAFL); nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD); nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH)
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32204538 PMCID: PMC7146257 DOI: 10.3390/nu12030820
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutrients ISSN: 2072-6643 Impact factor: 5.717
Characteristics of the study population.
| Healthy Controls | NAFLD | NAFL | NASH | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Males, n (%) | 12 (48) | 24 (48) | 1.000 | 13 (52) | 11 (44) | 0.571 |
| Age (years) | 36.7 ± 15.0 | 51.2 ± 15.0 | <0.001 | 45.8 ± 16.2 | 56.6 ± 11.6 | 0.006 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 24.8 ± 5.2 | 31.3 ± 8.9 | <0.001 | 31.2 ± 8.9 | 31.4 ± 9.0 | 0.764 |
| Diabetes mellitus, n (%) | 2 (8) | 10 (20) | 0.184 | 3 (12) | 7 (28) | 0.162 |
| Hypertension, n (%) | 1 (4) | 20 (40) | 0.001 | 8 (32) | 12 (48) | 0.253 |
| AST (U/L) | 24.4 ± 14.1 | 36.0 ± 24.0 | 0.11 | 29.0 ± 20.0 | 43.0 ± 26.0 | 0.013 |
| ALT (U/L) | 22.5 ± 15.7 | 50.2 ± 43.1 | <0.001 | 36.4 ± 31.4 | 64.0 ± 49.0 | 0.005 |
| Total bilirubin (mg/dL) | 0.6 ± 0.3 | 0.8 ± 0.4 | 0.07 | 0.7 ± 0.4 | 0.8 ± 0.4 | 0.194 |
| Albumin (g/dL) | 4.2 ± 0.4 | 4.6 ± 0.3 | <0.001 | 4.5 ± 0.3 | 4.6 ± 0.2 | 0.322 |
| Creatinine (mg/dL) | 0.7 ± 0.2 | 0.9 ± 0.8 | 0.123 | 1.0 ± 1.1 | 0.8 ± 0.2 | 0.445 |
| Total cholesterol (mg/dL) | 176.2 ± 30.1 | 199.3 ± 40.0 | 0.009 | 207.5 ± 44.0 | 191.8 ± 35.2 | 0.227 |
| Triglycerides (mg/dL) | 97.6 ± 55.0 | 148.2 ± 61.5 | <0.001 | 131.4 ± 67.5 | 163.6 ± 52.1 | 0.021 |
| Fasting glucose (mg/dL) | 94.8 ± 15.5 | 112.0 ± 28.6 | 0.001 | 105.6 ± 35.6 | 118.0 ± 24.8 | 0.008 |
| Glycohemoglobin (%) | 5.6 ± 0.5 | 6.5 ± 1.4 | <0.001 | 6.1 ± 1.4 | 6.9 ± 1.2 | 0.005 |
| Insulin (uU/mL) | 9.9 ± 9.2 | 17.3 ± 23.5 | 0.002 | 10.7 ± 5.2 | 23.2 ± 31.2 | 0.001 |
| Insulin/GLU | 0.08 ± 0.04 | 0.16 ± 0.24 | 0.012 | 0.1 ± 0.04 | 0.2 ± 0.3 | 0.004 |
| HOMA-IR | 2.0 ± 1.2 | 4.8 ± 6.1 | 0.002 | 2.7 ± 1.6 | 6.6 ± 8.0 | 0.002 |
| Steatosis (%) | 0 (0–1) | 30 (10–46.25) | <0.001 | 10 (7.5–30) | 40 (27.5–55) | <0.001 |
| Fibrosis (F0/F1/F2/F3) | 25/0/0/0 | 28/16/5/1 | <0.001 | 23/2/0/0 | 5/14/5/1 | <0.001 |
| NAS | 0 | 3 (0–4) | <0.001 | 0 (0–2) | 4 (4–5) | <0.001 |
Data are expressed as mean ± standard deviation, median (interquartile range), or number (percentage). Abbreviations: ALT, alanine aminotransferase; AST, alanine aminotransferase; BMI, body mass index; HOMA-IR, homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance; NAFLD, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease; NAFL, nonalcoholic fatty liver; NASH, nonalcoholic steatohepatitis; NAS, NAFLD activity score.
Figure 1The diversity in gut microbiota of healthy individuals and patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFL) or nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH). (A) Observed species numbers in the three groups. (B) β-diversity changes in gut microbiota across groups by the partial least squares discriminant analysis (PLS-DA), which presented changes between samples collected from the control (non-NAFLD), NAFL, and NASH groups. Each node represents each sample. Control (non-NAFLD), NAFL, and NASH subjects are colored in blue, orange, and green, respectively. (C) Heat map of the top 35 genera among groups.
Figure 2Relative abundance of the top 10 microbiota and significantly scarce bacteria in the NAFL, and NASH groups compared with the healthy controls at the phylum (A), class (B), order (C), family (D), and genus (E) levels. Boxplots shows the median, the 25th, and the 75th percentile of relative abundances of bacteria. *p < 0.05 and ** p < 0.01 vs. healthy controls, Kruskal–Wallis test.
Figure 3Linear discriminant analysis effect size (LEfSe) comparison of gut microbiota among healthy, NAFL, and NASH groups. The cladogram displays the taxonomic tree of differentially abundant taxa. The histogram represents the linear discriminant analysis (LDA) scores of bacteria with significant differential abundance between the compared groups identified by different colors.
Figure 4Difference in relative abundance of predicted microbial genes related to metabolism information between NASH and healthy controls. Data were processing by 16S rRNA sequencing data with PICRUSt using level 3 of Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) orthologs using Student’s t-test.