| Literature DB >> 32664956 |
Koirobi Haldar1, Leena George1, Zhang Wang2, Vijay Mistry1, Mohammadali Yavari Ramsheh1, Robert C Free1, Catherine John3, Nicola F Reeve3, Bruce E Miller4, Ruth Tal-Singer4, Adam J Webb5, Anthony J Brookes5, Martin D Tobin3, Dave Singh6, Gavin C Donaldson7, Jadwiga A Wedzicha7, James R Brown8, Michael R Barer1, Christopher E Brightling9,10.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Airway bacterial dysbiosis is a feature of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, there is limited comparative data of the lung microbiome between healthy smokers, non-smokers and COPD.Entities:
Keywords: COPD; Haemophilus; Healthy airway; Microbiome; Proteobacteria
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32664956 PMCID: PMC7362436 DOI: 10.1186/s12931-020-01448-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Respir Res ISSN: 1465-9921
Healthy and COPD subject characteristics
| Healthy control ( | Healthy control | Healthy control | COPD ( | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender female (n) | 73 | 15 | 58 | 60 | < 0·0001 |
| Age (years) | 61 (54, 67) | 65 (58, 69) | 59 (53, 67) | 69 (64,74) | < 0·0001 |
| BMI | 27·7 (24·3, 31·2) | 29·3 (25·8, 34·4) | 27·3 (24·2, 29·9) | 26·7 (23·32,30·06) | 0·0325 |
| Smoking history (Pack years) | 0 (0, 8) | 29 (17·3, 45·8) | 0 (0,0) | 46 (34,64) | < 0·0001 |
| MRC Dyspnoea scale | 0 (0, 1) | 0 (0, 1) | 0 (0, 1) | 2 (1,2) | < 0·0001 |
| VAS dyspnoea (mm scale) | 0 (0, 2) | 0 (0, 3.5) | 0 (0, 2) | 30 (15,49) | < 0·0001 |
| Post BD FEV1 (L) | 2·87 (2·43, 3·37) | 2·82 (2·33, 3·24) | 2·88 (2·46, 3·40) | 1·45 (1·03,1·86) | < 0·0001 |
| Post BD FEV1% Predicted | 109 (100, 118) | 105 (92, 118) | 110 (100, 118) | 57 (42, 69) | < 0·0001 |
| Post BD FEV1/FVC % | 80 (77, 83) | 78 (75,82) | 80 (78, 83) | 51 (41,59) | < 0·0001 |
| Blood White cell count (×10^9/L) | 5·8 (4·9, 7·3) | 6·4 (5·1, 7·5) | 5·7 (4·8, 7·25) | 7·2 (6·3,8·8) | < 0·0001 |
| Blood Neutrophil count (× 10^9/L) | 3·3 (2·7, 4·2) | 3·8 (2·8, 4·3) | 3·2 (2·6, 4·1) | 4·7 (3·9, 5·7) | < 0·0001 |
| Blood Eosinophil count (× 10^9/L) | 0·14 (0·09, 0·23) | 0·18 (0·11, 0·25) | 0·14 (0·09, 0·22) | 0·21 (0·14, 0·27) | < 0·0001 |
| Sputum TCC (×106/g) | 2·4 (1·1, 4·2) | 3·19 (1·6, 5·9) | 2·2 (1, 3·6) | 10·5 (4·7,13·0) | < 0·0001 |
| Sputum eosinophils % | 0·25 (0, 0·75) | 0·25 (0·18, 2·38) | 0·25 (0, 0·75) | 0·75 (0,2) | 0·0029 |
| Sputum neutrophil (%) | 60 (43, 74) | 65 (42, 75) | 56 (43, 73) | 75 (40, 89) | 0·0011 |
Data is expressed as median (IQR). BMI body mass index, Sputum TCC sputum total cell count, FEV1 forced expiratory volume in 1 s, Post BD FEV1 spirometry recording post bronchodilator; FVC forced vital capacity. * = represents Kruskal-Wallis test comparing between healthy (PY ≥10), healthy (PY < 10) and COPD
Fig. 1Microbiome profile of Healthy volunteers based on smoking pack year history. a Relative abundance of major phyla between all healthy (n = 124) represented in the outer ring followed by healthy < 10 PY smoking history subgroup (n = 96) in the middle ring and innermost ring representing healthy ≥10 PY history subgroup (n = 28). b Relative abundance of major genera between all healthy (n = 124) represented in the outer ring followed by healthy < 10 PY (n = 96) in the middle ring and innermost ring representing healthy ≥10 PY history (n = 28). c Principal coordinate analysis (PCoA) analysis of weighted unifrac distance measures relative to pack year history. d Alpha diversity indices comparison between. < 10 PY and ≥ 10 PY smoking sub-groups. Chao1 and observed_otus are represented as bar chart as mean and standard deviation; Shannon index is represented by box whisker plot showing median, interquartile range and minimum and maximum. **. P < 0.01
Fig. 2Microbiome profile of COPD subjects based on smoking pack year history. a Relative abundance of major phyla between all COPD (n = 218) represented in the outer ring followed by ex-smokers (n = 148) in the middle ring and innermost ring representing current smokers history (n = 70). b Relative abundance of major genera between all COPD (n = 218) represented in the outer ring followed by ex- smokers (n = 148) in the middle ring and innermost ring representing current smoker (n = 70). c PCoA analysis of weighted unifrac distance measures relative to pack year history. d Alpha diversity indices comparison between the two smoking groups
Fig. 3Comparison of Microbiome profile between Healthy and COPD. a Relative abundance of major phyla between COPD (n = 218) represented in the outer and inner ring representing healthy (n = 124). b Relative abundance of major genera between COPD (n = 218) represented in the outer ring and inner ring representing healthy volunteers (n = 28). c PCoA analysis of weighted unifrac distance measures between healthy and COPD subjects. d Alpha diversity indices comparison between Healthy and COPD subjects. ****, P < 0.00001
Fig. 4Bacterial groups distinguishing health and COPD microbiome. Each of the circles in the cladogram represent a bacterial taxa and each ring a taxonomy level starting with Kingdom (Archaea and Bacteria) in the innermost circle. Green coloured circles and zones represent bacterial taxa dominant in health and red in COPD. Circle sizes are correlated to bacterial abundance. Taxa level phylum (p_) and class (c_) are mentioned in the figure. Order (o_), Family (f_) and genus (g_) are abbreviated in the figure
OTU groups that distinguish the Healthy and the COPD subjects
| OTU | Taxonomy | Healthy_mean | COPD_mean | FDR_P | Bonferroni_P |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 579,608 | Firmicutes|Bacilli|Lactobacillales|Streptococcaceae| | 658 | 88 | 0.001 | 0·020 |
| 787,709 | Actinobacteria|Actinobacteria|Actinomycetales|Actinomycetaceae| | 363 | 64 | 0.001 | 0·020 |
| 1,078,207 | Firmicutes|Bacilli|Lactobacillales|Streptococcaceae| | 7 | 184 | 0.001 | 0·020 |
| 865,469 | Proteobacteria|Gammaproteobacteria|Pasteurellales|Pasteurellaceae| | 297 | 2150 | 0.001 | 0·020 |
| 585,419 | Firmicutes|Clostridia|Clostridiales|Veillonellaceae| | 1611 | 1214 | 0.001 | 0·020 |
| 1,083,037 | Proteobacteria|Gammaproteobacteria|Pseudomonadales|Moraxellaceae| | 12 | 345 | 0.001 | 0·020 |
| 968,954 | Firmicutes|Bacilli|Lactobacillales|Streptococcaceae| | 906 | 2 | 0.001 | 0·020 |
| 932,696 | Proteobacteria|Gammaproteobacteria|Enterobacteriales|Enterobacteriaceae| | 0 | 782 | 0.001 | 0·020 |
| 579,924 | Proteobacteria|Gammaproteobacteria|Pasteurellales| | 2 | 210 | 0.001 | 0·020 |
| 1,083,194 | Firmicutes|Bacilli|Lactobacillales|Streptococcaceae| | 1290 | 5 | 0.001 | 0·020 |
| 1,027,587 | Firmicutes|Bacilli|Lactobacillales|Carnobacteriaceae| | 57 | 702 | 0.001 | 0·020 |
| 1,017,181 | Actinobacteria|Actinobacteria|Actinomycetales|Micrococcaceae| | 488 | 63 | 0.001 | 0·020 |
| 667,570 | Proteobacteria|Gammaproteobacteria|Enterobacteriales|Enterobacteriaceae| | 0 | 702 | 0.001 | 0·020 |
| 935,742 | Bacteroidetes|Bacteroidia|Bacteroidales|Prevotellaceae| | 298 | 101 | 0.001 | 0·020 |
| 342,427 | Firmicutes|Clostridia|Clostridiales|Veillonellaceae| | 44 | 284 | 0.001 | 0·020 |
Non-parametric t-test was performed on rarefied OTU table at 11,000 reds with OTUs that were observed in minimum 25% of the total number of samples and had a minimum contribution of 1% of the total reads
Fig. 5Predictive functional profiling shows distinct clustering of COPD and Healthy sputum microbiome. a PCA analysis of functional groups inferred from 16S rDNA microbial community. b lists the top 19 functional groups which were significantly different (p < 0.05, multiple comparison corrected) and had > 0.2% difference between COPD and healthy subjects