| Literature DB >> 32753953 |
Jianhua Zhou1, Lili Wang2, Rongtao Yuan1, Xinjuan Yu2, Zhenggang Chen1, Fang Yang1, Guirong Sun3, Quanjiang Dong2.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to explore the signatures of oral microbiome associated with OSCC using a random forest (RF) model. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 24 patients with OSCC were enrolled in the study. The oral microbiome was assessed in cancerous lesions and matched paracancerous tissues from each patient using 16S rRNA gene sequencing. Signatures of mucosal microbiome in OSCC were identified using a RF model.Entities:
Keywords: microbiome; oral squamous cell carcinoma; predicted functions; random forest machine learning
Year: 2020 PMID: 32753953 PMCID: PMC7342497 DOI: 10.2147/CMAR.S251021
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cancer Manag Res ISSN: 1179-1322 Impact factor: 3.989
Clinical Characteristics of 24 Patients with Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma
| Patients | Sex | Age | Location of Tumor | cTNM | Clinical Stage | Smoking Status | Alcohol Consumption |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | M | 53 | Mouth-floor | T2N0M0 | II | NS | N |
| 2 | F | 80 | Cheek | T2N1M0 | III | NS | N |
| 3 | F | 47 | Tongue | T2N2M0 | IV | NS | N |
| 4 | M | 83 | Tongue | T2N0M0 | II | FS | N |
| 5 | M | 60 | Oropharynx | T2N0M0 | II | CS | D |
| 6 | M | 54 | Gingiva | T2N0M0 | II | FS | D |
| 7 | F | 62 | Tongue | T1N0M0 | I | NS | N |
| 8 | M | 66 | Cheek | T2N0M0 | II | FS | D |
| 9 | M | 59 | Tongue | T3N0M0 | III | CS | D |
| 10 | M | 68 | Gingiva | T2N0M0 | II | CS | N |
| 11 | M | 68 | Tongue | T2N0M0 | II | NS | N |
| 12 | M | 75 | Tongue | T2N1M0 | III | NS | N |
| 13 | M | 42 | Tongue | T2N1M0 | III | FS | N |
| 14 | M | 63 | Tongue | T2N1M0 | III | NS | D |
| 15 | M | 59 | Cheek | T2N0M0 | II | FS | D |
| 16 | F | 74 | Tongue | T2N0M0 | II | NS | N |
| 17 | F | 54 | Gingiva | T2N0M0 | II | NS | N |
| 18 | M | 81 | Cheek | T2N0M0 | II | FS | D |
| 19 | F | 63 | Cheek | T1N1M0 | III | NS | N |
| 20 | F | 56 | Tongue | T1N0M0 | I | NS | N |
| 21 | M | 42 | Tongue | T1N0M0 | I | CS | N |
| 22 | M | 74 | Cheek | T1N0M0 | I | NS | D |
| 25 | M | 47 | Tongue | T2N1M0 | III | CS | N |
| 26 | M | 58 | Cheek | T2N0M0 | II | FS | D |
Abbreviations: M, male; F, female; NS, non-smoker; CS, current smoker; FS, former smoker; D, alcohol drinker; N, non-alcohol drinker.
Figure 1Profiles of the oral microbiome in OSCC. The alpha diversity was estimated using Chao1 (A) and Shannon (B) indices. PCoA plots for comparing community structure between paracancerous and cancerous tissues (C), between clinical stages in cancerous tissues (D) and paracancerous tissues (E). The composition of microbiome at the phylum level was compared between paracancerous and cancerous tissues (F). (P) paracancerous tissues; (C) cancerous tissues.
Figure 2LEfSe analyses of microbiome composition between paracancerous and cancerous tissues. Bacteria genera enriched in cancerous tissues had a positive LDA score, while those depleted had a negative score. Bacteria with LDA scores >3 are shown (A). Relative abundance of genera enriched in cancerous tissues (B). Relative abundance of genera enriched in paracancerous tissues (C). *P < 0.05; **P < 0.01; ***P < 0.001. All FDR-adjusted P values were <0.05.
Figure 3Identification of microbial signature associated with OSCC. The random forest model was constructed using AUC-RF algorithm based on bacteria which were present in more than 20% samples and had a relative abundance of over 0.05%. The model containing 12 genera was selected as the optimal model based on the highest OOB-AUC value obtained from the backward elimination process performed using the AUC-RF algorithm with the median decrease Gini (MDG) importance measure (A). MDG of selected genera in the optimal set (B). The ROC curve of the optimal model for classifying cancerous tissues from paracancerous tissues (C). The ROC curve of validation in a independent cohort in Shanghai (D).
Figure 4Correlation network in paracancerous tissues (A) and cancerous tissues (B). The correlation coefficient was calculated with Spearman’s rank correlation test (|r| ≥0.6). Cytoscape was used for network construction.
Features of Co-Occurrence Network of the Oral Microbiome
| Parameters | P (n = 24) | C (n = 24) | P values |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clustering coefficient | 0.694±0.273 | 0.474±0.345 | 3.55E-04 |
| Connected components | 2 | 2 | – |
| Average degree | 13.970±7.606 | 7.935±6.222 | 6.83E-06 |
| Number of nodes | 66 | 62 | – |
| Average Shortest Path Length | 1.764±0.486 | 3.255±0.779 | 1.34E-17 |
| Degree Centrality | 0.215±0.117 | 0.130±0.102 | 9.46E-05 |
| Closeness Centrality | 0.601±0.131 | 0.334±0.135 | 1.34E-17 |
| Betweenness Centrality | 0.024±0.030 | 0.039±0.060 | 0.785 |
Notes: –, not applicable; P, paracancerous tissues; C, cancerous tissues.
Figure 5Differential functions predicted using PICRUSt between paracancerous and cancerous tissues. The function of metabolism at level 1 in KEGG pathway (A) and amino acid metabolism at level 2 (B). The decreased (C) or increased (D) relative frequency of functions of amino acid metabolism at level 3 in cancerous tissues. Differences between groups in the predicted functions were compared using STAMP. Statistical differences are considered when P < 0.05.