| Literature DB >> 32900998 |
Abdellah Tebani1, Anders Gummesson2,3, Wen Zhong1, Ina Schuppe Koistinen1,4, Tadepally Lakshmikanth5, Lisa M Olsson2, Fredrik Boulund4, Maja Neiman1, Hans Stenlund6, Cecilia Hellström1, Max J Karlsson1, Muhammad Arif1, Tea Dodig-Crnković1, Adil Mardinoglu1,7, Sunjae Lee1, Cheng Zhang1, Yang Chen5, Axel Olin5, Jaromir Mikes5, Hanna Danielsson4, Kalle von Feilitzen1, Per-Anders Jansson2,8, Oskar Angerås9,10, Mikael Huss11,12, Sanela Kjellqvist13, Jacob Odeberg1, Fredrik Edfors1, Valentina Tremaroli2, Björn Forsström1, Jochen M Schwenk1, Peter Nilsson1, Thomas Moritz14, Fredrik Bäckhed2,15,16, Lars Engstrand4, Petter Brodin5, Göran Bergström2,15, Mathias Uhlen1,17, Linn Fagerberg18.
Abstract
An important aspect of precision medicine is to probe the stability in molecular profiles among healthy individuals over time. Here, we sample a longitudinal wellness cohort with 100 healthy individuals and analyze blood molecular profiles including proteomics, transcriptomics, lipidomics, metabolomics, autoantibodies and immune cell profiling, complemented with gut microbiota composition and routine clinical chemistry. Overall, our results show high variation between individuals across different molecular readouts, while the intra-individual baseline variation is low. The analyses show that each individual has a unique and stable plasma protein profile throughout the study period and that many individuals also show distinct profiles with regards to the other omics datasets, with strong underlying connections between the blood proteome and the clinical chemistry parameters. In conclusion, the results support an individual-based definition of health and show that comprehensive omics profiling in a longitudinal manner is a path forward for precision medicine.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32900998 PMCID: PMC7479148 DOI: 10.1038/s41467-020-18148-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nat Commun ISSN: 2041-1723 Impact factor: 14.919
Fig. 1Overview of the S3WP program.
The outer part represents all types of data that have been analyzed for this study. The inner part shows the distribution across the months of a year for all visits for each of the 94 subjects that completed the program, where round one includes visits one to four with approximately three months intervals and round two includes visits 5 and 6 with ~6 months intervals. PBMC peripheral blood mononuclear cell; PEA Proximity Extension Assay; OTUs operational taxonomic units; IgG Immunoglobulin G; rRNA Ribosomal Ribonucleic Acid; LC–MS liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry; GC–MS gas chromatography–mass spectrometry; BP blood pressure; BMI body mass index; MRI Magnetic resonance imaging; CT computed tomography.
Fig. 2Clinical chemistry and anthropometrics longitudinal variation.
Clinical chemistry variation across the six visits for 94 subjects in: a Creatinine, b high-density lipoproteins (HDL), c low-density lipoproteins (LDL), as well as the variation in d body mass index (BMI). The color indicates males and females, the colored lines visualize the medians for each visit and sex respectively, and each individual is connected by a gray line. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) based on data from visits 1–6 for 41 parameters including anthropometrics, clinical chemistry and hematology variables is visualized as e scores plot showing clear separation between males and females and f loadings plot showing the relationship between the underlying variables (Explained variance: PC1 = 23%, PC 2 = 13%). g Heatmap showing the pairwise Spearman correlations between 37 clinical chemistry and anthropometry variables.
Fig. 3Global molecular profiles and the individual variation.
The global profiles across visits were analyzed using UMAP for eight different datasets used in the study: a autoantibodies (n = 318) analyzed in plasma and based on 91 subjects; b plasma protein expression data for 794 proteins in 90 subjects; c clinical chemistry and hematology variables (n = 30) based on 94 subjects; d immune cell profiles from PBMC (n = 53) based on 93 subjects; e metabolites in plasma (n = 413) based on 94 subjects; f lipids in plasma (n = 169) based on 48 subjects; g fecal microbiota based on 16S sequencing and using 1465 operational taxonomic units (OTUs) for 89 subjects; and h PBMC transcriptome expression values from 11,976 genes based on 77 subjects. Each plot shows all individuals with complete data from all four visits for the respective datasets, except for the proteome and clinical chemistry data where six visits were analyzed, colored by sex and with lines connecting the visits for each individual. i The average distance between visits for each individual calculated per data type. The autoantibody profiling was excluded from this analysis due to the high stability over time. Euclidean distance was used for all methods except microbiota, which used Bray–Curtis distance, and immune cytome, which used Aitchisons distance. The individuals with the top ten largest average distances are highlighted in different colors and all others are shown in gray. j Intra-class correlation (ICC) levels in each variable from each dataset. In j data are represented as violin plots where the middle line is the median.
Fig. 4Inter- and intra-omic correlation.
a Flow diagram showing the combinations of inter-omics Spearman correlations above 0.5 between the different datasets. The numbers represent the number of features correlating between two datasets. Selected examples of highly correlated variables between two datasets using spearman correlation: b CD19 and naïve B cells, c ApoB and LDL receptor, d Urate, and e NTproBNP. f Chord diagram of the top 20 inter-omic Spearman correlations for each of the datasets. The ribbon thickness reflects the spearman correlation. Multiple test corrections have been applied for p values using Benjamini and Hochberg method.
Fig. 5Mixed-effect modeling of four omics datasets versus clinical parameters.
a Bar plot of the distribution of the most significant results from mixed-effect modeling for each of the clinical variables compared to features from the proteome, transcriptome, metabolome and lipidome. b Visualization of the top two most significant features for each clinical data across omics colored by omics type. Multiple test corrections have been applied for p values using Benjamini and Hochberg method. Number of samples: metabolome (n = 94), lipidome (n = 48), proteome (n = 90), transcriptome (n = 77).
Fig. 6Tissue enrichment analysis of the blood proteome retrieved from mixed-effect modeling.
Distribution of tissue enriched proteins in (a) each of the clinical parameters classified based on the tissue type and protein profiling results and using the color code in (b), with a bar plot showing the distribution of the number of tissue enriched proteins for each tissue type. c Chord diagram of the top five most associated proteins for each of the clinical parameters, colored by clinical variable class. The ribbon thickness is proportional to the -log adjusted p-value.