| Literature DB >> 32937864 |
Madhawa Gunathilake1, Jeonghee Lee2, Il Ju Choi3, Young-Il Kim3, Jaekyung Yoon4, Woo Jun Sul5, Jihyun F Kim4, Jeongseon Kim2.
Abstract
Although the microbiome has a potential role in gastric cancer (GC), little is known about microbial dysbiosis and its functions. This study aimed to observe the associations between the alterations in gastric microbial communities and GC risk. The study participants included 268 GC patients and 288 controls. The 16S rRNA gene sequencing was performed to characterize the microbiome. Streptococcus_NCVM and Prevotella melaninogenica species were highly enriched in cases and controls, respectively. Those who were in the third tertile of P. melaninogenica showed a significantly decreased risk of GC in total (odds ratio (OR): 0.91, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.38-0.96, p-trend = 0.071). Class Bacilli was phylogenetically enriched in cases, while phylum Actinobacteria, class Actinobacteria were related to the controls. The microbial dysbiosis index (MDI) was significantly higher for the cases compared with the healthy controls in the female population (p = 0.002). Females in the third tertile of the MDI showed a significantly increased risk of GC (OR: 2.66, 95% CI: 1.19-5.99, p-trend = 0.017). Secondary bile acid synthesis and biosynthesis of ansamycins pathways were highly abundant in cases and controls, respectively. Dysbiosis of gastric microbial communities is associated with an increased risk of GC specifically in females.Entities:
Keywords: case-control; gastric cancer; gastric microbiome; microbial dysbiosis index; pathways
Year: 2020 PMID: 32937864 PMCID: PMC7563352 DOI: 10.3390/cancers12092619
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cancers (Basel) ISSN: 2072-6694 Impact factor: 6.639
Comparison of diversity measures between gastric cancer (GC) cases and controls.
| Alpha Diversity Indices | All ( | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Controls ( | Cases ( | ||
| Shannon index | 2.06 ± 2.59 | 1.66 ± 1.06 | 0.030 |
| Richness | 32.25 ± 16.93 | 35.89 ± 16.00 | 0.009 |
| Evenness | 0.14 ± 0.06 | 0.15 ± 0.03 | 0.440 |
| Pilou evenness | 0.58 ± 0.61 | 0.46 ± 0.37 | 0.004 |
| Male ( | |||
| Controls ( | Cases ( | ||
| Shannon index | 1.93 ± 2.37 | 1.79 ± 1.77 | 0.519 |
| Richness | 31.55 ± 16.44 | 38.26 ± 16.25 | <0.001 |
| Evenness | 0.14 ± 0.07 | 0.15 ± 0.03 | 0.560 |
| Pilou evenness | 0.55 ± 0.55 | 0.48 ± 0.40 | 0.190 |
| Female ( | |||
| Controls ( | Cases ( | ||
| Shannon index | 2.27 ± 2.93 | 1.43 ± 1.21 | 0.007 |
| Richness | 33.44 ± 17.76 | 31.66 ± 14.72 | 0.440 |
| Evenness | 0.14 ± 0.03 | 0.14 ± 0.03 | 0.578 |
| Pilou evenness | 0.63 ± 0.69 | 0.42 ± 0.28 | 0.004 |
Figure 1Nonmetric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) for microbial community composition based on Helicobacter pylori (HP) infection status.
Figure 2Linear discriminant analysis (LDA) of effect size (LEfSe) analysis plot for taxonomic species.
Association between relative abundance of bacterial species and gastric cancer (GC) risk.
| Candidate Species | No. of Controls (%) | No. of Cases (%) | Model I OR (95% CI) | Model II OR (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
| 0 (Non-carriers) | 288(100.0) | 264(98.5) | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| >0 (Carriers) | 0(0.0) | 4(1.5) | >999.99(<0.001–>999.99) | >999.99(<0.001–>999.99) |
|
| ||||
| 0 (Non-carriers) | 187(64.9) | 203(75.8) | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| > 0 (Carriers) | 101(35.1) | 65(24.3) | 0.59(0.41–0.86) | 0.58(0.38–0.88) |
|
| ||||
| 0 (Non-carriers) | 155(53.8) | 118(44.0) | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| >0 (Carriers) | 133(46.2) | 150(55.9) | 1.48(1.06–2.07) | 1.10(0.75–1.62) |
|
| ||||
| <0.000458 | 95(33.0) | 62(23.1) | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| 0.000458–0.00204 | 96(33.3) | 92(34.3) | 1.47(0.96–2.26) | 1.26(0.78–2.03) |
| ≥0.00204 | 97(33.7) | 114(42.5) | 1.80(1.18–2.74) | 1.37(0.85–2.21) |
| 0.022 | 0.308 | |||
|
| ||||
| 0 (Non-carriers) | 133(46.2) | 144(53.7) | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| >0 (Carriers) | 155(53.8) | 124(46.3) | 0.74(0.53–1.03) | 0.69(0.47–1.00) |
|
| ||||
| <0.000356 | 95(33.0) | 113(42.2) | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| 0.000356–0.00178 | 96(33.3) | 77(28.7) | 0.67(0.45–1.01) | 0.68(0.43–1.07) |
| ≥0.00178 | 97(33.7) | 78(29.1) | 0.68(0.45–1.01) | 0.91(0.38–0.96) |
| 0.141 | 0.071 | |||
|
| ||||
| 0 (Non-carriers) | 157(54.50 | 179(66.8) | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| >0 (Carriers) | 1319(45.5) | 89(33.2) | 0.60(0.42–0.84) | 0.64(0.43–0.94) |
|
| ||||
| 0 (Non-carriers) | 153(53.1) | 81(30.2) | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| >0 (Carriers) | 135(46.9) | 187(69.8) | 2.62(1.85–3.71) | 2.41(1.63–3.56) |
Model I: Crude; Model II: Adjusted for age, family history of GC, regular exercise, education, occupation, income, total energy intake. OR: odds ratio, CI: confidence interval.
Figure 3(A) Linear discriminant analysis of effect size (LEfSe) analysis plot of differentially abundant gastric microbial taxa between GC and control groups. (B) Cladogram representation of gastric microbiome taxa associated with GC based on the Ezbio database.
Figure 4Diverging lollipop chart for differences in abundances for genera that were detected using compositionality corrected by renormalization and permutation (CCREPE). The fold change for each genus was calculated by dividing the mean abundance in cases by that of the controls.
Comparison of the Microbial dysbiosis index (MDI) between cases and controls.
| Microbial dysbiosis index (MDI) | Cases | Controls | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total ( | 268 | 288 | |
| MDI | 3.77 ± 1.94 | 3.45 ± 2.59 | 0.097 |
| Male ( | 172 | 181 | |
| MDI | 3.52 ± 2.04 | 3.58 ± 2.43 | 0.773 |
| Female ( | 96 | 107 | |
| MDI | 4.23 ± 1.65 | 3.22 ± 2.84 | 0.002 |
MDI: Microbial dysbiosis index.
Association between the microbial dysbiosis index (MDI) and gastric cancer (GC) risk.
| Microbial dysbiosis index (MDI) | No. of Controls (%) | No. of Cases (%) | Model I | Model II |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total | ||||
| T1(<3.18) | 96(33.3) | 91(33.9) | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| T2(3.18–4.52) | 97(33.7) | 75(27.9) | 0.82(0.54–1.24) | 0.97(0.60–1.57) |
| T3(≥4.52) | 95(33.0) | 102(38.1) | 1.13(0.76–1.69) | 1.37(0.86–2.17) |
| 0.561 | 0.179 | |||
| Male | ||||
| T1(<3.25) | 60(33.2) | 74(43.0) | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| T2(3.25–4.48) | 60(33.2) | 42(24.4) | 0.57(0.34–0.96) | 0.80(0.43–1.52) |
| T3(≥4.48) | 61(33.7) | 56(32.6) | 0.74(0.45–1.22) | 1.15(0.63–2.11) |
| 0.225 | 0.657 | |||
| Female | ||||
| T1(<3.04) | 36(33.6) | 18(18.8) | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| T2(3.04–4.52) | 36(33.6) | 31(32.3) | 1.72(0.82–3.62) | 1.69(0.71–4.02) |
| T3(≥4.52) | 35(32.7) | 47(48.9) | 2.69(1.31–5.49) | 2.66(1.19–5.99) |
| 0.006 | 0.017 |
Model I: Crude; Model II: Adjusted for age, family history of GC, regular exercise, education, occupation, income, total energy intake.
Figure 5Comparison of microbial functional pathways between cases and controls.