| Literature DB >> 33026068 |
Xin Fang1, Yoshiki Vázquez-Baeza2,3, Emmanuel Elijah3, Fernando Vargas4, Gail Ackermann5, Gregory Humphrey5, Rebecca Lau6, Kelly C Weldon3,7, Jon G Sanders1,8, Morgan Panitchpakdi4, Carolina Carpenter3, Alan K Jarmusch4, Jennifer Neill9, Ara Miralles9, Parambir Dulai9, Siddharth Singh9, Matthew Tsai9, Austin D Swafford3, Larry Smarr10,11, David L Boyle12, Bernhard O Palsson1,5,13, John T Chang9, Pieter C Dorrestein4,5,7, William J Sandborn9, Rob Knight1,3,5,10, Brigid S Boland9.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many studies have investigated the role of the microbiome in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), but few have focused on surgery specifically or its consequences on the metabolome that may differ by surgery type and require longitudinal sampling. Our objective was to characterize and contrast microbiome and metabolome changes after different surgeries for IBD, including ileocolonic resection and colectomy.Entities:
Keywords: gut microbiome; inflammatory bowel disease; intestinal surgery; metabolomics; metagenomics
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33026068 PMCID: PMC8047854 DOI: 10.1093/ibd/izaa262
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Inflamm Bowel Dis ISSN: 1078-0998 Impact factor: 5.325
Inflammatory Bowel Disease Patient Demographics (N = 129)
| Ulcerative Colitis (N = 50) | Crohn’s Disease (N = 79) | |
|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | ||
| Median (IQR) | 44 (30–59) | 36 (27–44) |
| Sex | ||
| Male, N (%) | 25 (50%) | 36 (46%) |
| Female, N (%) | 25 (50%) | 43 (54%) |
| Body Mass Index (kg/m2) | ||
| Median (IQR) | 23.4 (21.2–28.0) | 24.1 (21.3–27.9) |
| Disease duration (years) | ||
| Median (IQR) | 7 (2–12) | 9 (4–18) |
| UC Montreal Classification, N (%) | ||
| Proctitis (E1) | 9 (18%) | |
| Left sided colitis (E2) | 10 (20%) | |
| Extensive colitis (E3) | 27 (54%) | |
| J poucha | 4 (8%) | |
| Crohn’s Disease Location, N (%) | ||
| Ileal (L1) | 19 (24%) | |
| Colonic (L2) | 19 (24%) | |
| Ileocolonic (L3) | 36 (46%) | |
| Crohn’s disease of J poucha | 5 (6%) | |
| Crohn’s Disease Behavior, N (%) | ||
| Inflammatory (B1) | 8 (10%) | |
| Stricturing (B2) | 16 (20%) | |
| Fistulizing (B3) | 55 (70%) | |
| Surgical Resection, N (%) | ||
| None | 45 (90%) | 46 (58%) |
| Ileocolonic | 0 | 21 (27%) |
| Subtotal colectomy with ileorectal | ||
| anastomosis | 0 | 3 (4%) |
| Colectomy with end ileostomy | 0 | 4 (5%) |
| Colectomy with J pouch | 5 (10%) | 5 (6%) |
| Smoking, N (%) | ||
| Never | 36 (72%) | 55 (70%) |
| Prior | 13 (26%) | 18 (23%) |
| Current | 1 (2%) | 6 (7%) |
| TNF-inhibitor Exposure, N (%) | 30 (60%) | 65 (82%) |
| Biologic use at baseline, N (%) | ||
| TNF-inhibitor use | 15 (30%) | 42 (53%) |
| Integrin-inhibitor use | 5 (10%) | 8 (10%) |
| p40-inhibitor use | 0 (0%) | 4 (5%) |
aNot part of the Montreal Classification system but included for clarification
FIGURE 1.Comparison of alpha diversity and stability between surgery and non surgery groups. A, Phylogenetic diversity (metric: Faith) of species abundance for UC and CD samples. B, Molecular diversity (metric: Shannon) of molecular intensity evenness for UC and CD samples. C, Phylogenetic diversity (metric: Faith) of species abundance for samples with different types of surgery. D, Molecular diversity (metric: Shannon) of molecular intensity evenness for samples with different types of surgery. E, Phylogenetic volatility (metric: unweighted UniFrac) comparing each follow-up sample to the baseline time point. F, Molecular volatility (metric: Bray-Curtis) comparing each follow-up sample to the baseline time point.
FIGURE 2.Comparison of surgery types vs nonsurgery for taxonomic, functional, and metabolomics profiles. A, PCoA plot of species abundance (metric: unweighted unifrac) labeled by surgery subtypes, and top 10 differentiating species between surgery and nonsurgery samples. B, PCoA plot of pathway abundance (metric: Bray-Curtis) labeled by surgery subtypes, and top 10 differentiating pathways between surgery and nonsurgery groups. C, PCoA plot of metabolomics abundance (metric: Bray-Curtis) labeled by surgery subtypes, and top 7 differentiating metabolomics between surgery and nonsurgery groups. D, The first 2 components in the PCA analysis of deletion structural variants labeled by surgery subtype. E, Heatmap of log conditional probability matrix generated from MMVEC analysis for 196 microbes and 909 metabolites. The conditional probability is a log scale: purple represents high probability of co-occurrence of metabolites and microbes, whereas orange represents low probability.
FIGURE 3.Metabolomic analysis of the primary and secondary bile acids identified in the cohort. A, Primary bile acids for subjects with Crohn’s disease. B, Secondary bile acids for subjects with Crohn’s disease. C, Primary bile acids for subjects with Ulcerative Colitis. D, Secondary bile acids for subjects with ulcerative colitis. E, Molecular network of the metabolomics data, each node represents a metabolite and the edges represent the cosine similarity between the metabolite pairs.
FIGURE 4.Comparison of E. coli abundance and characteristics of dominant E. coli strains between surgery and nonsurgery samples. A, PCoA plot of taxonomic profile labeled by E. coli abundance. B, Relative abundance of E. coli in no surgery, ileocolonic, and colectomy samples. C, MCA plot that describes the similarity of dominant E. coli strains from surgery and nonsurgery samples in terms of metabolic and virulent functions. D, Relative abundance of E. coli stratified by UC and CD.
FIGURE 5.Random forest classifier to differentiate surgery from nonsurgery samples using species, pathway, and metabolite abundance. A, Precision-recall curve of species classifier and the top 5 features. B, Precision-recall curve of pathway classifier and the top 5 features. C, Precision-recall curve of metabolite classifier and the top 5 features.