| Literature DB >> 33225985 |
Hechen Huang1,2,3, Zhigang Ren1,4, Xingxing Gao1,2,3, Xiaoyi Hu1,2,3, Yuan Zhou1,2,3, Jianwen Jiang1, Haifeng Lu5, Shengyong Yin1,2,3, Junfang Ji6, Lin Zhou7,8,9, Shusen Zheng10,11,12.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The gut-liver axis plays a pivotal role in the pathogenesis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, the correlations between the gut microbiome and the liver tumor transcriptome in patients with HCC and the impact of the gut microbiota on clinical outcome are less well-understood.Entities:
Keywords: Carcinoma, hepatocellular; Gastrointestinal microbiome; Prognosis; Transcriptome
Year: 2020 PMID: 33225985 PMCID: PMC7682083 DOI: 10.1186/s13073-020-00796-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Genome Med ISSN: 1756-994X Impact factor: 11.117
Fig. 1Clinicopathological features and gut microbial diversity of all patients. a Clinicopathological features and clinical outcomes of all 113 HCC patients. The green dotted line represents 5-year survival; the purple dotted line represents 2-year disease-free survival. b Shannon-Wiener curves between numbers of fecal samples and estimated richness. Compared with small HCC, fecal microbial diversities, as estimated by the Shannon index (c), Simpson index (d), and Invsimpson index (e), were significantly increased in patients with non-small HCC (p = 0.048, 0.027, and 0.027, respectively; *p < 0.05, Wilcoxon rank sum test). f A Venn diagram illustrates that 541 of the total richness of 1002 OTUs were shared among three groups, while 576 out of 877 OTUs were shared between the small HCC and non-small HCC subgroups. g Beta diversity was evaluated using NMDS by Bray-Curtis. Boxplot “boxes” indicate the first, second, and third quartiles of the data
Fig. 2Phylogenetic profiles of gut microbes among healthy controls and all patients. Compositions of bacterial community at the phylum level between healthy controls and HCC patients (a), and patients from subgroups of HCC (b). Compositions of bacterial community (top 10) at the genus level between healthy controls and HCC patients (c), and patients from subgroups of HCC (d). e The differential microbial community at the genus level in HCC patients versus healthy controls. f, g The differential microbial community at the genus level in patients with small HCC versus non-small HCC. Levels of significance: *p < 0.05 (Wilcoxon rank sum test). h The distributions of Bacteroides, Lachnospiracea incertae sedis, and Clostridium XIVa normalized by a Z-score among healthy controls and patients with small HCC and non-small HCC. i Sankey analysis of healthy controls and patients with small HCC and non-small HCC. Error bars are presented as the SD
Fig. 3The associations between host liver gene expression and gut microbes in patients with HCC. a Differential expression of the microbe-associated genes from 32 paired tumor and adjacent non-tumor liver tissue samples. b Pearson correlation coefficients of 31 OTU-gene pairs, and P values evaluated by Student’s t test for comparing the difference in log2FC values calculated by GFOLD between small HCC and non-small HCC subgroups. Scatter diagrams and Cox hazards models of two typical OTU-gene pairs, OTU_0134-CD6 (c) and OTU_0002-MAPK10 (d). The x-axis of the scatter diagram indicates the OTU abundance. The y-axis indicates log2FC of gene expression calculated by GFOLD. Each point represents a patient (red: non-small HCC; blue: small HCC), and some points coincided at the origin. Immunohistochemical staining showed that CD6 (e) and MAPK10 (f) were highly expressed in tumor tissues of patients with small HCC versus non-small HCC (× 200)
Fig. 4Functional annotations and pathway analysis of the microbe-associated genes. a Integrated analysis of key microbe-associated genes: functionalannotation and log2FC value of gene from each patient (n = 32, left panel), DFS (based on GEPIA, middle panel), and OS (based on GEPIA, right panel). The red line denotes the average values. Heatmaps represent the log10 (hazard ratio) value of each gene in each kind of tumor. The dark square box denotes that the clinical prognosis was statistically significant. b The GO enrichment analysis based on Metascape. c Pathway analysis based on DAVID 6.8. d Pairwise gene expression correlation analysis using the Pearson method shows interdependent relationships and gene co-expression according to GEPIA. LIHC, Hepatocellular carcinoma; CHOL, Cholangial carcinoma; PAAD, Pancreatic adenocarcinoma; COAD, Colon adenocarcinoma; READ, Rectum adenocarcinoma
Fig. 5Associations among liver transcriptome, serum bile acid, and gut microbiota. a Scatter diagrams of OTU abundance (x-axis, square root, and arcsin transformation) and serum bile acids (y-axis). The red horizontal line denotes 12 μmol/L of serum bile acid (n = 52). b Heatmap representing the Pearson correlation coefficients of 100 OTU-gene pairs (upper panel); functional annotation and log2FC of genes related to bile acid metabolism for each patient (lower panel). The red line denotes the average values of log2FC. c Immunohistochemical staining showed that ABCC4 was highly expressed in tumor and adjacent non-tumor liver tissues of patient with high level of bile acid (× 200)
Fig. 6Identification of microbial-based markers for clinical prognosis by machine learning models. Kaplan-Meier curves for 5-year survival and 2-year disease-free survival based on tumor burden (a) and serum bile acids (b). c ROC curves for classifiers designed to predict clinical prognosis (left panel: RF; right panel: SVM). Plots showed the true positive rate (y-axis) versus the false positive rate (x-axis). AUC scores (including 95% confidence interval) of ROC curves with fivefold cross-validations are listed on the right for classification accuracy