| Literature DB >> 33816353 |
Xiaodan Zhong1,2, Ping Cui2,3, Junjun Jiang2, Chuanyi Ning2,4, Bingyu Liang2, Jie Zhou2, Li Tian2, Yu Zhang2, Ting Lei1,2, Taiping Zuo1,2, Li Ye2,3, Jiegang Huang2, Hui Chen1,2.
Abstract
Background: New evidence implies that the imbalance of gut microbiota is associated with the progression of alcoholic liver disease (ALD) and that the composition of gut microbiota is altered in ALD patients. However, the predominant bacterium in patients involved in the progress of ALD has not been identified. The purpose of this study is to investigate the predominant bacterium in the early and end-stages of ALD as well as the relationship between the bacterium and the degree of liver injury.Entities:
Keywords: Streptococcus; alcoholic liver disease; aspartate aminotransferase; gut microbiota; hepatic function
Year: 2021 PMID: 33816353 PMCID: PMC8010180 DOI: 10.3389/fcimb.2021.649060
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Cell Infect Microbiol ISSN: 2235-2988 Impact factor: 5.293
Patient characteristics.
| Patient | Healthy Control | Alcoholic fatty liver | Alcoholic liver cirrhosis |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 48.7 ± 10.8 | 45.4 ± 8.3 | 55.9 ± 9.6 |
|
| 27/0 | 21/0 | 17/0 |
|
| 25.0 ± 2.6 | 26.2 ± 2.5 | 23.2 ± 3.6 |
|
| 11.0 ± 4.0 | 11.0 ± 4.0 | 20.9 (9.8,42.5) |
|
| 2.0 ± 0.7 | 2.6 ± 1.4 | 8.2 (3.9,25.3) |
|
| 9.0 ± 3.9 | 10.0 ± 5.2 | 11.9 (5.2,22.6) |
|
| 0.2 ± 0.1 | 0.2 ± 0.1 | 0.5 ± 0.1a,b |
|
| 75.1 ± 2.9 | 74.7 ± 3.7 | 65.5 ± 8.7a,b |
|
| 46.4 ± 2.0 | 46.7 ± 2.6 | 30.1 ± 5.0a,b |
|
| 28.7 ± 4.1 | 28.0 ± 3.8 | 32.8 ± 10.9 |
|
| 1.7 ± 0.3 | 1.7 ± 0.3 | 0.9 ± 0.3a,b |
|
| 25 (19,33) | 48 (33,77) | 173 (49,439)a |
|
| 20.1 ± 3.9 | 26.0 ± 7.6a | 54 (41,79)a,b |
|
| 20.5 ± 6.4 | 31 (19,41) | 23 (17,41) |
|
| 1.1 ± 0.3 | 0.9 ± 0.6 | 2.1 (1.3,3.2) a,b |
Data represent as mean ± standard deviation (SD) or median (interquartile range). Statistical analyses were performed with one-way ANOVA test or nonparametric tests. a, compared to control group, *P < 0.05. b, compared to AFL group, *P < 0.05.
Figure 1The community diversity of gut microbiota in patients with alcoholic fatty liver (AFL) or alcoholic liver cirrhosis (ALC) compared with healthy controls (control). (A) The Ace diversity indexes, (B) The Chao diversity indexes, (C) Coverage curves on OTU level, and (D) PLS-DA on OTU level. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01.
Sequencing data summary and community diversity.
| Control | AFL | ALC | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 172 ± 55 | 174 ± 85 | 123 ± 40a,b |
|
| 2.99 ± 0.51 | 2.88 ± 0.48 | 2.87 ± 0.50 |
|
| 192.96 ± 62.27 | 190.24 ± 88.56 | 139.86 ± 46.57a,b |
|
| 192.22 ± 62.92 | 189.82 ± 87.60 | 140.69 ± 46.01a,b |
Data represent as mean ± standard deviation (SD) Statistical analyses were performed with Wilcoxon rank-sum test. a, compared to control group, *P < 0.05. b, compared to AFL group, *P < 0.05..
Figure 2The relative abundance of the gut microbiota between three groups. (A) At the phylum level, (B) at the family level, (C) significant differences between bacteria at the genus level. Statistical analysis was performed by the Kruskal–Wallis H test. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001.
Figure 3Microbial taxa identified in different groups using LEfSe analysis. (A) Cladogram showed the phylogenetic distribution of bacteria that were significantly enriched between the three groups. Different colors spots represent significantly enriched bacterial in the corresponding group. (B) LDA scores showed significant differences in bacterial within groups at the genus level.
Figure 4Correlation analysis of the structures of gut microbiota and clinical factors. (A) CCA analysis on genus level showed the correlations between the bacterial community structures and the indicators of clinical laboratory tests. (B) Heatmap analysis of the correlation between the top 30 predominant bacteria at genus level and the clinical factors. Red spots represent a positive correlation, while blue spots represent a negative correlation. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001.
Figure 5Correlations between the relative abundance of Streptococcus and the level of the specific clinical factor. The correlations were calculated in MaAsLin. (A) AST (coefficient = 0.0015, p = 0.029), (B) AST/ALT (coefficient = 0.0318, p = 0.002) and (C) A/G (–0.0566, p = 0.0007). (D) the ROC curve about the relative abundance of Streptococcus and ALC.