| Literature DB >> 33996619 |
Muhong Wei1, Can Li1, Yu Dai2, Haolong Zhou1, Yuan Cui1, Yun Zeng3, Qin Huang4, Qi Wang1.
Abstract
Objective: Accumulative evidence suggests that gut microbiota play an important role in bone remodeling and hence bone health maintenance. This study aimed to explore the association of gut microbiota with the risk of osteoporosis and to identify potential disease-related taxa, which may be promising targets in osteoporosis prevention and treatment in the future.Entities:
Keywords: 16S ribosomal RNA sequencing; absolute quantification; bone mineral density; microbiome; osteoporosis
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33996619 PMCID: PMC8120270 DOI: 10.3389/fcimb.2021.630372
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Cell Infect Microbiol ISSN: 2235-2988 Impact factor: 5.293
Figure 1Between-group microbial diversity comparisons. (A) Venn diagram showing the unique and shared operational taxonomic units in the osteoporosis (case) and control groups. (B) Rarefaction curves for detected samples. The abscissa and ordinate represent the number of sampling sequences and the corresponding number of operational taxonomic units (OTUs), respectively. (C) Between-group comparisons of the alpha diversity of gut microbiota. Each box plot represents the median, interquartile range, minimum, and maximum values. P values were calculated by using the Wilcoxon rank sum test. (D) Principle coordinate analysis (PCoA) results of bacterial beta diversity based on the weighted UniFrac distance matrix. Each dot represents one sample. The control and osteoporosis groups are illustrated in blue and red colors, respectively. The two principal coordinates explain 39.04% and 17.49% of the total variance, respectively.
Figure 2Relative and absolute abundances of the major taxa at phylum (A) and genus (B) levels in the osteoporosis and control groups.
Figure 3Reaching-significance of different taxa between osteoporosis and control groups with respect to absolute and relative abundances. p, phylum; g, genus; (A) indicates the differential analysis of absolute profiling; (B) indicates the differential analysis of relative profiling. *0.01 ≤ P value < 0.05.
Figure 4Reaching-significance of different taxa between osteoporosis and control groups with respect to either absolute or relative abundance. p, phylum; g, genus; (A) indicates the differential analysis of absolute profiling; (B) indicates the differential analysis of relative profiling. *0.01 ≤ P value < 0.05; ** P value < 0.01.
Results of association analysis for absolute abundance of gut microbiota at phylum and genus levels and risk of osteoporosis.
| Taxa | Mean abundance | Ratio |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Osteoporosis(n = 44) | Control(n = 64) | |||
| p_Bacteroidetes | 5.45E+09 | 3.10E+09 | 1.76 | 0.003 |
| g_Bacteroides | 3.93E+09 | 2.31E+09 | 1.70 | 0.002 |
| g_Clostridium_XlVa | 3.34E+08 | 1.95E+08 | 1.71 | 0.070 |
| g_Coprococcus | 1.89E+08 | 1.71E+08 | 1.11 | 0.476 |
| g_Lactobacillus | 2.90E+08 | 8.00E+07 | 3.62 | <0.001 |
| g_Veillonella | 7.77E+07 | 9.64E+07 | 0.81 | 0.117 |
| g_Eisenbergiella | 7.66E+06 | 6.41E+06 | 1.19 | <0.001 |
| g_Eggerthella | 1.95E+07 | 1.14E+07 | 1.71 | 0.041 |
p, phylum; g, genus.
Ratio of the mean absolute abundance of gut microbiota in the osteoporosis (case) group to that in the control group.
P value was calculated using generalized linear model (GLM) adjusted for age, body mass index, sex, smoking, alcohol drinking, coffee drinking and dietary habits.
Spearman’s correlation estimates for gut microbial taxa and BMD measurements at phylum and genus levels.
| LS1–4 BMD | LS1–4 T-score | FN BMD | FN T-score | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| p_Fusobacteria | -0.181 | -0.191* | -0.054 | -0.078 |
| g_Anaerovorax | 0.158 | 0.107 | 0.255** | 0.188 |
| g_Bacteroides | -0.182 | -0.194* | -0.180 | -0.176 |
| g_Cetobacterium | -0.172 | -0.191* | -0.019 | -0.020 |
| g_Clostridium_XlVa | -0.219* | -0.208* | -0.294** | -0.246* |
| g_Coprobacillus | -0.112 | -0.093 | -0.202* | -0.146 |
| g_Eggerthella | -0.207* | -0.209* | -0.152 | -0.130 |
| g_Erysipelotrichaceae_incertae_sedis | -0.094 | -0.070 | -0.206* | -0.164 |
| g_Fusobacterium | -0.189* | -0.190* | -0.079 | -0.090 |
| g_Intestinibacter | -0.063 | -0.056 | -.199* | -0.190* |
| g_Lachnospira | 0.064 | 0.073 | 0.178 | 0.197* |
| g_Lachnospiracea_incertae_sedis | -0.097 | -0.108 | -0.197* | -0.201* |
| g_Megasphaera | -0.208* | -0.215* | -0.163 | -0.146 |
| g_Terrisporobacter | -0.113 | -0.093 | -0.204* | -0.177 |
| g_Veillonella | -0.249** | -0.241* | -0.217* | -0.217* |
| g_Weissella | 0.252** | 0.259** | -0.009 | 0.010 |
LS1–4, lumbar spines 1–4; BMD, bone mineral density; FN, femoral neck; p, phylum; g, genus.
Estimates were expressed as correlation coefficient, and statistical significance is indicated by *0.01 ≤ P value < 0.05, and **P value < 0.01.
Estimates for associations between gut microbial taxa and BMD measurements revealed by ridge regression analysis.
| LS1–4 BMD | LS1–4 T-score | FN BMD | FN T-score | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| p_Fusobacteria | -0.047 | -0.258 | 0.063 | 0.346 |
| g_Anaerovorax | 0.036 | 0.220 | 0.063** | 0.008 |
| g_Bacteroides | -0.057* | -0.440* | -0.038 | -0.007 |
| g_Cetobacterium | 0.010 | 0.010 | 0.045 | 0.004 |
| g_Clostridium_XlVa | -0.033 | -0.225 | -0.035 | -0.005 |
| g_Coprobacillus | -0.058 | -0.405 | -0.055 | -0.007 |
| g_Eggerthella | -0.047 | -0.325 | -0.019 | -0.003 |
| g_Erysipelotrichaceae_incertae_sedis | -0.023 | -0.172 | -0.017 | -0.002 |
| g_Fusobacterium | -0.001 | 0.032 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| g_Intestinibacter | -0.012 | -0.100 | -0.004 | -0.001 |
| g_Lachnospira | 0.023 | 0.160 | 0.044 | 0.006 |
| g_Lachnospiracea_incertae_sedis | -0.028 | -0.168 | -0.036 | -0.005 |
| g_Megasphaera | 0.001 | 0.006 | -0.018 | -0.003 |
| g_Terrisporobacter | -0.008 | -0.016 | -0.054 | -0.008 |
| g_Veillonella | 0.007 | -0.011 | -0.010 | -0.003 |
| g_Weissella | 0.025 | 0.258 | -0.029 | -0.001 |
LS1–4, lumbar spines 1–4; BMD, bone mineral density; FN, femoral neck; p, phylum; g, genus.
The ridge regression model was adjusted for age, body mass index, sex, smoking, alcohol drinking, coffee drinking and dietary habits; and statistical significance was indicated by *0.01 ≤ P value < 0.05, and **P value < 0.01.
Figure 5Predicted functional differences between osteoporosis and control groups. A total of 10 metabolic pathways varied between the two groups. Tests were conducted at Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) hierarchical level 3. Difference in mean frequency = mean abundance in osteoporosis group minus mean abundance in control group.