| Literature DB >> 34276644 |
Zhuo Li1,2, Gang Lu3, Zhe Li4, Bin Wu1, Enli Luo4, Xinmin Qiu1, Jianwen Guo4, Zhangyong Xia5,6, Chunye Zheng4, Qiaozhen Su4, Yan Zeng4, Wai Yee Chan3, Xianwei Su3, Qiaodi Cai7, Yanjuan Xu7, Yingjun Chen7, Mingbang Wang8, Wai Sang Poon2, Xiaodong Luo4.
Abstract
Recent evidence suggests that inflammation was participated in the pathogenesis of PD, thus, to understand the potential mechanism of gut microbiota in the pathogenesis of Parkinson's disease (PD), we performed a metagenomic analysis of fecal samples from PD patient and controls. Using a two-stage metagenome-wide association strategy, fecal DNA samples from 69 PD patients and 244 controls in three groups (comprising 66 spouses, 97 age-matched, and 81 normal samples, respectively) were analyzed, and differences between candidate gut microbiota and microbiota-associated epitopes (MEs) were compared. In the study, 27 candidate bacterial biomarkers and twenty-eight candidate epitope peptides were significantly different between the PD patients and control groups. Further, enriched 4 and 13 MEs in PD were positively associated with abnormal inflammatory indicators [neutrophil percentage (NEUT.1), monocyte count/percentage (MONO/MONO.1), white blood cell count (WBC)] and five candidate bacterial biomarkers (c_Actinobacteria, f_Bifidobacteriaceae, g_Bifidobacterium, o_Bifidobacteriales, p_Actinobacteria) from Actinobacteria phylum, and they were also positively associated with histidine degradation and proline biosynthesis pathways, respectively. Additionally, enriched 2 MEs and 1 ME in PD were positively associated with above inflammatory indicators and two bacteria (f_Lactobacillaceae, g_Lactobacillus) from Firmicutes phylum, and they were also positively associated with pyruvate fermentation to propanoate I and negatively associated with isopropanol biosynthesis, respectively. Of these MEs, two MEs from GROEL2, RPSC were derived from Mycobacterium tuberculosis, triggered the T cell immune response, as previously reported. Additionally, other candidate epitope peptides derived from Mycobacterium tuberculosis and Mycobacterium leprae may also have potential immune effects in PD. In all, the altered MEs in PD may relate to abnormalities in immunity and glutamate and propionate metabolism, which furthers our understanding of the pathogenesis of PD.Entities:
Keywords: Actinobacteria phylum; Firmicutes phylum; Parkinson’s disease; glutamate and propionate metabolism; immunity; metagenome-wide association study; microbiota-associated epitopes
Year: 2021 PMID: 34276644 PMCID: PMC8284394 DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2021.632482
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Immunol ISSN: 1664-3224 Impact factor: 7.561
Characteristics of the study subjects.
| Characteristics | PD group (n = 69) | HC group (n = 81) | P value (PD, HC) | SP group (n = 66) | NG Group (n = 97) | P value (PD, NG) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 58.1 (12.0) | 36.3 (11.2) | <0.001 | 59.0 (12.1) | 65.7(9.3) | 0.608 |
| Female (n, %) | 28 (40.6) | 14 (17.3) | <0.01 | 41 (62.1) | 53 (54.6) | 0.103 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 23.1 (2.91) | 23.3 (2.5) | 0.919 | 23.2 (3.3) | – | – |
| H&Y stage | 2.2 (0.55) | – | – | – | – | – |
| Age of onset (years) | 58.8 (7.3) | – | – | – | – | – |
| Disease duration (years) | 6.2 (4.5) | – | – | – | – | – |
| MDS_UPDRS | 53.3 (27.0) | – | – | – | – | – |
| MDS_UPDRS_P1 | 8.0 (5.2) | – | – | – | – | – |
| MDS_UPDRS_P2 | 11.1 (7.2) | – | – | – | – | – |
| MDS_UPDRS_P3 | 29.0 (16.5) | – | – | – | – | – |
| MDS_UPDRS_P4 | 2.2 (3.2) | – | – | – | – | – |
| HAMA | 10.1 (6.8) | – | – | – | – | – |
| HAMD | 7.1 (5.2) | – | – | – | – | – |
| MoCA | 23.7 (3.7) | – | – | – | – | – |
| NMSS | 40.1 (26.2) | – | – | – | – | – |
| MMSE | 27.7 (2.7) | – | – | – | – | – |
| WBC | 6.3 (2.3) | – | – | – | – | – |
| NEUT.1 | 62.3 (12.6) | – | – | – | – | – |
| LYM | 26.9 (10.6) | – | – | – | – | – |
| MONO.1 | 7.1 (2.7) | – | – | – | – | – |
| EOSIN | 3.3 (5.3) | – | – | – | – | – |
| BASO | 0.4 (0.3) | – | – | – | – | – |
| NEUT | 4.1 (2.3) | – | – | – | – | – |
| LYM | 1.6 (0.6) | – | – | – | – | – |
| MONO | 0.4 (0.2) | – | – | – | – | – |
| EOSIN_COUNT | 0.2 (0.4) | – | – | – | – | – |
| BASO | 0.0 (0.0) | – | – | – | – | – |
| RBC | 4.5 (0.5) | – | – | – | – | – |
| Hb | 133.1 (11.2) | – | – | – | – | – |
| HCT | 40.1 (3.2) | – | – | – | – | – |
| MCV | 90.1(6.4) | – | – | – | – | – |
| MCH | 29.9 (2.2) | – | – | – | – | – |
| MCHC | 331.6 (8.8) | – | – | – | – | – |
| RDW | 12.8 (0.7) | – | – | – | – | – |
| PLT | 215.1 (56.6) | – | – | – | – | – |
| MPV | 9.6 (1.2) | – | – | – | – | – |
| PCT | 0.2 (0.0) | – | – | – | – | – |
| PDW | 12.7 (2.6) | – | – | – | – | – |
PD, Parkinson’s disease; HC, healthy control; SP, spouse of PD patients; NG, normal group; BMI, body mass index; H&Y stage, Hoehn and Yahr stage; MDS-UPDRS, MDS-Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale; MDS-UPDRS_PI, non-motor experiences of daily living; MDS-UPDRS_P2, motor experiences of daily living; MDS-UPDRS_P3, motor examination; MDS-UPDRS_P4, motor complications; HAMA, Hamilton Anxiety Scale; HAMD, Hamilton Depression Scale; MoCA, Montreal Cognitive Assessment; NMSS, Non-Motor Symptoms Scale; MMSE, Mini-Mental State Examination; WBC, white blood cell count; NEUT/NEUT.1, neutrophil count/percentage; LYM, lymphocyte; MONO/MONO.1, monocyte count/percentage; EOSIN, eosinophilia; BASO, Basophils; RBC, Red blood cell count; Hb, hemoglobin; HCT, Hematocrit; MCV, Mean red blood cell volume; MCH, mean cell hemoglobin; MCHC, mean cell hemoglobin concentration; RDW, Red blood cell distribution width; PLT, platelet count; MPV, mean platelet volume; PCT, plateletocrit; PDW, platelet distribution width. “-”; not available. Numbers are expressed as mean ± standard deviation. P < 0.05; significant differences; P > 0.05; no differences.
Figure 1Study design. A two-stage (discovery and validate) MWAS analysis as used to identify potential bacterial biomarkers for PD. PD, Parkinson’s disease; SP, spouse of PD patients; NG, normal group; HC, healthy control. The SP group was used to account for the influence of lifestyle and dietary factors. The NG group was used to evaluate the effects of age and gender. Robust bacteria/epitope/pathway biomarkers were identified and their correlations with clinical parameters were evaluated.
Figure 2Microbial community differences between PD patients and control subjects. (A, B) Box plots describe differences in the microbiome diversity indices between PD and control groups according to the Shannon and inverse Simpson diversity indexes based on OTU levels. Each box plot represents the median, interquartile range, minimum, and maximum values. (C) Non-metric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) analysis of samples from PD group and HC group. Ordination based on Bray-Curtis dissimilarity calculated with genus-level data. Each dot represents one sample, the closer the dots are to one another, the more similar the microbiome compositions of these samples. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001 by the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. PD, Parkinson’s disease; SP, spouse of PD patients; NG, normal group; HC, healthy control; OTU, operational taxonomic unit.
Figure 3Linear regression between candidate biomarkers and inflammatory indicators. (A–J) Significant positive correlations between Actinobacteria phylum (p_Actinobacteria, c_Actinobacteria, o_Bifidobacteriales, f_Bifidobacteriaceae, g_bifidobacterium) and MONO.1, NEUT.1. (K–L) Significant positive correlations between Firmicutes phylum (f_Lactobacillaceae, g_Lactobacillus) and MONO. The Pearson correlation was calculated and tested using the “cor.test()” function. The linear regression analysis graph was plotted by the “lm” function.
Figure 4Analysis of gut microbiota-associated epitopes in PD patients and control subjects. Heatmap of significantly different epitope biomarkers in samples from PD group (Green), HC group (pink), SP group (purple). In the bar, pink and blue indicate high and low abundance, respectively.
Figure 5Correlations between 27 potential bacterial biomarkers and 28 selected epitope biomarkers. The Spearman correlation was calculated and tested using the “cor.test” function. The right panel shows the size of the correlation coefficient, with: red representing a positive correlation; blue representing a negative correlation; and “+” and “−” in each lattice representing significant positive and negative correlations (P < 0.05), respectively.
Figure 6Correlations between gut MES and functional pathways. (A) The heatmap shows the correlations between 27 potential bacterial biomarkers and functional pathways. The right panel shows the size of the correlation coefficient, with: red representing a positive correlation; blue representing a negative correlation, “+” and “−” in each lattice representing significant positive and negative correlations, respectively (P < 0.05). (B) Correlations between the L-histidine degradation I pathway and 13 specific epitope biomarkers. (C) Correlations between the L-proline biosynthesis II (from arginine) pathway and 23 specific epitope biomarkers. (D) Correlations between the isopropanol biosynthesis pathway and 1 specific epitope biomarker. (E) Correlations between the pyruvate fermentation to propanoate I pathway and 7 specific epitope biomarkers. The horizontal axis represents the spearman correlation coefficient, the vertical axis represents -log(pvalue), the red dot represents the marker with significant correlation, and the gray represents the insignificant. The size of the dot represents the relative abundance of the marker.
Actinobacteria/Firmicutes phylum and inflammatory markers associated epitopes in PD were significantly correlated with pathways enriched in PD.
| PD Group | Pathways | MEs | Inflammatory biomarkers | Proteins | P value | Correlation | From |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Actinobacteria phylum | L.histidine degradation I | LDLGITGPEGHVLSRPEEVEAEAV | MONO | DPYSL2 | 9.36E-05 | 0.452806 |
|
| CGRPRAVYRKFGLCR | NEUT.1, WBC | RPSZ | 0.020310 | 0.278889 |
| ||
| AGGVAVIKAGAATEVELKERKH | MONO | RML65 | 0.010781 | 0.305162 |
| ||
| ADMLVRAWVRSYGVRATISN | MONO.1, NEUT.1, WBC | RMLB | 0.035289 | 0.253884 | |||
| L.proline biosynthesis II from arginine | LDLGITGPEGHVLSRPEEVEAEAV | MONO | DPYSL2 | 0.00025 | 0.427394 |
| |
| NVDRTIRSVKRHMGSDWSIE | NEUT.1, WBC | DNAK | 0.000259 | 0.426357 |
| ||
| AGGVAVIKAGAATEVELKERKH | MONO | RML65 | 2.69E-08 | 0.609702 |
| ||
| CGRPRAVYRKFGLCR | NEUT.1, WBC | RPSZ | 2.33E-07 | 0.575328 | |||
| AGGVAVIKAGAATEVELKERKH | MONO | RML65 | 2.69E-08 | 0.609702 | |||
| CGRPRAVYRKFGLCR | NEUT.1, WBC | RPSZ | 2.33E-07 | 0.575328 | |||
| ADMLVRAWVRSYGVRATISN | MONO.1, NEUT.1, WBC | RMLB | 8.21E-07 | 0.553281 | |||
| TEVELKERKHRIEDAVRNAK | NEUT.1, WBC | RML65 | 4.60E-05 | 0.470052 | |||
| DAMRWFLMASPILRGGNLIV | NEUT.1, WBC | ILES | 0.000266 | 0.425705 | |||
| HSDDFQIILVDTPGLHRPRT | NEUT.1 | ERA | 0.000819 | 0.393644 | |||
| ERTRDRVRVDIHTARPGIVI | NEUT.1, WBC | RPSC | 0.001324 | 0.378935 | |||
| RYTTIQNWSNNVYNL | NEUT.1, WBC | RV1461 | 0.005517 | 0.330683 | |||
| ADPVKVTRSALQNAASIAGL | NEUT.1, WBC | GROEL2 | 0.009855 | 0.30871 | |||
| Firmicutes phylum | Isopropanol biosynthesis | AGGVAVIKAGAATEVELKERKH | MONO | RML65 | 0.00453 | 0.337799 |
|
| Pyruvate fermentation to propanoate I | LDLGITGPEGHVLSRPEEVEAEAV | MONO | DPYSL2 | 4.50E-05 | 0.265658 |
| |
| ADMLVRAWVRSYGVRATISN | MONO.1, NEUT.1, WBC | RMLB | 5.42E-06 | 0.257598 |
|
Figure 7Schematic diagram of correlation of gut MEs with PD pathogenesis.