| Literature DB >> 34484230 |
Yanyan Que1, Man Cao2, Jianquan He3,4, Qiang Zhang5,6, Qiongyun Chen5,6, Changsheng Yan5,6, Aiqiang Lin7, Luxi Yang6, Zezhen Wu8,9, Dan Zhu8, Fengwu Chen8, Zhangran Chen5,6, Chuanxing Xiao4,6, Kaijian Hou8, Bangzhou Zhang5,6.
Abstract
Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a complex disorder comprehensively influenced by genetic and environmental risk, and research increasingly has indicated the role of microbial dysbiosis in T2DM pathogenesis. However, studies comparing the microbiome characteristics between T2DM and healthy controls have reported inconsistent results. To further identify and describe the characteristics of the intestinal flora of T2DM patients, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of stool microbial profiles to discern and describe microbial dysbiosis in T2DM and to explore heterogeneity among 7 studies (600 T2DM cases, 543 controls, 1143 samples in total). Using a random effects model and a fixed effects model, we observed significant differences in beta diversity, but not alpha diversity, between individuals with T2DM and controls. We identified various operational taxonomic unit (OTUs) and bacterial genera with significant odds ratios for T2DM. The T2DM signatures derived from a single study by stepwise feature selection could be applied in other studies. By training on multiple studies, we improved the detection accuracy and disease specificity for T2DM. We also discuss the relationship between T2DM-enriched or T2DM-depleted genera and probiotics and provide new ideas for diabetes prevention and improvement.Entities:
Keywords: 16S rRNA sequencing; T2DM; meta-analysis; microbiota; probiotics
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34484230 PMCID: PMC8415158 DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2021.722206
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Immunol ISSN: 1664-3224 Impact factor: 7.561
Characteristics of the data sets included in the fecal sample-based analysis.
| Source | Year | Country | HC | T2DM | DNA extraction | Region | Seq platform |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PRJNA325931 | 2016 ( | Colombia | 84 | 28 | QIAamp DNA | V4 | Miseq |
| Stool Mini Kit | |||||||
| SRP168691 | 2019 ( | China | 35 | 65 | FastDNA Spin Kit | V3-V4 | Ion S5 |
| PRJNA554535 | 2019 ( | Pakista | 20 | 40 | Tiagen DNA | V3–V4 | Miseq |
| Stool kit | |||||||
| PRJNA472187 | 2020 ( | Mexico | 76 | 68 | PowerSoil DNA | V3 | PGM |
| Isolation Kit | |||||||
| PRJNA607849 | 2020 ( | Nigeria | 193 | 98 | MoBioPowerMag | V4 | Miseq |
| Microbiome kit | |||||||
| ERP107659 | 2020 ( | China | 40 | 20 | QIAamp DNA | V4-V5 | Hiseq |
| Stool Mini kit | |||||||
| PRJNA670300 | 2020 | China | 95 | 281 | QIAamp DNA | V4 | Miniseq |
| Stool Mini kit |
Figure 1The principal coordinates analysis (PCoA) of all samples at OTU level, depicting the great microbial variations from different studies with population variation, DNA extraction methods, 16S rRNA gene regions investigated, sequencing platforms, etc. The points represent samples, shapes represent the different group, and the colors represent the different study. Top 10 genera with significant (P < 0.001, p < 0.05) correlations were fitted to the PCoA.
Figure 2Forest plot of (A) the alpha diversity metrics and (B) Bray-Cutris distances between the individual with diabetics and the controls and (C) the genus metrics (Among them, the full name of L_AC2044_group is Lachnospiraceae_AC2044_group). The error bar depicts the 95% confidence interval. The value less than 1.0 (left side of the dashed line) depicts that the metric is higher in T2DM than the control. The values bigger than 1.0 (right side of the dashed lines) depicts that the metric is lower in T2DM than the control. There were significantly difference between the case and the control, if there was no cross between the dashed line and the error bar.
Figure 3(A) The performances of models to classify the case and the normal before and after feature selection (FS) based on common OTUs; The horizontal ordinates represent the seven studies and the total study. The vertical coordinates depict the AUC of the individual study. (B) T2DM classification accuracy resulting from cross-validation within each study (the boxed along the diagonal) and study-to-study model transfer (external validations off the diagonal) as measured by the AUROC for the classification models trained on OTUs. The color of the scale bar on the right represents the AUC value.
Figure 4Cross-study performance of statistical models based on OTUs. (A) ROC of data from all other studies are combined for training (LOOS validation). (B) The prediction probability relative to T2DM classification models trained on fecal samples from patients with other conditions. The "****" indicates that the predictive performance of the model between other diseases and diabetes is significantly different (t-test, p < 0.05). (C) The relative abundance, AUC value and feature ranking of the selected 96 OTUs based on two-step feature selection.
Importance, odd ration, confidence interval, and relative abundance of the 24 genera selected for the RF model for T2DM based on all samples.
| Genera | Mean decrease Gini | OR | CI_ub | CI_lb | Abundance (%) | Abundance (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| in DM | in the Normal | ||||||
|
| 42.283 | 1.486 | 0.419 | 5.276 | 0.965 ± 2.89 | 2.842 ± 5.01 | 1.22E-38 |
|
| 25.959 | 1.326 | 0.889 | 1.977 | 0.866 ± 1.66 | 1.521 ± 1.78 | 5.31E-27 |
|
| 21.221 | 0.402 | 0.199 | 0.813 | 1.251 ± 5.21 | 0.330 ± 1.23 | 6.32E-07 |
|
| 16.924 | 1.147 | 0.462 | 2.850 | 1.416 ± 4.61 | 4.270 ± 7.53 | 1.32E-25 |
|
| 14.026 | 0.996 | 0.632 | 1.570 | 2.699 ± 5.45 | 5.963 ± 7.85 | 3.94E-19 |
|
| 12.796 | 0.677 | 0.276 | 1.662 | 0.894 ± 1.89 | 0.868 ± 1.60 | 8.97E-06 |
|
| 12.743 | 1.022 | 0.653 | 1.599 | 2.264 ± 3.77 | 3.059 ± 5.36 | 2E-08 |
|
| 11.993 | 1.076 | 0.349 | 3.312 | 1.942 ± 4.14 | 0.688 ± 1.37 | 1.93E-18 |
|
| 11.899 | 0.727 | 0.558 | 0.947 | 0.104 ± 0.26 | 0.154 ± 0.25 | 1.11E-11 |
|
| 11.706 | 0.708 | 0.393 | 1.273 | 0.163 ± 0.41 | 0.079 ± 0.15 | 1.1E-06 |
|
| 11.188 | 1.225 | 0.688 | 2.178 | 0.109 ± 0.20 | 0.125 ± 0.18 | 0.001016 |
|
| 11.113 | 0.895 | 0.695 | 1.152 | 19.200 ± 20.57 | 11.896 ± 18.69 | 3.48E-16 |
|
| 10.370 | 1.444 | 0.923 | 2.259 | 1.604 ± 4.09 | 2.304 ± 4.18 | 1.96E-07 |
|
| 10.159 | 0.680 | 0.449 | 1.030 | 0.809 ± 1.85 | 0.249 ± 0.78 | 1.93E-19 |
|
| 10.157 | 0.361 | 0.154 | 0.848 | 0.456 ± 2.11 | 0.013 ± 0.12 | 2.45E-17 |
|
| 9.869 | 1.006 | 0.763 | 1.325 | 0.189 ± 0.69 | 0.463 ± 1.55 | 9.33E-17 |
|
| 9.102 | 1.166 | 0.856 | 1.588 | 0.462 ± 1.41 | 0.378 ± 1.06 | 0.007919 |
|
| 8.702 | 0.651 | 0.336 | 1.258 | 1.717 ± 4.87 | 1.066 ± 4.05 | 0.000239 |
| Lachnospiraceae_NC2004_group | 8.347 | 0.879 | 0.500 | 1.543 | 0.414 ± 1.37 | 0.376 ± 1.19 | 6.86E-10 |
|
| 7.428 | 0.662 | 0.366 | 1.195 | 0.093 ± 0.45 | 0.018 ± 0.05 | 5.21E-13 |
|
| 7.403 | 0.852 | 0.512 | 1.418 | 0.889 ± 2.73 | 1.757 ± 4.25 | 6.59E-09 |
|
| 7.275 | 1.293 | 0.774 | 2.161 | 0.174 ± 0.63 | 0.516 ± 1.34 | 1.58E-13 |
|
| 6.485 | 0.669 | 0.490 | 0.912 | 0.033 ± 0.13 | 0.015 ± 0.06 | 1.25E-07 |
|
| 5.859 | 0.347 | 0.213 | 0.565 | 0.013 ± 0.08 | 0.001 ± 0.005 | 5.61E-09 |
Figure 5Associations between T2DM-enriched or depleted genera and probiotics. Differentially enriched 24 genera (q-value <0.05, FDR-controlled Wilcoxon rank-sum test, ) were analyzed for associations with probiotics. Twenty-two of the 24 genera with significant correlation [P-value <0.05, abs(r-value)>0.1] were selected for the visualization. T2DM-enriched genera are represented by red circles, and control-enriched genera are represented by cyan circles. The size of each circle indicates connectivity. Green lines indicate positive association, and red lines—negative associations.