| Literature DB >> 34792749 |
Zilong Zhang1,2, Linghong Zhu3, Yanqing Ma1, Bo Wang3, Caihong Ci1, Jingni Zhang3, Yunsong Zhou1, Chunjiang Dou1, Qiaoling Gu1, Yan An1, Yongmei Lan4, Jin Zhao5,6.
Abstract
The aim of this study is to compare and analyze the structure and diversity of intestinal flora between gastric cancer patients and healthy people in the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau and to explore the characteristics of the intestinal flora composition in gastric cancer patients in the plateau area, and to determine the possible correlation between the intestinal flora and gastric cancer. Fresh feces from 22 cases of gastric cancer patients diagnosed in a tertiary hospital in Qinghai Province and 30 cases of healthy people during the same period were collected. The 52 subjects were undergone for 16S rDNA gene sequencing of intestinal bacteria to analyze and compare the diversity and compositional characteristics of intestinal flora. Analysis of the diversity of intestinal flora between the gastric cancer group and the healthy group was based on the Chao1 index of species richness, Shannon diversity index, and Simpson index. It showed that the gastric cancer group had no statistically difference from the healthy group (P > 0.05). In the Venn diagram, the number of OTU units shared by the gastric cancer group and the healthy group is 6997, and the number of unique OTU units in the healthy group is 2282, while the number of OTU units in the gastric cancer group is 896 and the difference is statistically significant (χ2 = 495.829), P < 0.000). Analysis of the composition and abundance distribution of intestinal flora showed that at the phylum level, there is no significant deference in abundance between the healthy group of Bacteroides and Firmicutes compared with the gastric cancer group (P > 0.05). However, there is a statistically significant difference in abundance between the healthy groups of Proteobacteria compared with the gastric cancer group (P < 0.05). At the genus level, the gastric cancer group of Prevotella_9 is significantly different from the healthy group (P < 0.05). Meanwhile, the gastric cancer group of Streptococcus and Lactobacillus are significantly different from the healthy group (P < 0.001). There are differences in the composition and abundance of intestinal flora between patients with gastric cancer and healthy people in plateau areas, suggesting that Proteobacteria, Prevotella_9, Streptococcus, and Lactobacillus have increased in the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau and becoming one of the factors related to the incidence of gastric cancer in the region.Entities:
Keywords: 16S rDNA gene sequencing; Diversity; Gastric cancer; Intestinal flora; Qinghai-Tibet Plateau
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34792749 PMCID: PMC9007807 DOI: 10.1007/s12010-021-03732-4
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Appl Biochem Biotechnol ISSN: 0273-2289 Impact factor: 2.926
Fig. 1Electrophoresis diagram for detecting the purity and concentration of DNA sample (in 1% agarose gel with 120 V constant pressure electrophoresis for 15 min)
Comparison of general information between gastric cancer and healthy groups
| Group | Number | Age (years) | Gender (Male/Female) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gastric cancer | 22 | 60.68 ± 9.574 | 16/6 |
| Healthy | 30 | 58.87 ± 15.520 | 15/15 |
| t/χ2 | 0.484 | 2.723 | |
| 0.630 | 0.099 |
Fig. 2Dilution curve is used to assess the abundance and sequencing depth of the fecal and intestinal flora of the gastric cancer group and the healthy group. The y-axis represents the number of OTUs, and the x-axis represents the number of randomly selected sequencing sequences (DG: gastric cancer group; CK: healthy group)
Fig. 3Rank-abundance curve diagram of gastric cancer group and healthy group. The y-axis represents the abundance of OTUs, and the x-axis represents the sequence number of the corresponding abundance of OTUs (DG: gastric cancer group; CK: healthy group)
Fig. 4Comparative analysis of the abundance and diversity of fecal and intestinal flora between the gastric cancer group and the healthy group (CK, healthy group; DG, gastric cancer group). A (Chao1), B (Shannon), C (Simpson), D (Venn)
Comparison of intestinal flora levels between gastric cancer group and healthy group (top 15 flora)
| Group | Gastric cancer | Healthy | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intestinal flora | ||||
| Bacteroidetes | 0.38 ± 0.181 | 0.50 ± 0.217 | 1.942 | 0.224 |
| Firmicutes | 0.37 ± 0.140 | 0.37 ± 0.182 | − 0.065 | 0.288 |
| Proteobacteria | 0.183 ± 0.205 | 0.073 ± 0.082 | − 2.681 | 0.003 |
| Actinobacteria | 0.046 ± 0.040 | 0.05 ± 0.037 | 0.235 | 0.512 |
| Fusobacteria | 0.002 (0.001, 0.003) | 0.002 (0.001, 0.004) | − 0.463 | 0.643 |
| Epsilonbacteraeota | 0.0008 (0.0003, 0.0019) | 0.0011 (0.0004, 0.0016) | − 0.852 | 0.349 |
| Acidobacteria | 0.0013 ± 0.0013 | 0.0016 ± 0.0010 | 1.021 | 0.488 |
| Gemmatimonadetes | 0.0007 ± 0.0007 | 0.0009 ± 0.0009 | 0.971 | 0.849 |
| Tenericutes | 0.0007 ± 0.0021 | 0.0006 ± 0.0007 | − 0.304 | 0.281 |
| Deferribacteres | 0.0001 (0.0001, 0.003) | 0.0001 (0.00006, 0.0005) | − 0.797 | 0.425 |
| Patescibacteria | 0.0002 ± 0.0002 | 0.0002 ± 0.0002 | 0.237 | 0.425 |
| Cyanobacteria | 0.0001 ± 0.0001 | 0.0001 ± 0.0002 | 0.215 | 0.907 |
| Nitrospirae | 0.0001 ± 0.0001 | 0.0001 ± 0.0001 | 0.933 | 0.630 |
| Spirochaetes | 0.0001 ± 0.0001 | 0.0001 ± 0.0001 | 0.479 | 0.790 |
| Verrucomicrobia | 0.0000 (0.0000, 0.0001) | 0.0000 (0.0000, 0.0001) | − 0.067 | 0.947 |
Fig. 5The compositional level of fecal intestinal flora in the gastric cancer group and the healthy group (top 15 dominant bacteria at the phylum level)
Comparison of the intestinal flora levels between the gastric cancer group and the healthy group (top 15 flora)
| Group | Gastric cancer | Healthy | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intestinal flora | ||||
| 0.135 (0.045, 0.318) | 0.084 (0.041, 0.181) | − 0.945 | 0.345 | |
| 0.05 ± 0.123 | 0.13 ± 0.226 | 1.525 | 0.014 | |
| 0.226 (0.006, 0.072) | 0.009 (0.004, 0.026) | − 1.574 | 0.115 | |
| 0.03 ± 0.043 | 0.04 ± 0.047 | 0.500 | 0.838 | |
| 0.052 ± 0.105 | 0.008 ± 0.009 | − 2.306 | 0.000 | |
| 0.019 ± 0.028 | 0.029 ± 0.441 | 0.878 | 0.117 | |
| 0.036 ± 0.041 | 0.015 ± 0.015 | − 2.639 | 0.000 | |
| 0.0009 (0.0003, 0.0015) | 0.0008 (0.0005, 0.0022) | − 1.019 | 0.308 | |
| 0.018 ± 0.021 | 0.023 ± 0.037 | 0.553 | 0.787 | |
| 0.024 ± 0.515 | 0.018 ± 0.025 | − 0.540 | 0.123 | |
| 0.0002 (0.0001, 0.0010) | 0.0005 (0.0002, 0.0016) | − 1.556 | 0.120 | |
| 0.016 ± 0.030 | 0.019 ± 0.034 | 0.519 | 0.778 | |
| 0.013 ± 0.024 | 0.016 ± 0.028 | 0.444 | 0.719 | |
| 0.013 ± 0.024 | 0.009 ± 0.016 | 0.443 | 0.487 | |
| 0.0037 (0.0018, 0.0052) | 0.0025 (0.0003, 0.0059) | − 0.741 | 0.459 |
Fig. 6The compositional level of fecal intestinal flora in the gastric cancer group and the healthy group (top 15 dominant bacteria at the genus level)
Fig. 7LEfSe analysis diagram of the structural difference in fecal and intestinal flora between gastric cancer group and healthy group (CK, healthy group; DG, gastric cancer group. The red line indicates the relatively high abundance species in the healthy group, and the green line indicates the relatively high abundance species in the gastric cancer group. The letters in front of the species indicate different levels. p represents the phylum level, c represents the class level, o represents the order level, f represents the family level, g represents the genus level, and s represents the species level)