Krishnakant Saboo1, Nikita V Petrakov1, Amirhossein Shamsaddini2, Andrew Fagan3, Edith A Gavis3, Masoumeh Sikaroodi2, Sara McGeorge3, Patrick M Gillevet2, Ravishankar K Iyer1, Jasmohan S Bajaj4. 1. Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, USA. 2. Microbiome Analysis Center, George Mason University, Manassas, VA, USA. 3. Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, Virginia Commonwealth University and Central Virginia Veterans Healthcare System, Richmond, VA, USA. 4. Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, Virginia Commonwealth University and Central Virginia Veterans Healthcare System, Richmond, VA, USA. Electronic address: jasmohan.bajaj@vcuhealth.org.
Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Saliva and stool microbiota are altered in cirrhosis. Since stool is logistically difficult to collect compared to saliva, it is important to determine their relative diagnostic and prognostic capabilities. We aimed to determine the ability of stool vs. saliva microbiota to differentiate between groups based on disease severity using machine learning (ML). METHODS: Controls and outpatients with cirrhosis underwent saliva and stool microbiome analysis. Controls vs. cirrhosis and within cirrhosis (based on hepatic encephalopathy [HE], proton pump inhibitor [PPI] and rifaximin use) were classified using 4 ML techniques (random forest [RF], support vector machine, logistic regression, and gradient boosting) with AUC comparisons for stool, saliva or both sample types. Individual microbial contributions were computed using feature importance of RF and Shapley additive explanations. Finally, thresholds for including microbiota were varied between 2.5% and 10%, and core microbiome (DESeq2) analysis was performed. RESULTS: Two hundred and sixty-nine participants, including 87 controls and 182 patients with cirrhosis, of whom 57 had HE, 78 were on PPIs and 29 on rifaximin were included. Regardless of the ML model, stool microbiota had a significantly higher AUC in differentiating groups vs. saliva. Regarding individual microbiota: autochthonous taxa drove the difference between controls vs. patients with cirrhosis, oral-origin microbiota the difference between PPI users/non-users, and pathobionts and autochthonous taxa the difference between rifaximin users/non-users and patients with/without HE. These were consistent with the core microbiome analysis results. CONCLUSIONS: On ML analysis, stool microbiota composition is significantly more informative in differentiating between controls and patients with cirrhosis, and those with varying cirrhosis severity, compared to saliva. Despite logistic challenges, stool should be preferred over saliva for microbiome analysis. LAY SUMMARY: Since it is harder to collect stool than saliva, we wanted to test whether microbes from saliva were better than stool in differentiating between healthy people and those with cirrhosis and, among those with cirrhosis, those with more severe disease. Using machine learning, we found that microbes in stool were more accurate than saliva alone or in combination, therefore, stool should be preferred for analysis and collection wherever possible.
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Saliva and stool microbiota are altered in cirrhosis. Since stool is logistically difficult to collect compared to saliva, it is important to determine their relative diagnostic and prognostic capabilities. We aimed to determine the ability of stool vs. saliva microbiota to differentiate between groups based on disease severity using machine learning (ML). METHODS: Controls and outpatients with cirrhosis underwent saliva and stool microbiome analysis. Controls vs. cirrhosis and within cirrhosis (based on hepatic encephalopathy [HE], proton pump inhibitor [PPI] and rifaximin use) were classified using 4 ML techniques (random forest [RF], support vector machine, logistic regression, and gradient boosting) with AUC comparisons for stool, saliva or both sample types. Individual microbial contributions were computed using feature importance of RF and Shapley additive explanations. Finally, thresholds for including microbiota were varied between 2.5% and 10%, and core microbiome (DESeq2) analysis was performed. RESULTS: Two hundred and sixty-nine participants, including 87 controls and 182 patients with cirrhosis, of whom 57 had HE, 78 were on PPIs and 29 on rifaximin were included. Regardless of the ML model, stool microbiota had a significantly higher AUC in differentiating groups vs. saliva. Regarding individual microbiota: autochthonous taxa drove the difference between controls vs. patients with cirrhosis, oral-origin microbiota the difference between PPI users/non-users, and pathobionts and autochthonous taxa the difference between rifaximin users/non-users and patients with/without HE. These were consistent with the core microbiome analysis results. CONCLUSIONS: On ML analysis, stool microbiota composition is significantly more informative in differentiating between controls and patients with cirrhosis, and those with varying cirrhosis severity, compared to saliva. Despite logistic challenges, stool should be preferred over saliva for microbiome analysis. LAY SUMMARY: Since it is harder to collect stool than saliva, we wanted to test whether microbes from saliva were better than stool in differentiating between healthy people and those with cirrhosis and, among those with cirrhosis, those with more severe disease. Using machine learning, we found that microbes in stool were more accurate than saliva alone or in combination, therefore, stool should be preferred for analysis and collection wherever possible.
Authors: Jasmohan S Bajaj; Phillip B Hylemon; Jason M Ridlon; Douglas M Heuman; Kalyani Daita; Melanie B White; Pamela Monteith; Nicole A Noble; Masoumeh Sikaroodi; Patrick M Gillevet Journal: Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol Date: 2012-07-19 Impact factor: 4.052
Authors: Jasmohan S Bajaj; Andrew Fagan; Masoumeh Sikaroodi; Genta Kakiyama; Hajme Takei; Yordanos Degefu; William M Pandak; Phillip B Hylemon; Michael Fuchs; Binu John; Douglas M Heuman; Edith Gavis; Hiroshi Nittono; Rohan Patil; Patrick M Gillevet Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2019-03-21 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Nan Qin; Fengling Yang; Ang Li; Edi Prifti; Yanfei Chen; Li Shao; Jing Guo; Emmanuelle Le Chatelier; Jian Yao; Lingjiao Wu; Jiawei Zhou; Shujun Ni; Lin Liu; Nicolas Pons; Jean Michel Batto; Sean P Kennedy; Pierre Leonard; Chunhui Yuan; Wenchao Ding; Yuanting Chen; Xinjun Hu; Beiwen Zheng; Guirong Qian; Wei Xu; S Dusko Ehrlich; Shusen Zheng; Lanjuan Li Journal: Nature Date: 2014-07-23 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Jasmohan S Bajaj; Douglas M Heuman; Phillip B Hylemon; Arun J Sanyal; Melanie B White; Pamela Monteith; Nicole A Noble; Ariel B Unser; Kalyani Daita; Andmorgan R Fisher; Masoumeh Sikaroodi; Patrick M Gillevet Journal: J Hepatol Date: 2013-12-25 Impact factor: 25.083
Authors: Nicola Segata; Susan Kinder Haake; Peter Mannon; Katherine P Lemon; Levi Waldron; Dirk Gevers; Curtis Huttenhower; Jacques Izard Journal: Genome Biol Date: 2012-06-14 Impact factor: 13.583
Authors: Angela Horvath; Florian Rainer; Mina Bashir; Bettina Leber; Bianca Schmerboeck; Ingeborg Klymiuk; Andrea Groselj-Strele; Marija Durdevic; Daniel E Freedberg; Julian A Abrams; Peter Fickert; Philipp Stiegler; Vanessa Stadlbauer Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2019-08-19 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Paolo Caraceni; Victor Vargas; Elsa Solà; Carlo Alessandria; Koos de Wit; Jonel Trebicka; Paolo Angeli; Rajeshwar P Mookerjee; François Durand; Elisa Pose; Aleksander Krag; Jasmohan S Bajaj; Ulrich Beuers; Pere Ginès Journal: Hepatology Date: 2021-06-07 Impact factor: 17.425
Authors: Sung-Min Won; Ki Kwang Oh; Haripriya Gupta; Raja Ganesan; Satya Priya Sharma; Jin-Ju Jeong; Sang Jun Yoon; Min Kyo Jeong; Byeong Hyun Min; Ji Ye Hyun; Hee Jin Park; Jung A Eom; Su Been Lee; Min Gi Cha; Goo Hyun Kwon; Mi Ran Choi; Dong Joon Kim; Ki Tae Suk Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2022-08-12 Impact factor: 6.208