| Literature DB >> 34858881 |
Zongdan Jiang1, Jun Wang2, Ziyang Shen3, Zhenyu Zhang1, Shukui Wang4.
Abstract
Microbial imbalances have been well elucidated in esophageal adenocarcinoma. However, few studies address the microbiota in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) and esophagitis (ES). We aimed to explore the association of esophageal microbiota with these patients. Esophageal tissues were obtained from healthy controls and ES and ESCC patients undergoing upper endoscopy. 16S rRNA gene sequencing was applied to analyze the microbiome. The α and β diversity differences were tested by Tukey test and partial least squares-discriminant analysis (PLS-DA), respectively. Linear discriminant analysis effect size (LEfSe) analysis was performed to assess taxonomic differences between groups. A total of 68 individuals were enrolled (control = 21, ES = 15, ESCC = 32). Microbial diversity was significantly different between the ESCC patients and healthy controls by Chao1 index, Shannon index, and PLS-DA. Firmicutes, Proteobacteria, Bacteroidetes, Actinobacteria, and Fusobacteria were the five dominant bacterial phyla among the three groups. Megamonas, Collinsella, Roseburia, and Ruminococcus_2 showed a significantly continuous decreasing trend from the control group to the ESCC group at the genus level. When compared with the control group, decreased Fusobacteria at phylum level and Faecalibacterium, Bacteroides, Curvibacter, and Blautia at genus level were detected. ESCC samples also displayed a striking reduction of Bacteroidetes, Faecalibacterium, Bacteroides, and Blautia in comparison with the ES patients. LEfSe analysis indicated a greater abundance of Streptococcus, Actinobacillus, Peptostreptococcus, Fusobacterium, and Prevotella in the ESCC group. Our study suggests a potential association between esophageal microbiome dysbiosis and ESCC and provides insights into potential screening markers for esophageal cancer.Entities:
Keywords: Nanjing area; Streptococcus anginosus; esophageal microbiota; esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC); esophagitis patients
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34858881 PMCID: PMC8632060 DOI: 10.3389/fcimb.2021.774330
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Cell Infect Microbiol ISSN: 2235-2988 Impact factor: 5.293
Clinical characteristics of enrolled patients and healthy controls.
| Characteristics | Control (n = 21) | ES (n = 15) | ESCC (n = 32) |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 47.85 ± 12.01 | 55.60 ± 11.53 | 55.97 ± 11.62 | 0.040* |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 24.06 ± 3.78 | 24.57 ± 2.92 | 25.89 ± 4.06 | 0.200 |
| Sex (male) | 13 (61.9%) | 9 9 (60.0%) | 20 (62.5%) | 0.986 |
| Smoker (Yes) | 11 (52.4%) | 10 (66.7%) | 18 (56.3%) | 0.684 |
| Alcohol consumption (Yes) | 7 (33.3%) | 6 (60.0%) | 14 (43.8%) | 0.750 |
| Diabetes (Yes) | 4 (19.0%) | 7 (46.7%) | 9 (28.1%) | 0.214 |
| Family history of cancer (Yes) | 3 (14.3%) | 2 (13.3%) | 3 (9.4%) | 0.796 |
*p < 0.05.
Figure 1The microbial α diversity and β diversity analysis in different groups. (A) Chao 1 index was higher in the ESCC and ES group than in the control group. (B) The ES group had a significantly higher Shannon index, in comparison with the ESCC group and control group. Data were reported as minimum (min) to the maximum (max) with the line at median. (C) A Venn diagram displayed the overlaps among the groups. (D) PLS-DA revealed different microbial community structures in the three groups. *p < 0.05.
Figure 2Comparison of relative abundance among each group Barplots of the relative abundance of the main bacterial taxa at (A) phylum, (B) family and (C) genus level for the control, ES and ESCC group. Significant taxa were highlighted in the blue font. (D) Mean relative abundance of continuous changing genera among the groups. Significant taxa were highlighted in the purple font. Data were reported as min to the max with the line at median. *p < 0.05.
Figure 3Linear discriminant analysis effect size (LEfSe) analysis showed the most abundant taxa from the phylum to the genus level among the control, esophagitis (ES), and esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) groups.
Figure 4The function prediction of the three groups. Differential Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) pathways were analyzed using PICRUSt for the three groups. Significant differences between the control and esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) groups (A), the control and esophagitis (ES) groups (B), and the ES and ESCC groups (C) were presented.