| Literature DB >> 35251295 |
Rui Huang1, Ke He1, Xiaopeng Duan1, Jinfeng Xiao1, Hanning Wang1, Guoan Xiang1.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The change of bacterial flora structure in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients after treatment is not clear. The aim of this study was to explore the change and function of intestinal microflora in CRC before and after treatment.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35251295 PMCID: PMC8896156 DOI: 10.1155/2022/1940846
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Comput Math Methods Med ISSN: 1748-670X Impact factor: 2.238
Figure 1Collection, storage, and handle of intestinal microbiological samples. The process is the overall step of 16S sequencing, including aseptic collection of fecal samples, centrifugal enrichment of bacteria, DNA extraction, construction of DNA library, and DNA sequencing.
Figure 2Endoscopic examination of colorectal cancer tissue. The lesion site of the colon (a) and rectum (c) under endoscope. Hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) staining results of colon (b) and rectal (d) cancer tissues under light microscope (100x).
Statistics of clinical data of colorectal cancer patients.
| Patients | Mean ± SD |
|---|---|
| Age (year) | 58.20 ± 12.09 |
| Gender ( | |
| Female | 2 |
| Male | 3 |
| Colorectal cancer | |
| Colon cancer | 3 |
| Rectal cancer | 2 |
| Tumor size (cm3) | 28.23 ± 20.91 |
| Clinical stage | |
| I | 1 |
| II | 1 |
| III | 2 |
| IV | 1 |
| MMR ( | 1 |
| Ki-67 (+) | 62.00 ± 16.00% |
| Chemotherapy methods | |
| Tegafur+irinotecan | |
| Tegafur+calcium folinate+oxaliplatin | |
| Tegafur+irinotecan+calcium folinate+oxaliplatin | |
| Times of chemotherapy | 4.80 ± 1.64 |
| Lymphatic metastasis | 3 |
MMR indicates CRC patients with Lynch syndrome who carry a mismatch repair (MMR) gene mutation.
Figure 3Alpha diversity of intestinal flora before and after treatment of colorectal cancer. (a–b) Chao1 and Simpson index results and (c) heat map of the Wilcoxon test analysis results of alpha diversity indexes.
Figure 4Beta diversity analysis of intestinal bacteria before and after treatment of colorectal cancer. Unweighted pair group method with arithmetic mean (UPGMA) cluster tree (a) and principle coordinate analysis (PCoA) plot based on Unweighted_unifrac distances show distinct bacterial community clusters between the control and CRC patients before and after treatments (b), PCoA plot shows distinct bacterial community clusters based on Jaccard (c), the heat map shows the ANOSIM test results of beta diversity indexes (Unweighted_unifrac, Weighted_unifrac, Bray, and Jaccard) among each group (d), and box diagram shows the OTU diversity based on the Jaccard distance of each group (e).
Figure 5Stacking map of species distribution at phylum (a), family (b), and genus (c) levels of each group.
The results of bacterial classification differences in each group based on LEFSE method (P < 0.05).
| Levels | Control | CRC | CRC_C | CRC_O |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Phylum | — | Verrucomicrobia, Synergistetes | Verrucomicrobia | — |
| Class | — | Acidimicrobiia, Deltaproteobacteria, Synergistia, and Verrucomicrobiae | Verrucomicrobiae | — |
| Order | Phycisphaerales, Gemmatales, and Desulfuromonadales | Propionibacteriales, Desulfovibrionales, Corynebacteriales, Synechococcales, Synergistales, IMCC26256, and Verrucomicrobiales | Chloroplast, Verrucomicrobiales | — |
| Family | Rhizobiaceae, Bacillaceae, Candidatus_Melainabacteria_bacterium_MELA1, Coriobacteriales_Incertae_Sedis, Gemmataceae, Geobacteraceae, and Phycisphaeraceae | Akkermansiaceae, Aerococcaceae, Synergistaceae, Cyanobiaceae, and Desulfovibrionaceae | Akkermansiaceae, Clostridiaceae_1 | — |
| Genus | Bacillus, Coprococcus_2, Coprococcus_1, Ruminococcus_1, Lachnospira, Eubacterium_hallii_group, Fusicatenibacter, Lachnospiraceae_UCG_003, Adlercreutzia, Erysipelotrichaceae_UCG_003, GCA_900066575, Prevotella_2, SM1A02, Ruminococcaceae_UCG_014, Eubacterium_ventriosum_group, Mitsuokella, Geobacter, Senegalimassilia, Lachnospiraceae_UCG_010, Ruminococcaceae_UCG_003, Ruminococcaceae_UCG_002, Faecalibacterium, Lachnospiraceae_ND3007_group, Lachnospiraceae_NK4A136_group, Fimbriiglobus, Lachnospiraceae_UCG_001, and Phyllobacterium | Erysipelatoclostridium, Abiotrophia, Curvibacter, Ralstonia, Bilophila, Akkermansia, and Burkholderia_Caballeronia_Paraburkholderia | Eubacterium_ruminantium_group, Akkermansia | — |
| Species | Clostridium_perfringens_CPE_str_F4969, Bifidobacterium_animalis, Veillonella_magna, Ruminococcus_bicirculans, Alistipes_inops, Coprococcus_sp_DJF_B005, and Lachnospiraceae_bacterium_TF01_11 | GCA_900066225, Pyramidobacter, Hungatella, Eubacterium_sp_Marseille_P3202, Bacteroides_vulgatus, Parabacteroides_distasonis, Hungatella_hathewayi, Clostridium_symbiosum_ATCC_14940, Erysipelatoclostridium_ramosum, Akkermansia_muciniphila, Emergencia_timonensis, and Corynebacterium_afermentans_subsp_afermentans | — | — |
Figure 6Intestinal bacteria phenotype and function analysis of colorectal cancer patients before and after treatment. (a) The phenotypic distribution of each group, (b) the analysis of phenotypic differences among groups, (c) the distribution of aerobic species, and (d) the analysis of KO pathway.
Figure 7The difference of intestinal bacterial function in patients with colorectal cancer before and after treatment. Panel (a) shows the KO pathway difference of intestinal bacteria between healthy people and colorectal cancer patients, with the Welch t test P less than 0.05, while panels (b) and (c) show the difference after chemotherapy and operation, respectively.
Figure 8Genera with indicative significance in the intestine of colorectal cancer patients before and after treatments. Panel (a) shows the genera that are significantly abundant between the CON and CRC groups tested by the Wilcoxon rank method (P < 0.05), while panels (b) and (c) show the genera between the CRC_O group and CRC_C group with the CRC group, respectively.
Figure 9The predominant intestinal flora interaction of healthy people (a) and colorectal cancer patients (b) and functional difference analysis (c).
Figure 10The predominant intestinal flora interactions (a, c) and their functional differences (b, d) in colorectal cancer patients after surgery and chemical drug therapy.