| Literature DB >> 35633718 |
Dario L Frey1,2, Calum Bridson1,3, Susanne Dittrich1,2,4, Simon Y Graeber1,2,5,6,7,8, Mirjam Stahl1,2,5,6,7,8, Sabine Wege4, Felix Herth1,4, Olaf Sommerburg1,5, Carsten Schultz1,9, Alexander Dalpke1,3,10, Marcus A Mall6,7,8, Sébastien Boutin1,3.
Abstract
Airway inflammation and microbiome dysbiosis are hallmarks of cystic fibrosis (CF) lung disease. However, longitudinal studies are needed to decipher which factors contribute to the long-term evolution of these key features of CF. We therefore evaluated the relationship between fluctuation in microbiome and inflammatory parameters in a longitudinal study including a short- (1-year) and a long-term (3+ years) period. We collected 118 sputum samples from 26 CF adult patients and analyzed them by 16S rRNA gene sequencing. We measured the levels of inflammatory cytokines, neutrophil elastase, and anti-proteinases; lung function (FEV1% predicted); and BMI. The longitudinal evolution was analyzed based on (i) the rates of changes; (ii) the intra-patient stability of the variables; and (iii) the dependency of the rates of changes on the baseline values. We observed that the diversity of the microbiome was highly variable over a 1-year period, while the inflammatory markers showed a slower evolution, with significant changes only observed in the 3+ year cohort. Further, the degree of fluctuation of the biomass and the dominance of the microbiome were associated with changes in inflammatory markers, especially IL-1β and IL-8. This longitudinal study demonstrates for the first time that the long-term establishment and periodical variation of the abundance of a dominant pathogen is associated with a more severe increase in inflammation. This result indicates that a single time point or 1-year study might fail to reveal the correlation between microbial evolution and clinical degradation in cystic fibrosis.Entities:
Keywords: 16S rRNA gene; cystic fibrosis; inflammation; longitudinal study; microbiome
Year: 2022 PMID: 35633718 PMCID: PMC9136159 DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2022.885822
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Microbiol ISSN: 1664-302X Impact factor: 6.064
Figure 1Relative abundance for the 12 most common genera depicted as a stacked bar plot for each visit grouped by patient. The x-axis indicates time in months since the baseline, the y-axis shows relative abundance. Dots underneath the stacked bar plot are color-coded according to the study arm they were assigned to, dark gray: 1-year, light gray: 3+ years. Baseline visits is defined as the first routine visit without exacerbation or aggravating symptoms if different from t0 the visits are indicated with a white dot, stable visits are solid dots and exacerbated visits are indicated with a white X. If several factors are true, they are plotted over each other.
Clinical characteristics of the 1-year and 3+ year cohort.
| 1-Year | 3+ Years | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Number of subjects |
| 17 | 19 |
| Number of visits |
| 57 | 95 |
| Age (years) | Median (range) | 29.03 (17.73–61.43) | 26.84 (17.73–71.51) |
| Sex | Females/males ( | 4/13 | 5/14 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | Median (range) | 21.73 (17.30–30.32) | 20.16 (17.27–28.02) |
| FEV1% predicted | Median (range) | 52.94 (17.49–89.67) | 48.81 (17.41–108.9) |
| CFTR genotype | |||
| F508del/F508del | 9 (53%) | 7 (37%) | |
| F508del/other | 5 (29%) | 9 (47%) | |
| Other/other | 3 (18%) | 3 (16%) | |
| CFTR modulator | |||
| Lumacaftor/Ivacaftor | 2 (5) | 2 (16) | |
| Tezacaftor/Ivacaftor | 3 (9) | 3 (6) | |
| Pancreatic insufficiency | 15 (88%) | 17 (89%) | |
| Antibiotic treatment | |||
| Inhaled | 6 (26) | 6 (47) | |
| Oral |
| --- | 2 |
| IV |
| 2 | 2 |
| Mixed treatment | 9 (17) | 12 (33) | |
| Inhaled/oral |
| 13 | 23 |
| Inhaled/IV |
| 1 | 4 |
| Inhaled/oral/IV |
| 3 | 6 |
| None | 2 (11) | 1 (9) | |
| Unknown |
| 1 | 2 |
At baseline visit.
Thirty-four visits are shared.
BMI, body mass index; FEV1% predicted, forced expiratory volume in 1 s percent predicted; CFTR, cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator; and IV, intravenous.
Figure 2Summary of the linear models investigating the relationship between each variable and time, showing the effect sizes, 95% CI and values of p (as asterisks). The effect sizes and values of p were calculated using either linear mixed-effects models (LMMs), generalized linear mixed models (GLMMs), or zero-inflated Gaussian models (ZIGMMs) as outlined in the Supplementary Methods. Where variables were transformed before use in a model, the effects sizes are from the models with the transformed data. For the LMMs, the response variables were standardized, by subtracting the mean and dividing by the standard deviation, for ease of comparison. For the taxonomic variables, time was converted to months rather than days. Only the error bars going toward zero are showing to maintain a scale that aids visualization. The dashed error bar for Rothia in the 1-year study represents the fact that the confidence interval extends beyond the limits of the figure, but the figure was cut to maintain a good scale for comparison. The values of p of phyla and genera were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Benjamini-Hochberg method. Values of p indicated as: *<0.05, **≤0.01, and ***≤0.001.
Figure 3A summary of the relationship between the relative abundances of the most abundant phyla and the clinical and inflammation parameters, showing the effect sizes, 95% CI and values of p. Effect sizes and values of p were determined using LMMs, and the values of p were adjusted within each set of tests of a response variable, using the Benjamini-Hochberg method. Prior to running the models, the response variables were standardized, by subtracting the mean and dividing by the SD, for ease of comparison. Only the error bars going toward zero are showing to maintain a scale that aids visualization. Values of p indicated as: *<0.05, and ***≤0.001.
Figure 4Correlations between variables in the 1-year cohort. (A) In terms of rate of change of a variable over time. For each variable, the relationship between that variable and time was determined within each patient, and the resulting regression coefficients were correlated across variables. (B) The intra-patient stability. For each variable, intra-patient stability was calculated as the average pairwise distance between samples within a patient. These average distances were then correlated across variables. Microbiota are given in green, clinical in blue, pro-inflammatory in orange, anti-protease in yellow, and general parameters in gray. The size of the Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient (Rho) is represented by the width and color of the edges, and only correlations with a Rho greater than 0.3 or smaller than −0.3 are shown. Values of p were adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg method. Values of p indicated as: *<0.05, **≤0.01, and ***≤0.001.
Figure 5Correlations between variables in the 3+ year cohort. (A) In terms of rate of change of a variable over time. For each variable, the relationship between that variable and time was determined within each patient, and the resulting regression coefficients were correlated across variables. (B) The intra-patient stability. For each variable, intra-patient stability was calculated as the average pairwise distance between samples within a patient. These average distances were then correlated across variables. Microbiota are given in green, clinical in blue, pro-inflammatory in orange, anti-protease in yellow, and general parameters in gray. The size of the Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient (Rho) is represented by the width and color of the edges, and only correlations with a Rho greater than 0.3 or smaller than −0.3 are shown. Values of p were adjusted using the Benjamini-Hochberg method. Values of p indicated as: *<0.05 and **≤0.01.