| Literature DB >> 35694540 |
Jian Zhang1,2, Hao Qin1, Mingyu Chang1, Yang Yang1, Jun Lin1,2.
Abstract
Background: BK polyomavirus infection results in renal allograft dysfunction, and it is important to find methods of prediction and treatment. As a regulator of host immunity, changes in the gut microbiota are associated with a variety of infections. However, the correlation between microbiota dysbiosis and posttransplant BK polyomavirus infection was rarely studied. Thus, this study aimed to characterize the gut microbiota in BK polyomavirus-infected renal transplant recipients in order to explore the biomarkers that might be potential therapeutic targets and establish a prediction model for posttransplant BK polyomavirus infection based on the gut microbiota.Entities:
Keywords: BK polyomavirus; gut microbiota; infection; microbial dysbiosis; renal transplantation
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35694540 PMCID: PMC9186314 DOI: 10.3389/fcimb.2022.860201
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Cell Infect Microbiol ISSN: 2235-2988 Impact factor: 6.073
The clinical characteristics of the BKV group and the control group.
| Parameters | BKV group (n = 25) | Control group (n = 23) |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Male (n, %) | 12, 48 | 14, 61 | 0.371 |
| Age (years) | 44 ± 13 | 40 ± 11 | 0.209 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 21.61 ± 3.39 | 22.37 ± 3.67 | 0.457 |
| Diabetes (n) | 4 | 2 | 0.743 |
| Sulfamethoxazole/trimethoprim exposure (n) | 20 | 22 | 0.230 |
| Ganciclovir exposure (n) | 15 | 18 | 0.173 |
| Immunosuppressants (n) | |||
| Tac | 20 | 20 | 0.796 |
| CsA | 5 | 3 | 0.796 |
| MPA | 19 | 22 | 0.129 |
| MZR | 6 | 1 | 0.129 |
| RPM | 3 | 1 | 0.663 |
| Concurrent infections (n) | |||
| CMV | 1 | 0 | 1.000 |
| HPV-B19 | 1 | 1 | 1.000 |
| VZV | 0 | 1 | 0.479 |
| Clinical rejection (n) | 3 | 1 | 0.663 |
| BKV viral load (copies/ml) | 2.35E+10 ± 9.98E+10 | ND | |
| CD4/CD8 ratio | 1.18 ± 0.71 | 1.76 ± 0.81 | 0.012 |
BMI, body mass index; Tac, tacrolimus; CsA, cyclosporine A; MPA, mycophenolic acid; MZR, mizoribine; RPM, rapamycin; CMV, cytomegalovirus; HPV, human parvovirus; VZV, varicella-zoster virus; BKV, BK polyomavirus; ND, not detected.
Figure 1Abundance of bacterial taxa between the BKV group and the control group. (A) Top 10 dominant phyla. (B) Top 20 dominant genera. (C) The Firmicutes/Bacteroidetes ratio was significantly higher in the BKV group than that in the control group. (D) Spearman correlation analysis showed that Bacteroidetes was positively correlated with the CD4/CD8 ratio.
Microbial diversity in the BKV group and the control group.
| Indexes | BKV group | Control group |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| ACE | 252.48 ± 60.29 | 224.53 ± 72.71 | 0.153 |
| Shannon | 3.80 ± 1.14 | 3.22 ± 1.07 | 0.080 |
| Chao1 | 254.45 ± 68.02 | 225.27 ± 80.88 | 0.182 |
| Simpson | 0.81 ± 0.18 | 0.75 ± 0.18 | 0.140 |
The results were presented as mean ± SD for ACE index, Shannon index, Chao1 index, and Simpson index.
ACE, abundance-based coverage estimator.
Figure 2Alpha diversity indices between the BKV group and the control group. (A) ACE index. (B) Shannon index. (C) Chao1 index. (D) Simpson index. No significant difference was observed in microbial diversity. ACE, abundance-based coverage estimator.
Figure 3Comparative analysis between the BKV group and the control group. (A) PCoA was performed based on the Bray–Curtis distance. Clustering patterns of the BKV and control groups were identified by red and blue colors, respectively. PC1 and PC2 explained 14.64% and 12.12% of total variations, respectively. (B) ANOSIM at the OTU level was conducted. The difference in microbiota in the inter-group was bigger than that in the intra-group.
Figure 4LEfSe analysis between the BKV group and the control group. (A) The LEfSe analysis demonstrated a significant difference in gut microbiota between the BKV group and the control group, with a log LDA score >4.0. The increase and decrease of bacterial taxa abundance in the BKV group were represented by blue and orange colors, respectively. (B) The cladogram demonstrated relationships among those taxa.
Figure 5The ROC curve of the random forest model that trades off the rate of true positives against the rate of false positives. The best accuracy of the random forest model was 80.71% with an AUC of 0.82.