| Literature DB >> 35975460 |
Jin Shang1,2,3,4, Yiding Zhang1,2, Ruixue Guo1,2, Wenli Liu5, Jun Zhang6, Ge Yan1,2, Feng Wu1,2, Wen Cui1,2, Peipei Wang1,2, Xuejun Zheng1,2, Ting Wang1,2, Yijun Dong1,2, Jing Zhao1,2, Li Wang7, Jing Xiao1,2,4, Zhanzheng Zhao1,2,3,4.
Abstract
Membranous nephropathy (MN) is a common cause of nephrotic syndrome. The aim is to establish a non-invasive diagnostic model of MN using differential gut microbiome analysis, and to explore the relationship between the gut microbiome and MN pathogenesis in vivo. 825 fecal samples from MN patients and healthy participants are collected from multiple medical centers across China. Key operational taxonomic units (OTUs) obtained through 16S rRNA sequencing are used to establish a diagnostic model. A rat model of MN is developed to explore the relationship between the gut microbiome and the pathogenesis of MN. The diversity and richness of the gut microbiome are significantly lower in patients with MN than in healthy individuals. The diagnostic model based on seven OTUs achieves an excellent efficiency of 98.36% in the training group and also achieves high efficiency in cross-regional cohorts. In MN rat model, gut microbiome elimination prevents model establishment, but fecal microbiome transplantation restores the phenotype of protein urine. Gut microbiome analysis can be used as a non-invasive tool for MN diagnosis. The onset of MN depends on the presence of naturally colonized microbiome. Early intervention in the gut microbiome may help reduce urinary protein level in MN.Entities:
Keywords: fecal microbiota transplant; gut microbiome; membranous nephropathy; non-invasive diagnosis
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35975460 PMCID: PMC9534961 DOI: 10.1002/advs.202201581
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Adv Sci (Weinh) ISSN: 2198-3844 Impact factor: 17.521
Figure 1Study design and flow diagram: the profile of inclusion, exclusion, and grouping of patients. Following rigorous inclusion and exclusion criteria, a total of 825 fecal samples were collected including 370 samples of MN patients from Central China, 65 samples of MN patients from East China, 44 samples of MN patients from South China, and 346 samples of HCs from Central China. Gut microbiome was compared. Then 115 UMNs and matched 115 HCs were randomly divided into training group and test group to develop and validate diagnostic model based on key OTUs. Samples from different areas of China were included as cross regional cohort. Patients were divided further into different subgroups to test the influence of drugs and disease severity on intestinal flora. MN, Membranous nephropathy; UMN, untreated membranous nephropathy; TMN treated membranous nephropathy; HC healthy control; HPRO, high urine protein; LPRO, low urine protein.
Figure 2The composition and alteration of gut microbiota in UMNs (n = 115) and HCs (n = 115). A) Cloudplot showed α‐diversity in UMN group and HC group by ace index and chao index (p < 0.001). B) PCoA analysis showed visualized β‐diversity by unweighted UniFrac algorithm along PC1 and PC2. C) Wilcoxon rank sum test showed the distribution of gut microbiome in UMNs and HCs at phylum level. D) Average compositions and relative abundances of the bacterial communities in UMNs and HCs at genus level (Only the 40 genera with the highest relative abundance were listed). E) Heatmap showed the similarity and difference of key OTUs selected by random forest model in each participant of UMNs and HCs. F) Spearman correlation analysis showed the correlation between different OTUs and clinical indicators in heatmap (all p < 0.001). G) Spearman correlation analysis was used to analyze the degree of correlation between key OTUs and clinical indicators (Solid line, p < 0.01, dotted line, 0.01< p < = 0.05). OTU, operational taxonomic units; PCoA, principal coordinate analysis; POD, possibility of disease; PLA2R, phospholipase A2 receptor, PLA2R; THSD7A, thrombospondin type‐1 domain‐containing 7A; ALB, albumin; CHO, cholesterol; Pro, urine protein; Scr, serum creatinine; * p < 0.05; **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.
Figure 3Development and validation of diagnostic models. A) Mean decrease accuracy and mean decrease gini showed the contribution values of 7 selected OTUs in the diagnostic model. B) Random forest model showed the optimal number of vars is 7. C) Diagrams of POD value based on microbial markers showed significant difference between UMNs (n = 72) and HCs (n = 72) in training group. D) ROC curve based on obtained microbial markers showed discrimination rate in training group. E) Diagrams of POD value based on microbial markers in test group (UMN_test = 43, HC = 43). F) ROC curve showed discrimination rate in test group. G) Diagrams of POD value of the validation cohort from South China (MN_South China = 44, HC = 48). H) ROC curve of the validation cohort from South China. I) Diagrams of POD value in TMNs (n = 255) and HCs (n = 205). J) ROC curve showed discrimination rate in TMNs and HCs. K) Diagrams of POD value in the validation cohort from East China (MN_East China = 65, HC = 57). L) ROC curve showed discrimination rate in the validation cohort from East China. M) Diagrams of POD value in HPROs (n = 84) and HCs (n = 84). N) ROC curve showed discrimination rate in HPROs and HCs. O) Diagrams of POD value showing difference between LPROs (n = 171) and HCs (n = 171). P) ROC curve showing discrimination rate in LPROs and HCs. POD, possibility of disease; CV, coefficient of variation; ROC, receiving operational curve.
Figure 4The composition and alteration of gut microbiota in UMNs (n = 78), TMNs (n = 108) and HCs (n = 100). A) Rarefaction curve showed the relationship between the number of observed OTUs and number of samples among three groups. B) PCoA analysis showed visualized β‐diversity of TMNs, UMNs, and HCs by unweighted UniFrac algorithm along PC1 and PC2. C) Plsda axis showed the different compositions among HCs, UMNs, and TMNs. D) ANOSIM analysis among three groups (p < 0.001). E) Average compositions and relative abundances of the bacterial communities among three groups at phylum level. F) The relative abundance of Proteobacteria increased while Bacteroidota decreased significantly both in UMNs and TMNs compared with HCs (p < 0.001). G) Average compositions and relative abundances of the bacterial communities of each sample in three groups at phylum level. H) Heatmap showed relative abundance of key OTUs selected by random forest model were more similar between UMNs and TMNs than HCs. ANOSIM, analysis of similarities; Plsda, Partial least squares discrimination analysis.
Figure 5Comparison of gut microbiome between HPROs (n = 56) and LPROs (n = 114) in discovery phase. A) Rarefaction curve showed the relationship between number of observed OTUs and number of samples between two groups. The cloudpolt showing α‐diversity calculated by ace indexed was similar between two groups (p = 0.216). B) ANOSIM showed there was no difference between groups or within groups in HPROs and LPROs (p = 0.4551). C) PCoA analysis showed visualized β‐diversity of HPRO group and HC group by unweighted UniFrac algorithm. D) Heatmap showed the similarity and difference of top 50 most abundant OTUs in each participant of HPROs and LPROs.
Figure 6Clinical features and pathological changes in MN rat model (n = 8 in each group). A) Flow chart of rat experiment. B) Line chart showed the alteration of T/Cr in 6 groups from baseline to 3 weeks after FMT. C) Scatter plot of rat urine protein at baseline. D) Scatter plot of rat urine protein after intestine cleaning. E) Scatter plot of rat urinary protein after 1 week of FMT. F) Scatter plot of rat urinary protein after 2 weeks of FMT. G) Scatter plot of rat urinary protein after 3 weeks of FMT. H) HE, PAS, and Masson staining of glomerulus in different groups. I) Electron microscopy showed detailed changes in glomerular basement membrane area in each group. T/Cr, Total urinary protein/urinary creatinine; HE, hematoxylin‐eosin staining; PAS, periodic acid‐schiff staining. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001; NS, no statistical difference.
Figure 7The rat fecal microbiome analysis showed effective elimination and transplantation of microbe. A) Diagram of average compositions and relative abundances of the bacterial communities at phylum level showed the changes were more obvious at Model_1w than Model_0w. B) Plsda axis showed the different compositions at different time points in MN group. C) The cloudplot showed that observed OTUs were markedly decreased after using antibiotics (p < 0.001). D) PCoA diagram showed obvious change in gut microbial composition after intestines cleaning (p = 0.001). E) Diagram of ANOSIM showed significant difference after using antibiotics (p = 0.0002). F) Diagram of ANOSIM showed microbial composition is different after FMT using feces of Cons or MNs for 1 week (p = 0.0104). G) Diagram of PCoA showed composition of microbe was significantly different after FMT with feces from Cons or MNs for 1 week. H) Plsda axis showed different microbial compositions in different groups; FC, FMT with feces from Con donor in Mod+Con group; FM, FMT with feces from MN in Mod+MN group; AB, gut microbiome cleaning after using antibiotic.