| Literature DB >> 35983031 |
Eya Toumi1,2,3, Benoit Goutorbe3,4,5, Anne Plauzolles3, Marion Bonnet3, Soraya Mezouar1,2, Muriel Militello1,2, Jean-Louis Mege1,2,6, Laurent Chiche7, Philippe Halfon1,2,3,7.
Abstract
An increasing number of studies have provided strong evidence that gut microbiota interact with the immune system and stimulate various mechanisms involved in the pathogenesis of auto-immune diseases such as Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE). Indeed, gut microbiota could be a source of diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers but also hold the promise to discover novel therapeutic strategies. Thus far, specific SLE microbial signatures have not yet been clearly identified with alteration patterns that may vary between human and animal studies. In this study, a comparative analysis of a clinically well-characterized cohort of adult patients with SLE showed reduced biodiversity, a lower Firmicutes/Bacteroidetes (F/B) ratio, and six differentially abundant taxa compared with healthy controls. An unsupervised clustering of patients with SLE patients identified a subgroup of patients with a stronger alteration of their gut microbiota. Interestingly, this clustering was strongly correlated with the disease activity assessed with the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index (SLEDAI) score (p = 0.03, odd ratio = 15) and the identification of specific alterations involving the F/B ratio and some different taxa. Then, the gut microbiota of pristane-induced lupus and control mice were analyzed for comparison with our human data. Among the six differentially abundant taxa of the human disease signature, five were common with our murine model. Finally, an exhaustive cross-species comparison between our data and previous human and murine SLE studies revealed a core-set of gut microbiome species that might constitute biomarker panels relevant for future validation studies.Entities:
Keywords: biomarkers; disease activity; dysbiosis; gut microbiota; health care; outcome assessment; systemic lupus erythematosus
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35983031 PMCID: PMC9378784 DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2022.943241
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Immunol ISSN: 1664-3224 Impact factor: 8.786
Clinical and biological characteristics of SLE patients.
| ID patient | Age (years) | Sex | BMI | PGA | SLEDAI | Low complement levels | Positive anti-dsDNA titres | AHT | Type 2 diabetes | APS | Ongoing SLE treatments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | 19 | M | 18.7 | 0.12 | 0 | no | no | no | no | no | no |
| 002 | 22 | F | 22.8 | 2.1 | 12 | yes | yes | no | no | no | HCQ CT |
| 003 | 25 | F | 23.8 | 0.63 | 0 | no | no | no | no | yes | HCQ |
| 004 | 49 | F | 35.1 | 0 | 0 | no | no | no | no | no | no |
| 005 | 55 | F | 17.9 | 0.3 | 0 | no | no | no | no | no | no |
| 006 | 33 | F | 23.1 | 0 | 2 | no | no | no | no | yes | HCQ AZA |
| 007 | 70 | F | 23.3 | 0.72 | 2 | no | yes | no | no | no | HCQ CT |
| 008 | 46 | F | 20.7 | 0.75 | 2 | no | yes | no | no | no | HCQ |
| 009 | 69 | F | 23.1 | 0.27 | 0 | no | no | no | no | no | CT |
| 011 | 43 | F | 24.2 | 0.09 | 0 | no | no | no | no | no | HCQ CT |
| 012 | 33 | F | 21.9 | 0.21 | 4 | yes | yes | no | no | no | HCQ |
| 013 | 28 | M | 18.8 | 0.24 | 0 | no | no | no | no | no | HCQ |
| 014 | 55 | F | 19.3 | 1.02 | 0 | no | no | no | no | yes | HCQ |
| 017 | 35 | F | 19.6 | 0.66 | 0 | no | no | no | no | no | HCQ |
| 018 | 49 | F | 32 | 0.84 | 4 | no | no | no | yes | no | HCQ |
| 019 | 38 | F | 21.7 | 0.21 | 2 | no | no | no | no | no | HCQ |
M, male sex; F, female sex; BMI, Body mass index; PGA, Physician Global Assessment; SLEDAI, SLE Disease Activity Index; AHT, Arterial hypertension; APS, antiphospholipid syndrome; HCQ, hydroxychloroquine; CT, corticosteroids; AZA, azathioprine (immunosuppressive drug).
Figure 1Gut microbiota difference between SLE patients and HC. (A) Principal coordinate analysis (PCoA) of beta-diversity based on Bray-Curtis distances. (B) Alpha diversity assessed by Shannon’s index between SLE and HC groups. (C) Firmicutes/Bacteroidetes ratio difference between SLE and HC groups. Statistical differences between groups are shown: *p <0.05, **p <0.01 by Wilcoxon’s test. (D) Differentially abundant taxa between SLE and HC groups identified by DESeq2: only taxa with adjusted p <0.05, absolute log2FoldChange >1 and prevalence per group >0.333 are shown. SLE, systemic lupus erythematosus; HC, healthy controls.
Figure 2Gut microbiota’s composition-based unsupervised classification of SLE patients. (A) Hierarchical clustering based on Bray–Curtis and Ward’s linkage show two clusters of SLE patients based on their microbiota’s composition and Heatmap of differentially abundant taxa illustrate differences in microbiota’s composition. Activity (based on SLEDAI score), treatment and enterotype were assessed between clusters. Alpha-diversity (by Shannon’s index) and F/B ratio were assessed and compared to HCs distribution to evaluate for comprehensive visualization. (B) Pairwise Bray–Curtis distances between each patient with SLE and each HC according to clustering. Statistical difference is shown. ***p <0.001 by Wilcoxon test. (C) Differentially abundant taxa identified by DESeq2 between the two clusters. (D) Differentially abundant taxa identified by DESeq2 between active and inactive SLE patients. Only taxa with adjusted p-value <0.05, absolute log2FoldChange >1 and prevalence per group >0.333 are shown. SLE, systemic lupus erythematosus; Cl1, cluster 1; Cl2, cluster 2; CT, corticosteroids; HCQ, hydroxychloroquine; AZA, azathioprine (immunosuppressive drug).
Figure 3Gut microbiota difference variation overtime between PIL and Control groups. (A) Principal coordinate analysis (PCoA) of beta-diversitybased on Bray–Curtis distances shows that mice were uniform before induction of the disease (p = 0.6, permanova test) and strongly clustered according to groups at disease end point (6 months after induction) (p <0.01, permanova test). (B) Alpha diversity assessed by Shannon’s index. (C) Gut microbiota’s phyla composition according to groups and time point. (D) Firmicutes/Bacteroidetes ratio across groups and time points. PIL, pristane-induced lupus.
Figure 4Comparison between SLE gut microbial signatures in human and mice studies across literature. (A) Differentially abundant taxa identified in human case-control studies and mice model. Only biomarkers identified in at least two studies are shown, and only biomarkers identified in at least three studies were attributed a color code for further investigation. (B) Volcano plot showing biomarkers in our human cohort and (C) our mice experiment, x axis shows biomarkers’ log2FoldChange and y axis shows their significance (uncorrected p-value, see ‘Materials and methods’).
Figure 5Universal panel of gut bacterial biomarkers involved in human and murine lupus and its activity. ↑, increased; ↓, decreased; [P], Phylum’s taxonomy rank; [O], order’s taxonomy rank [F], family’s taxonomy rank; [G], Genus’s taxonomy rank; [S], Species’ taxonomy rank.