| Literature DB >> 36051762 |
Bo Tian1, Jia-Heng Yao1, Xu Lin2, Wan-Qiang Lv3, Lin-Dong Jiang4, Zhuo-Qi Wang1, Jie Shen2,5, Hong-Mei Xiao3, Hanli Xu1, Lu-Lu Xu1, Xiyu Cheng1, Hui Shen4, Chuan Qiu4, Zhe Luo4, Lan-Juan Zhao4, Qiong Yan1, Hong-Wen Deng4, Li-Shu Zhang1.
Abstract
Cow milk consumption (CMC) and alterations of gut bacterial composition are proposed to be closely related to human health and disease. Our research aims to investigate the changes in human gut microbial composition in Chinese peri-/postmenopausal women with different CMC habits. A total of 517 subjects were recruited and questionnaires about their CMC status were collected; 394 subjects were included in the final analyses. Fecal samples were used for studying gut bacterial composition. All the subjects were divided into a control group (n = 248) and a CMC group (n = 146) according to their CMC status. Non-parametric tests and LEfSe at different taxonomic levels were used to reveal differentially abundant taxa and functional categories across different CMC groups. Relative abundance (RA) of one phylum (p_Actinobacteria), three genera (g_Bifidobacterium, g_Anaerostipes, and g_Bacteroides), and 28 species diversified significantly across groups. Specifically, taxa g_Anaerostipes (p < 0.01), g_Bacteroides (p < 0.05), s_Anaerostipes_hadrus (p < 0.01), and s_Bifidobacterium_pseudocatenulatum (p < 0.01) were positively correlated with CMC levels, but p_Actinobacteria (p < 0.01) and g_Bifidobacterium (p < 0.01) were negatively associated with CMC levels. KEGG module analysis revealed 48 gut microbiome functional modules significantly (p < 0.05) associated with CMC, including Vibrio cholerae pathogenicity signature, cholera toxins (p = 9.52e-04), and cephamycin C biosynthesis module (p = 0.0057), among others. In conclusion, CMC was associated with changes in gut microbiome patterns including beta diversity and richness of some gut microbiota. The alterations of certain bacteria including g_Anaerostipes and s_Bifidobacterium_pseudocatenulatum in the CMC group should be important for human health. This study further supports the biological value of habitual cow milk consumption.Entities:
Keywords: cow milk consumption; functional module; gut microbiota; metagenomic; network
Year: 2022 PMID: 36051762 PMCID: PMC9425034 DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2022.957885
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Microbiol ISSN: 1664-302X Impact factor: 6.064
Characteristics of Chinese subjects included in the study.
| Variables | Control Group ( | CMC Group ( | |
| Female, | 248 (100) | 146 (100) | |
| Postmenopausal, | 248 (100) | 146 (100) | 1.000 |
| Age (years; mean ± SD) # | 52.8 ± 2.7 | 52.9 ± 3.4 | 0.790 |
| Weight (KG; mean ± SD) # | 57.2 ± 8.2 | 57.3 ± 7.2 | 0.850 |
| BMI (mean ± SD) # | 22.9 ± 3.0 | 22.9 ± 2.6 | 0.858 |
| Drinking, | 27 (10.9) | 18 (12.3) | 0.787 |
| Exercise, | 168 (67.7) | 110 (75.3) | 0.138 |
| Daily Sleep Time (hours; mean ± SD) # | 6.62 ± 1.34 | 6.72 ± 1.31 | 0.503 |
| Vitamin history, | 50 (20.2) | 40 (27.4) | 0.127 |
| Calcium history, | 103 (41.5) | 63 (43.2) | 0.835 |
| Tea Drink, | 101 (40.7) | 62 (42.5) | 0.816 |
| Red meat intake, < 100g/day: > 100g/day, | 220 (88.7):28 (11.3) | 134 (91.8):12 (8.2) | 0.423 |
| Vegetable intake, 250g/day:500g/day: > | 29 (11.7):102 (41.1): 117 (47.2) | 23 (15.8):65 (44.5): 58(39.7) | 0.280 |
| Water intake, 0.5–1L/day:1–1.5L/day: > 1.5L/day, | 92 (37.1): 91 (36.7): 65 (26.2) | 46 (31.5): 60 (41.1): 40 (27.4) | 0.513 |
| Diet, Meat Prone: Balanced: Vegetarian, | 21 (8.5):149 (60.0): 78 (31.5) | 14 (9.6):80 (54.8): 52(35.6) | 0.590 |
| Pickled or Fermented Foods, No: < 3times/week: > | 182 (73.4):53 (21.4): 13 (5.2) | 114 (78.1):23 (15.8): 9 (6.1) | 0.432 |
| Yoghurt Consumption, | 37 (14.92) | 49 (33.56) | < 0.05 |
*Chi-squared test.
#Two independent-sample t-test.
Bacterial composition in each group at different levels.
| Phylum | Genus | Species | |
| Control Group | 59 | 2097 | 3426 |
| CMC Group | 59 | 2090 | 3354 |
Values in the table indicate the number of phyla, genera, and species, respectively, across all fecal samples after being filtered by relative abundance > 0.01% criteria. CMC, Cow milk consumption.
Dominated taxa in two groups.
| Taxa | Control group (%) | CMC group (%) |
|
| 43.593 | 45.385 |
|
| 31.235 | 30.681 |
|
| 3.609 | 3.109 |
|
| 0.597 | 0.553 |
|
| 0.220 | 0.220 |
|
| 38.144 | 42.886 |
|
| 9.996 | 7.541 |
|
| 6.007 | 6.469 |
|
| 5.257 | 4.917 |
|
| 4.623 | 4.631 |
|
| 9.809 | 11.003 |
|
| 3.089 | 3.416 |
|
| 3.201 | 3.240 |
|
| 2.335 | 1.810 |
|
| 1.647 | 1.762 |
Five most abundant taxa and their relative abundance are shown in the table. The data were normalized by the total sum scaling method.
FIGURE 1Alpha diversity of subjects grouped by CMC status. The (A–C) refer to the Shannon index of gut microbiota at different MAG levels. (A) Phylum, (B) Genus, (C) Species. Data were normalized via the TSS method.
FIGURE 2Beta diversity of subjects grouped by CMC status. (A–C) depict beta-diversity of gut microbiota according to Bray–Curtis (BC) distance via principal coordinates analysis (PCoA) method. (A) Phylum, (B) Genus, (C) Species. Data were normalized via the TSS method, PERMANOVA (Permutational ANOVA) test was applied to detect the difference significance in the two groups and or *P < 0.05.
Gut microbiota associated with cow milk consumption (CMC) via Mann–Whitney test at phylum, genus, and species levels.
| Taxonomic level |
| FDR |
| FDR |
|
| ||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 0.38963 |
| 0.48336 |
|
| ||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 0.27991 |
| 0.18556 |
|
|
| 0.27991 |
| 0.11552 |
|
|
| 0.30944 |
| 0.18385 |
|
|
| 0.30944 |
| 0.22098 |
|
|
| 0.30944 |
| 0.18385 |
|
|
| 0.32567 |
| 0.28486 |
|
|
| 0.32567 |
| 0.28468 |
|
|
| 0.32567 |
| 0.28486 |
|
|
| 0.32567 |
| 0.28486 |
|
|
| 0.32567 |
| 0.28486 |
|
|
| 0.32567 |
| 0.28486 |
|
|
| 0.32567 |
| 0.28486 |
|
|
| 0.32567 |
| 0.28486 |
|
|
| 0.32567 |
| 0.28486 |
|
|
| 0.33056 |
| 0.28486 |
|
|
| 0.33056 |
| 0.28486 |
|
|
| 0.33056 |
| 0.28486 |
|
|
| 0.33056 |
| 0.28486 |
|
|
| 0.33056 |
| 0.28486 |
|
|
| 0.33056 |
| 0.28486 |
|
|
| 0.33056 |
| 0.28486 |
|
|
| 0.33056 |
| 0.28486 |
|
|
| 0.33056 |
| 0.28486 |
|
|
| 0.33056 |
| 0.28486 |
|
|
| 0.33056 |
| 0.28486 |
|
|
| 0.33056 |
| 0.28486 |
P value, P-value of Classical univariate analysis of data transformed by TSS.
P value, P-value of Classical univariate analysis of data transformed by CLR.
Difference achieved significance of #P < 0.1, *P < 0.05, or **P < 0.01.
FIGURE 3Biomarkers identified by LEfSe. LEfSe indicates differences in the bacterial taxa at different levels (p, phylum; g, genus; s, species), only the taxa having P < 0.05, FDR < 0.1, and LDA value > 2 are shown in the figure.
FIGURE 4Differences of taxa abundance present in subjects. Data were normalized via total sum scaling (TTS) method and are expressed as relative abundance. Some significantly CMC-associated GM are displayed (g, genus; s, species).
FIGURE 5Bacterial associations of samples in two groups. The SPRING method is used as an association measure. The estimated partial correlations are transformed into dissimilarities via the “signed” distance metric and the corresponding (non-negative) similarities are used as edge weights. Green edges correspond to positive estimated associations and red edges to negative ones. Eigenvector centrality is used for defining hubs (nodes with a centrality value above the empirical 95% quantile) and scaling node sizes. Hubs are highlighted by black borders. Node colors represent clusters, which are determined using greedy modularity optimization. The 100 most abundant taxa were analyzed in this part and (A) the complete association network where the 50 nodes with the highest degree are shown. (B) Comparison of bacterial associations in two groups. Centrality and clustering measures are adopted from the complete network. Species represented by the nodes are given in Supplementary Table 5.
Jaccard index values corresponding to the networks shown in Figure 5B.
|
|
|
| |
| Degree | 0.389 | 0.77674 | 0.39149 |
| Betweenness centrality | 0.077 | 0.038537 | 0.995 |
| Closeness centrality | 0.000 | 0.132 | 1.000 |
| Eigenvec. centrality | 0.615 | 0.991 | 0.034655 |
| Hub taxa | 0.125 | 0.195 | 0.961 |
Index values j express the similarity of the sets of most central nodes and also of the sets of hub taxa between the two networks. “Most central” nodes are those with a centrality value above the empirical 75% quantile. Jaccard’s index is 0 if the sets are completely different and 1 for exactly equal sets. P (J ≤ j) is the probability that Jaccard’s index takes a value less than or equal to the calculated index j for the present total number of taxa in both sets and P (J ≥ j) is defined analogously. Jaccard index ranges from 0 (completely different) to 1 (sets equal).
Results from testing global network metrics and centrality measures of the networks in Figure 5B.
| CMC group | Control group |
| |
| Global network measures: | |||
| Average path length [1] | 1.996 | 1.907 | 0.089 |
| Clustering coefficient [2] | 0.294 | 0.329 | 0.035 |
| Modularity [3] | 0.486 | 0.531 | 0.045 |
| Vertex connectivity [4] | 1.000 | 1.000 | 0.000 |
| Edge connectivity [5] | 1.000 | 1.000 | 0.000 |
| Density [6] | 0.131 | 0.118 | 0.013 |
| Degree [7]: | |||
| 8 | 3 | 5 | |
| 5 | 1 | 4 | |
| 4 | 6 | 2 | |
| 1 | 3 | 2 | |
| 3 | 5 | 2 | |
| Betweenness centrality [8]: | |||
| 4 | 113 | 109 | |
| 9 | 108 | 99 | |
| 57 | 153 | 96 | |
| 98 | 3 | 95 | |
| 34 | 193 | 69 | |
| Closeness centrality [9]: | |||
| 2.885 | 19.713 | 16.827 | |
| 2.885 | 16.422 | 13.537 | |
| 19.32 | 25.916 | 6.597 | |
| 21.449 | 15.646 | 5.804 | |
| 20.144 | 25.228 | 5.084 | |
| Eigenvector centrality [10]: | |||
| 0.158 | 0.010 | 0.147 | |
| 0.185 | 0.052 | 0.133 | |
| 0.171 | 0.293 | 0.122 | |
| 0.108 | 0.227 | 0.119 | |
| 0.034 | 0.150 | 0.116 |
Shown are, respectively, the computed measure for CMC group and control group, the absolute difference between groups was computed; for degree, betweenness centrality, closeness centrality, and eigenvector centrality analysis: the five taxa with the highest absolute group difference are shown. Local and global network properties implemented in NetCoMi: [1] Arithmetic mean of all shortest paths between vertices in a network. [2] Proportion of triangles with respect to the total number of connected triples2, Expresses how likely the nodes are to form clusters. [3] Expresses how well the network is divided into communities (many edges within the identified clusters and only a few between them). [4][5] Minimum number of edges or vertices (nodes) that need to be removed to disconnect the network, respectively. Not meaningful for a fully connected network. [6] Ratio of the actual number of edges in the network and the possible number of edges. Not meaningful for a fully connected network. [7] Number of adjacent nodes. [8] Fraction of times a node lies on the shortest path between all other nodes. A central node has the ability to connect sub-networks. [9] Reciprocal of the sum of shortest paths between this node and all other nodes. The node with the highest closeness centrality has the minimum shortest path to all other nodes. [10] Calculated via eigenvalue decomposition: Ac = λc, where λ denotes the eigenvalues and c denotes the eigenvectors of the adjacency matrix A. Eigenvector centrality is then defined as the i-th entry of the eigenvector belonging to the largest eigenvalue A node is central if it is connected to other nodes having themselves a central position in the network.
FIGURE 6CMC alters the functional potential of the gut microbiome. (A) Microbial genes annotated to Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) orthologs (KOs). The bar chart displays the log2 fold change of the relative abundance median of all individual KOs within a module following the Control group (pink bars) or the CMC group (blue bars), respectively. (B) Dot plot of the negative log10 of the P-value from the Mann–Whitney test of KEGG module abundance of two groups.
Gut microbiota that showed replicated results in the American cohort.
| GM | Data transform method |
|
|
|
| s__Bacteroides | TSS | 0.010 | 0.044 | 4.12 |
| s__Bifidobacterium | CLR | 0.002 | 0.016 | 3.73 |
P1, P-value in Chinese cohort.
P2, P-value in American cohort.
LDA, LDA score of LEfSe analysis of American cohort.
TSS, Total sum scaling.
CLR, Centered-log ratio.