| Literature DB >> 36093087 |
Baiqiang Lin1, Fuya Zhao1,2, Yang Liu3,4,1, Jiayu Sun1,5, Jing Feng1, Lei Zhao1, Haoran Wang1, Hongye Chen1, Wei Yan1, Xiao Guo1, Shang Shi1, Zhiyong Li1, Shuang Wang1, Yu Lu1, Jianjun Zheng6,7, Yunwei Wei3,4,1.
Abstract
Background and Aims: Oral xerostomia remains one of the most common complications of differentiated thyroid carcinoma patients (DTC) after radioiodine therapy (RAI). Environmental factors in the etiology of xerostomia are largely unknown. We aimed to characterize the oral microbiota signatures and related biological functions associated with xerostomia and identify environmental factors affecting them.Entities:
Keywords: 16S rRNA; differentiated thyroid carcinoma; oral microbiota; radioiodine therapy; xerostomia
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36093087 PMCID: PMC9459331 DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2022.895970
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) ISSN: 1664-2392 Impact factor: 6.055
Clinical and demographic features.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Sex (M/F) # | 7/23 | 8/24 | 10/30 | 0.878 | 0.872 | 1.000 |
| Age (years, mean ± SD) * | 43.20 ± 6.81 | 43.19 ± 8.46 | 40.05 ± 9.44 | 0.899 | 0.097 | 0.143 |
| BMI (kg/m2, mean ± SD) * | 23.09 ± 1.88 | 23.12 ± 1.52 | 23.72 ± 2.05 | 0.597 | 0.687 | 0.359 |
| cumulative radioiodine dose (mCi, mean ± SD) § | 253 ± 72 | 166 ± 89 | NA | 0.001* | NA | NA |
| OHI (median, interquartile) § | 2, (1-2) | 1, (1-2) | 1, (1-2) | 0.006* | 0.002* | 0.803 |
| Current smoking status (n, %) # | 5, (16.7) | 7, (21.9) | 5, (12.5) | 0.604 | 0.622 | 0.289 |
| Current drinking status (n, %) # | 4, (13.3) | 5, (15.6) | 6, (15.0) | 0.798 | 0.844 | 0.942 |
| Salivary gland function | ||||||
| SWS§ (ml/min, mean ± SD) § | 0.30 ± 0.09 | 1.01 ± 0.15 | 1.17 ± 0.15 | 0.001* | 0.001* | 0.001* |
| USW§ (ml/min, mean ± SD) § | 0.09 ± 0.02 | 0.37 ± 0.06 | 0.53 ± 0.13 | 0.001* | 0.001* | 0.001* |
| Scale-XI Score§ (mean ± SD) § | 41 ± 3 | 18 ± 4 | 16 ± 4 | 0.001* | 0.001* | 0.07 |
| Tumor stage# | ||||||
| T1-2/T3-4 | 9/21 | 15/17 | NA | 0.173 | ||
| Node stage # | ||||||
| N0/N1 | 0/30 | 0/32 | NA | NA | ||
| M stage # | ||||||
| M0/M1 | 30/0 | 32/0 | NA | NA | ||
| Thyroid function | ||||||
| fT3 (pg/mL, mean ± SD) § | 2.56 ± 0.30 | 2.51 ± 0.32 | 2.77 ± 0.26 | 0.545 | 0.004* | 0.001* |
| fT4 (ng/dL, mean ± SD) § | 1.29 ± 0.29 | 1.22 ± 0.16 | 1.06 ± 0.09 | 0.41 | 0.01* | 0.001* |
| TSH (µIU/mL, mean ± SD) § | 1.63 ± 1.62 | 1.71 ± 2.18 | 2.27 ± 1.19 | 0.91 | 0.014* | 0.001* |
| Tg (IU/mL, mean ± SD) § | 0.34 ± 0.64 | 0.40 ± 1.07 | 5.90 ± 3.68 | 0.783 | 0.001* | 0.001* |
| Hepatic function | ||||||
| ALT (U/L, mean ± SD) § | 15.51 ± 5.10 | 16.33 ± 4.71 | 15.20 ± 7.12 | 0.278 | 0.458 | 0.088 |
| AST (U/L, mean ± SD) § | 19.73 ± 4.38 | 20.75 ± 5.30 | 18.47 ± 4.00 | 0.549 | 0.313 | 0.077 |
| ALB (g/L, mean ± SD) § | 44.16 ± 3.42 | 43.10 ± 9.35 | 45.17 ± 2.67 | 0.39 | 0.352 | 0.982 |
| TP (g/L, mean ± SD) § | 75.78 ± 3.42 | 74.13 ± 3.80 | 74.07 ± 3.69 | 0.477 | 0.068 | 0.362 |
| GLB (g/L, mean ± SD) § | 29.57 ± 2.47 | 29.58 ± 2.98 | 28.83 ± 3.39 | 0.126 | 0.339 | 0.461 |
| TBIL (µmol/L, mean ± SD) § | 13.10 ± 4.55 | 11.89 ± 2.89 | 12.29 ± 3.34 | 0.698 | 0.877 | 0.717 |
| DBIL (µmol/L, mean ± SD) § | 2.38 ± 0.84 | 2.25 ± 0.83 | 2.21 ± 0.61 | 0.667 | 0.656 | 0.781 |
| IBIL (µmol/L, mean ± SD) § | 10.63 ± 3.99 | 9.70 ± 2.32 | 10.19 ± 3.03 | 0.893 | 0.924 | 0.713 |
| GGT (µmol/L, mean ± SD) § | 23.28 ± 10.39 | 22.68 ± 11.67 | 22.94 ± 14.10 | 0.673 | 0.342 | 0.38 |
| AKP (µmol/L, mean ± SD) § | 83.58 ± 20.53 | 81.68 ± 29.80 | 80.77 ± 22.30 | 0.281 | 0.79 | 0.593 |
| Plasma lipid | ||||||
| CHOL (µmol/L, mean ± SD) § | 4.72 ± 0.76 | 4.89 ± 1.02 | 4.66 ± 0.47 | 0.617 | 0.976 | 0.544 |
| TG (µmol/L, mean ± SD) § | 1.49 ± 0.78 | 1.19 ± 0.61 | 1.26 ± 0.39 | 0.098 | 0.288 | 0.255 |
| HDL (µmol/L, mean ± SD) § | 1.22 ± 0.21 | 1.20 ± 0.17 | 1.17 ± 0.10 | 0.652 | 0.302 | 0.59 |
| LDL (µmol/L, mean ± SD) § | 3.28 ± 0.45 | 3.22 ± 0.75 | 3.33 ± 0.30 | 0.683 | 0.687 | 0.405 |
| VLDL (µmol/L, mean ± SD) § | 0.25 ± 0.11 | 0.24 ± 0.12 | 0.26 ± 0.25 | 0.455 | 0.079 | 0.587 |
| APOA (µmol/L, mean ± SD) § | 1.47 ± 0.17 | 1.45 ± 0.19 | 1.45 ± 0.07 | 0.725 | 0.416 | 0.847 |
| APOB (µmol/L, mean ± SD) § | 0.90 ± 0.12 | 0.90 ± 0.22 | 0.92 ± 0.06 | 0.827 | 0.525 | 0.816 |
| Lpa (µmol/L, mean ± SD) § | 124.99 ± 80.68 | 143.29 ± 141.25 | 118.80 ± 70.18 | 0.938 | 0.877 | 0.986 |
*Student’s t-test; §Mann-Whitney U test; #Chi-Square test. BMI, OHI, oral hygiene index; body mass index. Measurement data are expressed as the mean ± SD. F/M, female/male; BMI, body mass index; OHI, oral hygiene index; SWS, stimulated whole saliva; USW, unstimulated whole saliva; XI score, Xerostomia inventory; TSH, thyroid-stimulating hormone; fT4, free thyroxine; fT3, free triiodothyronine; AST, aspartate transaminase; ALT, alanine aminotransferase; TP, total protein; GLB, globulin; TBIL, total bilirubin; DBIL, direct bilirubin; IBIL, indirect bilirubin; ALB, album; GGT, gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase; AKP, alkaline phosphatase; LDH, lactate dehydrogenase; BUN, blood urea nitrogen; Cr, creatinine; UA, uric acid; GLU, glucose; CHOL, total cholesterol; TG, triacylglycerol; LDL, low-density lipoprotein; HDL, high-density lipoprotein; VLDL, very-low-density lipoprotein; ApoA, apolipoprotein A; ApoB, apolipoprotein B; Lpa, lipoprotein(a); Tg, Thyroglobulin; and SD, standard deviation. *P-value < 0.05. NA, Not Applicable.
Figure 1Oral microbial characterization among XAs, non-XAs, and HCs. The α diversity index of Ace (A), Shannon (B), and PD index (C) in XAs was significantly increased compared to non-XAs and HCs. (D, E) The principal coordinate analysis (PCoA) revealed that the β-diversity for the oral microbiota of XAs was also clearly separated from non-XAs and HCs. (F) PCoA as in (D), colored according to Ace index. XAs, xerostomia patients; non-XAs, patients without xerostomia; HCs, healthy controls; PD, phylogenetic diversity, OTUs, operational taxonomic units.
Figure 2Oral microbial phylotype variation at phylum, genus, and species levels. (A) The Circos plot was applied to demonstrate differences in phylum-level microbial composition among the three groups. The inner-circle on the left represented the microbial structural composition at the phylum level of each group. The outer circle on the left represented different groups. The outer circle on the right represented the percentage of phylum in different groups. The width of the bands represented the proportion or relative abundance of the phylum. (B) Species with the most significant differences between XAs and non-XAs were identified using LEfSe analysis based on the non-parametric factorial Kruskal-Wallis sum-rank test. XAs-enriched genera were shown in pink and non-XAs-enriched genera were shown in light blue. Genera with LDA values greater than three were reserved. (C) At the genus level, genera significantly different between XAs, and non-XAs were compared by Mann-Whitney U-tests (P < 0.05). At the species level, porphyromonas gingivalis (D) and fusobacterium nucleatum (E) were enriched in XAs compared to non-XAs. LEfSe, Linear discriminant analysis Effect Size (LEfSe); LDA, linear discriminant analysis; XAs, Xerostomia patients; non-XAs, patients without xerostomia; HCs, healthy controls.
Figure 3Enterotype analysis of xerostomia patients. (A) CH index map, selected the number of clusters when the CH index reaches the maximum to classify the oral microbiota, and optimal classification is achieved when divided into two community types. (B) The classification of each group of samples constitutes a histogram, and different colors represented different classifications. (C) The plot of PCoA of salivary samples using partitioning around medoids. PCoA, principal coordinate analysis.
Figure 4Association of oral microbiota with clinical parameters. PCoA as in ( ), colored according to cumulative radioiodine dose (mCi) (A) and stimulated whole salivary secretion (SWS, mL/min) (B). (C) Spearman’s correlation between the top 40 abundant oral microbial genera and clinical parameters was shown through a co-correlation network. The width of the line represented the magnitude of correlations, orange indicated a positive correlation, and light blue indicated a negative correlation; the size of the nodes indicated the relative abundance of the genus, and the correlation threshold was set to 0.3. (D) Linear correlation analysis revealed a significant correlation between streptococcus, porphyromonas, and cumulative radioiodine dose, SWS in XAs and non-XAs. (E) Triplots of redundancy analysis. Explanatory variables were shown in orange. (F) ANOVA-like significance test of the explanatory variables. PCoA, Principal coordinate analysis; XAs, xerostomia patients; non-XAs, patients without xerostomia.
Figure 5Functional alterations in the oral microbiota among XAs and non-XAs. (A) Procrustes analyses demonstrated a significant correlation between oral microbial composition and the potential function profile. The solid shape (square and cross) at one end of the line segment represented the sorting result of high-throughput sequencing data, the XA and non-XA groups were colored in orange and blue, respectively; The other end represented the ranking result of metabolic data, M2: the goodness-of-fit statistic of the ranking results in Platts analysis, used to evaluate the correlation between the ranking results, Monte Carlo P-value: indicates the value generated by Monte Carlo simulation P-value, used to test the significance of M2. (B) Twenty-three differential KEGG metabolic pathways were identified by PICRUSt2 (P < 0.05). (C) The bubble chart displayed 23 differentially abundant KEGG pathways by PICRUSt2. KEGG pathways with LDA values greater than two were retained. (D) BugBase phenotype prediction. XAs, xerostomia patients; non-XAs, patients without xerostomia. KEGG, Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes; LDA, linear discriminant analysis; PICRUSt2, Phylogenetic Investigation of Communities by Reconstruction of Unobserved States 2; * 0.01 < P < 0.05, ** 0.001 < P < 0.01.
Figure 6Identification of driver microbial taxa and prediction for xerostomia. (A) Identification of oral microbiota driver genera by performing NetShift analysis. The nodes marked in red represented the driver genera, and the size of the nodes represented the NESH score. Oral microbial genera showing pairwise positive correlations only in the non-XA group were shown with green line segments, genera showing positive correlations only in the XA group were shown with red line segments. In addition, blue line segments represented positive correlations between microbial genera among the non-XA and XA groups. (B) Six microbial genera with LDA values greater than four were selected as candidate features and five microbial genera (AUC > 0.7) (C) were further chosen as potential biomarkers. (D) Generated a heatmap based on the selected five predicted features. Hierarchical clustering confirmed that the predicted features of the two groups can be separated. The intensity of the squares represented the relative abundance of microbial genera. XA group, xerostomia group; non-XA group, without xerostomia group; LDA, linear discriminant analysis.