| Literature DB >> 36159877 |
Kangcheng Liu1, Jing Zou2, Huimin Fan1, Hanying Hu1, Zhipeng You1.
Abstract
Background: Previous researches have implicated a vital association between gut microbiota (GM) and diabetic retinopathy (DR) based on the association of the "gut-retina" axis. But their causal relationship has not been elucidated.Entities:
Keywords: Mendelian randomization; causality; diabetic retinopathy; gut microbiota; gut-retina axis
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36159877 PMCID: PMC9496187 DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2022.930318
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Immunol ISSN: 1664-3224 Impact factor: 8.786
Figure 1Overview of MR analyses process and major assumptions.
Selection of IVs after quality control.
| Taxonomies | Taxa | NSNP | Palindromic | IVs |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Phylum | 9 | 117 | 15 | 102 |
| Class | 16 | 213 | 35 | 178 |
| Order | 20 | 263 | 48 | 215 |
| Family | 35 | 455 | 73 | 382 |
| Genus | 131 | 1626 | 254 | 1372 |
| Total | 211 | 2674 | 425 | 2249 |
Figure 2Causal analysis of GM and DR (locus-wide significance, P<1×10-5). (A) All results of MR analysis and sensitivity analysis between GM and DR; (B) MR results of GM taxa with a causal relationship to DR.
MR results between GM at the species level and DR.
| GM | Method | IVs | OR | 95%CI |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| locus-wide significance, | |||||
|
| IVW | 2 | 1.00 | 1.00-1.00 | 0.98 |
|
| IVW | 2 | 0.99 | 0.95-1.04 | 0.73 |
|
| IVW | 9 | 0.99 | 0.97-1.01 | 0.41 |
|
| WM | 9 | 1.00 | 0.97-1.03 | 0.91 |
|
| MR Egger | 9 | 1.01 | 0.98-1.04 | 0.58 |
|
| WR | 1 | 1.00 | 0.99-1.01 | 0.71 |
| genome-wide statistical significance, | |||||
|
| WR | 1 | 1.00 | 1.00-1.00 | 0.33 |
|
| IVW | 2 | 1.00 | 0.96-1.03 | 0.92 |
MR, Mendelian randomization; IVW, Inverse variance weighted; WM, Weighted median; WR, Wald ratio; E. lenta, Eggerthella lenta; A. muciniphila, Akkermansia muciniphila; F. prausnitzii, Faecalibacterium prausnitzii; V. dispar, Veillonella dispar.
Sensitivity analysis between GM and DR.
| Taxonomies | GM | Method | Q |
| Intercept |
| MR-PRESSO |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| family |
| IVW | 9.69 | 0.47 | -1.44×10-3 | 0.89 | 0.523 |
| MR Egger | 9.67 | 0.38 | |||||
| family |
| IVW | 8.62 | 0.38 | -0.02 | 0.24 | 0.439 |
| MR Egger | 6.96 | 0.43 | |||||
| genus |
| IVW | 6.74 | 0.46 | -3.67×10-3 | 0.90 | 0.520 |
| MR Egger | 6.72 | 0.35 | |||||
| genus |
| IVW | 7.84 | 0.35 | -0.04 | 0.10 | 0.088 |
| MR Egger | 4.15 | 0.66 | |||||
| genus |
| IVW | 3.72 | 0.81 | -0.02 | 0.46 | 0.960 |
| MR Egger | 3.09 | 0.80 |
MR, Mendelian randomization; IVW, Inverse variance weighted; WM, Weighted median.
MR results between GM and DR (P<5×10-8).
| GM | Method | IVs | OR | 95%CI |
| Q | Q- | Intercept |
| MR-PRESSO |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total | IVW | 15 | 1.01 | 0.94-1.09 | 0.70 | 11.63 | 0.64 | 3.78×10-3 | 0.79 | 0.64 |
| Total | WM | 15 | 1.00 | 0.91-1.10 | 0.96 | |||||
| Total | MR Egger | 15 | 0.98 | 0.77-1.26 | 0.88 | 11.55 | 0.56 |
MR, Mendelian randomization; IVW, Inverse variance weighted; WM, Weighted median.
Figure 3MR analysis results of GM and DR (genome-wide statistical significance, P<5×10-8).