| Literature DB >> 36172155 |
Xuejun Li1,2,3, Xiaohu Sun4,5, Ai Zhang1,2,3, Jing Pang1,2,3, Yun Li4,5, Mengfan Yan1,2,3, Zhen Xu1,2,3, Yue Yu4,5, Zhengjun Yang4,5, Xi Chen1,2,3, Xin Wang4,5, Xu-Chen Cao4,5, Nai-Jun Tang1,2,3.
Abstract
Background: Commensal microbiota have been proven to colonize the mammary gland, but whether their composition is altered in patients with breast cancer (BC) remains elusive. This study intends to explore the breast microbiome differences between benign and malignant diseases and to investigate the impact of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) on the breast microbiota in patients with BC.Entities:
Keywords: 16S rRNA gene sequencing; Breast cancer; microbiome; neoadjuvant chemotherapy; normal adipose tissue
Year: 2022 PMID: 36172155 PMCID: PMC9510588 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2022.926920
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Oncol ISSN: 2234-943X Impact factor: 5.738
Clinical characteristics of the patients with breast cancer and controls.
| Variables | Breast cancer (n = 79) | Control (n = 15) |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 52.90 ± 8.69 | 53.33 ± 6.79 | 0.00 | |
| Age of menarche(years) | 14.70 ± 1.62 | 13.53 ± 2.61 | 0.03 | |
| Menopausal status (%) | Premenopausal | 35 (44.30) | 8 (53.30) | 0.52 |
| Postmenopausal | 44 (55.70) | 7 (46.70) | ||
| Parity (%) | ≤1 | 59 (74.70) | 11 (73.30) | 0.91 |
| ≥2 | 20 (25.30) | 4 (26.70) | ||
Clinical characteristics of the neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) and non-NAC patients.
| Variables | Non-NAC (n = 50) | NAC (n = 29) | Total (n = 79) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 54.36 ± 8.48 | 50.38 ± 8.62 | 52.90 ± 8.69 | |
| Age of menarche(years) | 14.94 ± 1.60 | 14.28 ± 1.60 | 14.70 ± 1.62 | |
| Menopausal status (%) | Premenopausal | 22 (44.00) | 13 (44.83) | 35 (44.30) |
| Postmenopausal | 28 (56.00) | 16 (55.17) | 44 (55.70) | |
| Status of hormone receptor of breast tumors (%) | ER+ | 30 (60.00) | 19 (65.52) | 49 (62.03) |
| ER− | 20 (40.00) | 10 (34.48) | 30 (37.97) | |
| HER2+ | 20 (40.00) | 10 (34.48) | 30 (37.97) | |
| HER2− | 30 (60.00) | 19 (65.52) | 49 (62.03) | |
| Non-TNBC | 40 (80.00) | 24 (82.76) | 64 (81.01) | |
| TNBC | 10 (20.00) | 5 (17.24) | 15 (18.99) | |
| Tumor grade (%) | Grade 1/2 | 28 (56.00) | 18 (62.07) | 46 (58.23) |
| Grade 3 | 20 (40.00) | 9 (31.03) | 29 (36.71) | |
| Unknown | 2 (4.00) | 2 (6.90) | 4 (5.06) | |
Figure 1Differences in breast normal adipose tissue (NATs) microbiome between patients with breast cancer and controls. Alpha diversity was assessed by the Observed Species (A) and Shannon index (B). The relative abundance of the taxonomic composition of the NATs microbiome at the phylum (C) and genus (D) levels. The differences in beta diversity were calculated by the Wilcoxon signed-rank test (E) and principal component analysis (PCoA) (F) of unweighted UniFrac distances (ns, P-value > 0.05).
Figure 2The abundant microbes significantly differed between the breast cancer (BC) and control groups. (A) The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve at the genus level. (B, C) The linear discriminant analysis (LDA) effect size (LEfSe) between the BC and control groups (LDA score > 3.5, P-value < 0.05). (D, E) The microbial differences at the genus level between patients with BC and controls (***P-value < 0.05). Tax4fun shows the different functional compositions of the breast normal adipose tissue (NAT) microbiome between the BC and control groups based on the Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) at level 2 (F) and level 3 (G).
Figure 3Specific bacterial genera in breast normal adipose tissues (NATs) correlated with the breast tumor characteristics. Mean relative abundance (proportions) of several bacterial genera were shown distinctively in estrogen receptor (ER)–positive versus negative (A), human epidermal growth factor 2 (HER2)–positive versus negative (B1, B2), non–triple-negative breast cancer (non-TNBC) versus TNBC (C), and histological grades 1 and 2 versus grade 3 breast tumors (D) (***, P-value < 0.05).
Figure 4The differences in breast normal adipose tissue (NATs) microbiome between non-neoadjuvant chemotherapy (non-NAC) and NAC patients. The alpha diversity was assessed by the Observed Species (A) and Shannon index (B). The differences in beta diversity were calculated by the Wilcoxon signed-rank test (C) and principal component analysis (PCoA) (D) of unweighted UniFrac distances (ns, P-value > 0.05).
Figure 5The abundant microbes significantly differed between the non-neoadjuvant chemotherapy (non-NAC) and NAC groups. (A) The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve at the level of genus. (B) The linear discriminant analysis (LDA) effect size (LEfSe) between non-NAC and NAC groups (LDA score > 3.5, P-value < 0.05). (C, D) The microbial differences at the genus level between non-NAC and NAC patients (***P-value < 0.05). Tax4Fun shows the different functional compositions of the breast normal adipose tissue (NAT) microbiome between the non-NAC and NAC groups based on the Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) at level 2 (E) and level 3 (F).
Figure 6The effect of menopausal status on bacterial diversity between the non-neoadjuvant chemotherapy (non-NAC) and NAC groups. (A) The differences in beta diversity between the non-NAC and NAC patients with the status of premenopausal (pre-non-NAC and pre-NAC) and postmenopausal (pos-non-NAC and pos-NAC) calculated by the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. (B, C) The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve at the level of genus. (D) The microbial differences at the genus level between pre-non-NAC and pos-non-NAC groups. (E) The differences in predicted functional compositions of the breast normal adipose tissue (NAT) microbiome between pre-non-NAC and pos-non-NAC groups based on the Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG). (F) The microbial differences at the genus level between pos-non-NAC and pos-NAC patients. (G) The differences in predicted functional compositions of the NAT microbiome between pos-non-NAC and pos-NAC groups based on KEGG by Tax4fun (***P-value < 0.05).