Breast Cancer Survivors and Healthy Women: Could Gut Microbiota Make a Difference?-"BiotaCancerSurvivors": A Case-Control Study
From BugSigDB
Jump to:navigation, search
Study information
-
Quality control
- Retracted paper
- Contamination issues suspected
- Batch effect issues suspected
- Uncontrolled confounding suspected
- Results are suspect (various reasons)
- Tags applied
study design
Citation
PMID PubMed identifier for scientific articles.
DOI Digital object identifier for electronic documents.
URI Uniform resource identifier for web resources.
Authors
Caleça T, Ribeiro P, Vitorino M, Menezes M, Sampaio-Alves M, Mendes AD, Vicente R, Negreiros I, Faria A, Costa DA
Journal
Cancers
Year
2023
Keywords:
breast cancer, cancer, case-control study, microbiome, microbiota, survivors, survivorship
In this first analysis, samples from 23 BC survivors (group 1) and 291 healthy female controls (group 2) were characterised through the V3 and V4 regions that encode the "16S rRNA" gene of each bacteria. The samples were sequenced by next-generation sequencing (NGS), and the taxonomy was identified by resorting to Kraken2 and improved with Bracken, using a curated database called 'GutHealth_DB'. The α and β-diversity analyses were used to determine the richness and evenness of the gut microbiota. A non-parametric Mann-Whitney U test was applied to assess differential abundance between both groups. The Firmicutes/Bacteroidetes (F/B) ratio was calculated using a Kruskal-Wallis chi-squared test. The α-diversity was significantly higher in group 1 (p = 0.28 × 10-12 for the Chao index and p = 1.64 × 10-12 for the ACE index). The Shannon index, a marker of richness and evenness, was not statistically different between the two groups (p = 0.72). The microbiota composition was different between the two groups: a null hypothesis was rejected for PERMANOVA (p = 9.99 × 10-5) and Anosim (p = 0.04) and was not rejected for β-dispersion (p = 0.158), using Unifrac weighted distance. The relative abundance of 14 phyla, 29 classes, 25 orders, 64 families, 116 genera, and 74 species differed significantly between both groups. The F/B ratio was significantly lower in group 1 than in group 2, p < 0.001. Our study allowed us to observe significant taxonomic disparities in the two groups by testing the differences between BC survivors and healthy controls. Additional studies are needed to clarify the involved mechanisms and explore the relationship between microbiota and BC survivorship.
Experiment 1
Subjects
- Location of subjects
- Portugal
- United States of America
- Host species Species from which microbiome was sampled. Contact us to have more species added.
- Homo sapiens
- Body site Anatomical site where microbial samples were extracted from according to the Uber Anatomy Ontology
- Feces Cow dung,Cow pat,Droppings,Dung,Excrement,Excreta,Faeces,Fecal material,Fecal matter,Fewmet,Frass,Guano,Matières fécales@fr,Merde@fr,Ordure,Partie de la merde@fr,Piece of shit,Porción de mierda@es,Portion of dung,Portion of excrement,Portion of faeces,Portion of fecal material,Portion of fecal matter,Portion of feces,Portion of guano,Portion of scat,Portionem cacas,Scat,Spoor,Spraint,Stool,Teil der fäkalien@de,Feces,feces
- Condition The experimental condition / phenotype studied according to the Experimental Factor Ontology
- Breast cancer breast cancer,breast tumor,cancer of breast,malignant breast neoplasm,malignant breast tumor,malignant neoplasm of breast,malignant neoplasm of the breast,malignant tumor of breast,malignant tumor of the breast,mammary cancer,mammary neoplasm,mammary tumor,primary breast cancer,Breast cancer
- Group 0 name Corresponds to the control (unexposed) group for case-control studies
- Healthy female controls
- Group 1 name Corresponds to the case (exposed) group for case-control studies
- BC survivors
- Group 1 definition Diagnostic criteria applied to define the specific condition / phenotype represented in the case (exposed) group
- Women aged over 18 with a breast cancer (BC) diagnosis who had completed their core treatments (surgery, chemotherapy, and/or radiotherapy).
- Group 0 sample size Number of subjects in the control (unexposed) group
- 291
- Group 1 sample size Number of subjects in the case (exposed) group
- 23
Lab analysis
- Sequencing type
- 16S
- 16S variable region One or more hypervariable region(s) of the bacterial 16S gene
- V3-V4
- Sequencing platform Manufacturer and experimental platform used for quantifying microbial abundance
- Ion Torrent, Illumina
Statistical Analysis
- Data transformation Data transformation applied to microbial abundance measurements prior to differential abundance testing (if any).
- relative abundances
- Statistical test
- Mann-Whitney (Wilcoxon)
- Significance threshold p-value or FDR threshold used for differential abundance testing (if any)
- 0.05
- MHT correction Have statistical tests be corrected for multiple hypothesis testing (MHT)?
- No
Alpha Diversity
- Shannon Estimator of species richness and species evenness: more weight on species richness
- unchanged
- Chao1 Abundance-based estimator of species richness
- increased
Signature 1
Source: Table 2 & Section 3.3: Microbiota Analysis
Description: Table 2 consists of relative abundance of specific bacterial groups in stools of BC survivors and control group by specific primers and Section 3.3. Microbiota Analysis discusses further significant relative abundance results in text. (p value of ≤ 0.05, Mann-Whitney U test)
Abundance in Group 1: increased abundance in BC survivors
Revision editor(s): Ecsharp
Signature 2
Source: Table 2 & Section 3.3: Microbiota Analysis
Description: Description: Table 2 consists of relative abundance of specific bacterial groups in stools of BC survivors and control group by specific primers and Section 3.3. Microbiota Analysis discusses further significant relative abundance results in text. (p value of ≤ 0.05, Mann-Whitney U test)
Abundance in Group 1: decreased abundance in BC survivors
Revision editor(s): Ecsharp
Retrieved from "https://bugsigdb.org/w/index.php?title=36765550&oldid=207565"
