58
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Microbiota-based model improves the sensitivity of fecal immunochemical test for detecting colonic lesions

      research-article
      , , ,
      Genome Medicine
      BioMed Central

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second leading cause of death among cancers in the United States. Although individuals diagnosed early have a greater than 90 % chance of survival, more than one-third of individuals do not adhere to screening recommendations partly because the standard diagnostics, colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy, are expensive and invasive. Thus, there is a great need to improve the sensitivity of non-invasive tests to detect early stage cancers and adenomas. Numerous studies have identified shifts in the composition of the gut microbiota associated with the progression of CRC, suggesting that the gut microbiota may represent a reservoir of biomarkers that would complement existing non-invasive methods such as the widely used fecal immunochemical test (FIT).

          Methods

          We sequenced the 16S rRNA genes from the stool samples of 490 patients. We used the relative abundances of the bacterial populations within each sample to develop a random forest classification model that detects colonic lesions using the relative abundance of gut microbiota and the concentration of hemoglobin in stool.

          Results

          The microbiota-based random forest model detected 91.7 % of cancers and 45.5 % of adenomas while FIT alone detected 75.0 % and 15.7 %, respectively. Of the colonic lesions missed by FIT, the model detected 70.0 % of cancers and 37.7 % of adenomas. We confirmed known associations of Porphyromonas assaccharolytica, Peptostreptococcus stomatis, Parvimonas micra, and Fusobacterium nucleatum with CRC. Yet, we found that the loss of potentially beneficial organisms, such as members of the Lachnospiraceae, was more predictive for identifying patients with adenomas when used in combination with FIT.

          Conclusions

          These findings demonstrate the potential for microbiota analysis to complement existing screening methods to improve detection of colonic lesions.

          Electronic supplementary material

          The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13073-016-0290-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

          Related collections

          Most cited references17

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Index for rating diagnostic tests.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Butyrate inhibits inflammatory responses through NFkappaB inhibition: implications for Crohn's disease.

            Proinflammatory cytokines are key factors in the pathogenesis of Crohn's disease (CD). Activation of nuclear factor kappa B (NFkappaB), which is involved in their gene transcription, is increased in the intestinal mucosa of CD patients. As butyrate enemas may be beneficial in treating colonic inflammation, we investigated if butyrate promotes this effect by acting on proinflammatory cytokine expression. Intestinal biopsy specimens, isolated lamina propria cells (LPMC), and peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) were cultured with or without butyrate for assessment of secretion of tumour necrosis factor (TNF) and mRNA levels. NFkappaB p65 activation was determined by immunofluorescence and gene reporter experiments. Levels of NFkappaB inhibitory protein (IkappaBalpha) were analysed by western blotting. The in vivo efficacy of butyrate was assessed in rats with trinitrobenzene sulphonic acid (TNBS) induced colitis. Butyrate decreased TNF production and proinflammatory cytokine mRNA expression by intestinal biopsies and LPMC from CD patients. Butyrate abolished lipopolysaccharide (LPS) induced expression of cytokines by PBMC and transmigration of NFkappaB from the cytoplasm to the nucleus. LPS induced NFkappaB transcriptional activity was decreased by butyrate while IkappaBalpha levels were stable. Butyrate treatment also improved TNBS induced colitis. Butyrate decreases proinflammatory cytokine expression via inhibition of NFkappaB activation and IkappaBalpha degradation. These anti-inflammatory properties provide a rationale for assessing butyrate in the treatment of CD.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              American College of Gastroenterology guidelines for colorectal cancer screening 2009 [corrected].

              This document is the first update of the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) colorectal cancer (CRC) screening recommendations since 2000. The CRC screening tests are now grouped into cancer prevention tests and cancer detection tests. Colonoscopy every 10 years, beginning at age 50, remains the preferred CRC screening strategy. It is recognized that colonoscopy is not available in every clinical setting because of economic limitations. It is also realized that not all eligible persons are willing to undergo colonoscopy for screening purposes. In these cases, patients should be offered an alternative CRC prevention test (flexible sigmoidoscopy every 5-10 years, or a computed tomography (CT) colonography every 5 years) or a cancer detection test (fecal immunochemical test for blood, FIT).
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                ntbaxter@umich.edu
                mruffin@med.umich.edu
                maryroge@med.umich.edu
                pschloss@umich.edu
                Journal
                Genome Med
                Genome Med
                Genome Medicine
                BioMed Central (London )
                1756-994X
                6 April 2016
                6 April 2016
                2016
                : 8
                : 37
                Affiliations
                [ ]Department of Microbiology and Immunology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI USA
                [ ]Department of Family Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI USA
                [ ]Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI USA
                Article
                290
                10.1186/s13073-016-0290-3
                4823848
                27056827
                d3e0f1ad-f516-449d-93a0-63d8f76b6257
                © Baxter et al. 2016

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 13 October 2015
                : 16 March 2016
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100000054, National Cancer Institute;
                Award ID: U01CA86400
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100000057, National Institute of General Medical Sciences;
                Award ID: R01GM099514
                Award Recipient :
                Categories
                Research
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2016

                Molecular medicine
                Molecular medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article