Gut microbiome identifies risk for colorectal polyps

Ezzat Dadkhah, Masoumeh Sikaroodi, Louis Korman, Robert Hardi, Jeffrey Baybick, David Hanzel, Gregory Kuehn, Thomas Kuehn, Patrick M Gillevet, Ezzat Dadkhah, Masoumeh Sikaroodi, Louis Korman, Robert Hardi, Jeffrey Baybick, David Hanzel, Gregory Kuehn, Thomas Kuehn, Patrick M Gillevet

Abstract

Objective: To characterise the gut microbiome in subjects with and without polyps and evaluate the potential of the microbiome as a non-invasive biomarker to screen for risk of colorectal cancer (CRC).

Design: Presurgery rectal swab, home collected stool, and sigmoid biopsy samples were obtained from 231 subjects undergoing screening or surveillance colonoscopy. 16S rRNA analysis was performed on 552 samples (231 rectal swab, 183 stool, 138 biopsy) and operational taxonomic units (OTU) were identified using UPARSE. Non-parametric statistical methods were used to identify OTUs that were significantly different between subjects with and without polyps. These informative OTUs were then used to build classifiers to predict the presence of polyps using advanced machine learning models.

Results: We obtained clinical data on 218 subjects (87 females, 131 males) of which 193 were White, 21 African-American, and 4 Asian-American. Colonoscopy detected polyps in 56% of subjects. Modelling of the non-invasive home stool samples resulted in a classification accuracy >75% for Naïve Bayes and Neural Network models using informative OTUs. A naïve holdout analysis performed on home stool samples resulted in an average false negative rate of 11.5% for the Naïve Bayes and Neural Network models, which was reduced to 5% when the two models were combined.

Conclusion: Gut microbiome analysis combined with advanced machine learning represents a promising approach to screen patients for the presence of polyps, with the potential to optimise the use of colonoscopy, reduce morbidity and mortality associated with CRC, and reduce associated healthcare costs.

Keywords: biopsy; classification; colorectal cancer; machine learning; microbiome; polyp; risk assessment; sequencing; stool.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: GK, TK, and PMG have founders’ stock and LK, RH, and JB have stock options in Metabiomics.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves for five classifiers using informative operational taxonomic units (OTU) for biopsy, home stool, and rectal swab data sets. The evaluated classifiers included Naïve Bayes (red), random forest (orange), K-nearest neighbour (yellow), logistic regression (green), and Neural Network (blue). The straight line represents the null model. (A) For the biopsy data set, the best performing classifier was Naïve Bayes with area under the curve (AUC) equal to 0.85. (B) For the home stool data set, the best performing classifiers were Naïve Bayes and random forest with AUC=0.83. (C) For the rectal swab data set, the best performing classifiers were random forest with AUC=0.81 and Naïve Bayes with AUC=0.80.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Naïve Bayes and Neural Network classification scores for the naïve predictions of the home stool samples.

References

    1. Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Dikshit R, et al. . Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. Int J Cancer 2015;136:E359–E386. 10.1002/ijc.29210
    1. Vogelstein B, Papadopoulos N, Velculescu VE, et al. . Cancer genome landscapes. Science 2013;339:1546–58. 10.1126/science.1235122
    1. Fearon ER. Molecular genetics of colorectal cancer. Annu Rev Pathol Mech Dis 2011;6:479–507. 10.1146/annurev-pathol-011110-130235
    1. Ding C, Tang W, Fan X, et al. . Intestinal microbiota: a novel perspective in colorectal cancer biotherapeutics. Onco Targets Ther 2018;11:4797–810. 10.2147/OTT.S170626
    1. Narayanan V, Peppelenbosch MP, Konstantinov SR. Human fecal microbiome-based biomarkers for colorectal cancer. Cancer Prev Res (Phila) 2014;7:1108–11. 10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-14-0273
    1. Essink-Bot ML, Dekker E, Timmermans DRM, et al. . Knowledge and informed decision-making about population-based colorectal cancer screening participation in groups with low and adequate health literacy. Gastroenterol Res Pract 2016;2016:1–8. 10.1155/2016/7292369
    1. Levin TR, Corley DA, Jensen CD, et al. . Effects of organized colorectal cancer screening on cancer incidence and mortality in a large community-based population. Gastroenterology 2018;155:1383–91. 10.1053/j.gastro.2018.07.017
    1. American Cancer Society Colorectal Cancer: Facts & Figures. 2017-2019. Available: [Accessed 20 Jan 2019].
    1. Zackular JP, Rogers MAM, Ruffin MT, et al. . The human gut microbiome as a screening tool for colorectal cancer. Cancer Prev Res 2014;7:1112–21. 10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-14-0129
    1. Eklöf V, Löfgren-Burström A, Zingmark C, et al. . Cancer-associated fecal microbial markers in colorectal cancer detection. Int. J. Cancer 2017;141:2528–36. 10.1002/ijc.31011
    1. Marchesi JR, Dutilh BE, Hall N, et al. . Towards the human colorectal cancer microbiome. PLoS ONE 2011;6:e20447 10.1371/journal.pone.0020447
    1. Shen XJ, Rawls JF, Randall TA, et al. . Molecular characterization of mucosal adherent bacteria and associations with colorectal adenomas. Gut Microbes 2010;1:138–47. 10.4161/gmic.1.3.12360
    1. Castellarin M, Warren RL, Freeman JD, et al. . Fusobacterium nucleatum infection is prevalent in human colorectal carcinoma. Genome Res 2012;22:299–306. 10.1101/gr.126516.111
    1. Chen W, Liu F, Ling Z, et al. . Human intestinal lumen and mucosa-associated microbiota in patients with colorectal cancer. PLoS ONE 2012;7:e39743 10.1371/journal.pone.0039743
    1. Kostic AD, Gevers D, Pedamallu CS, et al. . Genomic analysis identifies association of Fusobacterium with colorectal carcinoma. Genome Res 2012;22:292–8. 10.1101/gr.126573.111
    1. Sanapareddy N, Legge RM, Jovov B, et al. . Increased rectal microbial richness is associated with the presence of colorectal adenomas in humans. Isme J 2012;6:1858–68. 10.1038/ismej.2012.43
    1. Geng J, Fan H, Tang X, et al. . Diversified pattern of the human colorectal cancer microbiome. Gut Pathog 2013;5 10.1186/1757-4749-5-2
    1. McCoy AN, Araújo-Pérez F, Azcárate-Peril A, et al. . Fusobacterium is associated with colorectal adenomas. PLoS ONE 2013;8:e53653 10.1371/journal.pone.0053653
    1. Zeller G, Tap J, Voigt AY, et al. . Potential of fecal microbiota for early-stage detection of colorectal cancer. Mol Syst Biol 2014;10 10.15252/msb.20145645
    1. Burns MB, Lynch J, Starr TK, et al. . Virulence genes are a signature of the microbiome in the colorectal tumor microenvironment. Genome Med 2015;7 10.1186/s13073-015-0177-8
    1. Mira-Pascual L, Cabrera-Rubio R, Ocon S, et al. . Microbial mucosal colonic shifts associated with the development of colorectal cancer reveal the presence of different bacterial and archaeal biomarkers. J Gastroenterol 2015;50:167–79. 10.1007/s00535-014-0963-x
    1. Nakatsu G, Li X, Zhou H, et al. . Gut mucosal microbiome across stages of colorectal carcinogenesis. Nat Commun 2015;6 10.1038/ncomms9727
    1. Thomas AM, Jesus EC, Lopes A, et al. . Tissue-associated bacterial alterations in rectal carcinoma patients revealed by 16S rRNA community profiling. Front Cell Infect Microbiol 2016;6 10.3389/fcimb.2016.00179
    1. Xu K, Jiang B. Analysis of mucosa-associated microbiota in colorectal cancer. Med Sci Monit 2017;23:4422–30. 10.12659/MSM.904220
    1. Gao R, Kong C, Huang L, et al. . Mucosa-associated microbiota signature in colorectal cancer. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 2017;36:2073–83. 10.1007/s10096-017-3026-4
    1. Yoon H, Kim N, Park JH, et al. . Comparisons of gut microbiota among healthy control, patients with conventional adenoma, sessile serrated adenoma, and colorectal cancer. J Cancer Prev 2017;22:108–14. 10.15430/JCP.2017.22.2.108
    1. Hale VL, Chen J, Johnson S, et al. . Shifts in the fecal microbiota associated with adenomatous polyps. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2017;26:85–94. 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-16-0337
    1. Acinas SG, Marcelino LA, Klepac-Ceraj V, et al. . Divergence and redundancy of 16S rRNA sequences in genomes with multiple rrn operons. J Bacteriol 2004;186:2629–35. 10.1128/JB.186.9.2629-2635.2004
    1. Ju F, Zhang T. 16S rRNA gene high-throughput sequencing data mining of microbial diversity and interactions. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 2015;99:4119–29. 10.1007/s00253-015-6536-y
    1. Edgar RC. UPARSE: highly accurate otu sequences from microbial amplicon reads. Nat Methods 2013;10:996–8. 10.1038/nmeth.2604
    1. Schloss PD, Westcott SL, Ryabin T, et al. . Introducing mothur: open-source, platform-independent, community-supported software for describing and comparing microbial communities. Appl Environ Microbiol 2009;75:7537–41. 10.1128/AEM.01541-09
    1. White JR, Nagarajan N, Pop M. Statistical methods for detecting differentially abundant features in clinical metagenomic samples. PLoS Comput Biol 2009;5:e1000352 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000352
    1. Segata N, Izard J, Waldron L, et al. . Metagenomic biomarker discovery and explanation. Genome Biol 2011;12 10.1186/gb-2011-12-6-r60
    1. Dufrêne M, Legendre P. Species assemblages and indicator species: the need for a flexible asymmetrical approach. Ecol Monogr 1997;67:345–66. 10.2307/2963459
    1. McCune B, Grace JB, Urban DL. Analysis of ecological communities. Gleneden Beach, OR: MjM Software Design, 2002.
    1. Demšar J, Curk T, Erjavec A, et al. . Orange: data mining Toolbox in python. J Mach Learn Res 2013;14:2349–53.
    1. Witten IH, Frank E, Hall MA. Data mining: practical machine learning tools and techniques. 3rd edn Burlington, MA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, 2011.
    1. Ahn J, Sinha R, Pei Z, et al. . Human gut microbiome and risk for colorectal cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2013;105:1907–11. 10.1093/jnci/djt300
    1. Goedert JJ, Gong Y, Hua X, et al. . Fecal microbiota characteristics of patients with colorectal adenoma detected by screening: a population-based study. EBioMedicine 2015;2:597–603. 10.1016/j.ebiom.2015.04.010
    1. Brim H, Yooseph S, Zoetendal EG, et al. . Microbiome analysis of stool samples from African Americans with colon polyps. PLoS ONE 2013;8:e81352 10.1371/journal.pone.0081352
    1. Wu N, Yang X, Zhang R, et al. . Dysbiosis signature of fecal microbiota in colorectal cancer patients. Microb Ecol 2013;66:462–70. 10.1007/s00248-013-0245-9
    1. Lee GH, Malietzis G, Askari A, et al. . Is right-sided colon cancer different to left-sided colorectal cancer? – a systematic review. Eur J Surg Oncol 2015;41:300–8. 10.1016/j.ejso.2014.11.001
    1. Peters BA, Dominianni C, Shapiro JA, et al. . The gut microbiota in conventional and serrated precursors of colorectal cancer. Microbiome 2016;4 10.1186/s40168-016-0218-6
    1. Wisittipanit N, Rangwala H, Sikaroodi M, et al. . Classification methods for the analysis of LH-PCR data associated with inflammatory bowel disease patients. Int J Bioinform Res Appl 2015;11:111–29. 10.1504/IJBRA.2015.068087
    1. Knights D, Costello EK, Knight R. Supervised classification of human microbiota. FEMS Microbiol Rev 2011;35:343–59. 10.1111/j.1574-6976.2010.00251.x
    1. Dupuy A, Simon RM. Critical review of published microarray studies for cancer outcome and guidelines on statistical analysis and reporting. J Natl Cancer Inst 2007;99:147–57. 10.1093/jnci/djk018
    1. Simon R, Radmacher MD, Dobbin K, et al. . Pitfalls in the use of DNA microarray data for diagnostic and prognostic classification. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003;95:14–18. 10.1093/jnci/95.1.14
    1. Schroy PC, Caron SE, Sherman BJ, et al. . Risk assessment and clinical decision making for colorectal cancer screening. Health Expect 2015;18:1327–38. 10.1111/hex.12110
    1. Bibbins-Domingo K, Grossman DC, Curry SJ, et al. . Screening for colorectal cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. JAMA 2016;315:2564–75.
    1. Lin JS, Piper MA, Perdue LA, et al. . U.S. Preventive Services Task Force evidence syntheses, formerly systematic evidence reviews. Screening for colorectal cancer: a systematic review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US), 2016.

Source: PubMed

3
Suscribir