Biopsy bacterial signature can predict patient tissue malignancy.
Journal
Scientific reports
ISSN: 2045-2322
Titre abrégé: Sci Rep
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101563288
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
17 09 2021
17 09 2021
Historique:
received:
14
02
2021
accepted:
31
08
2021
entrez:
18
9
2021
pubmed:
19
9
2021
medline:
16
11
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Considerable recent research has indicated the presence of bacteria in a variety of human tumours and matched normal tissue. Rather than focusing on further identification of bacteria within tumour samples, we reversed the hypothesis to query if establishing the bacterial profile of a tissue biopsy could reveal its histology / malignancy status. The aim of the present study was therefore to differentiate between malignant and non-malignant fresh breast biopsy specimens, collected specifically for this purpose, based on bacterial sequence data alone. Fresh tissue biopsies were obtained from breast cancer patients and subjected to 16S rRNA gene sequencing. Progressive microbiological and bioinformatic contamination control practices were imparted at all points of specimen handling and bioinformatic manipulation. Differences in breast tumour and matched normal tissues were probed using a variety of statistical and machine-learning-based strategies. Breast tumour and matched normal tissue microbiome profiles proved sufficiently different to indicate that a classification strategy using bacterial biomarkers could be effective. Leave-one-out cross-validation of the predictive model confirmed the ability to identify malignant breast tissue from its bacterial signature with 84.78% accuracy, with a corresponding area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.888. This study provides proof-of-concept data, from fit-for-purpose study material, on the potential to use the bacterial signature of tissue biopsies to identify their malignancy status.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34535726
doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-98089-3
pii: 10.1038/s41598-021-98089-3
pmc: PMC8448740
doi:
Substances chimiques
RNA, Ribosomal, 16S
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
18535Commentaires et corrections
Type : ErratumIn
Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
Lehouritis, P. et al. Local bacteria affect the efficacy of chemotherapeutic drugs. Sci. Rep. 5, 14554. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep14554 (2015).
doi: 10.1038/srep14554
pubmed: 26416623
pmcid: 4586607
Urbaniak, C. et al. The microbiota of breast tissue and its association with breast cancer. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 82, 5039–5048. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.01235-16 (2016).
doi: 10.1128/AEM.01235-16
pubmed: 27342554
pmcid: 4968547
Urbaniak, C. et al. Microbiota of human breast tissue. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 80, 3007–3014. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.00242-14 (2014).
doi: 10.1128/AEM.00242-14
pubmed: 24610844
pmcid: 4018903
Wang, H. et al. Breast tissue, oral and urinary microbiomes in breast cancer. Oncotarget 8, 88122–88138. https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.21490 (2017).
doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.21490
pubmed: 29152146
pmcid: 5675698
Costantini, L. et al. Characterization of human breast tissue microbiota from core needle biopsies through the analysis of multi hypervariable 16S-rRNA gene regions. Sci. Rep. 8, 16893. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-35329-z (2018).
doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-35329-z
pubmed: 30442969
pmcid: 6237987
Hieken, T. J. et al. the microbiome of aseptically collected human breast tissue in benign and malignant disease. Sci. Rep. 6, 30751. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep30751 (2016).
doi: 10.1038/srep30751
pubmed: 27485780
pmcid: 4971513
Nejman, D. et al. The human tumor microbiome is composed of tumor type-specific intracellular bacteria. Science 368, 973. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aay9189 (2020).
doi: 10.1126/science.aay9189
pubmed: 32467386
pmcid: 7757858
Poore, G. D. et al. Microbiome analyses of blood and tissues suggest cancer diagnostic approach. Nature 579, 567–574. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2095-1 (2020).
doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2095-1
pubmed: 32214244
pmcid: 7500457
Walker, S. P., Tangney, M. & Claesson, M. J. Sequence-based characterization of intratumoral bacteria—A guide to best practice. Front. Oncol. 10, 179. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2020.00179 (2020).
doi: 10.3389/fonc.2020.00179
pubmed: 32154174
pmcid: 7046755
Thornton, J. W., Argenta, L. C., McClatchey, K. D. & Marks, M. W. Studies on the endogenous flora of the human breast. Ann. Plast. Surg. 20, 39–42. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000637-198801000-00008 (1988).
doi: 10.1097/00000637-198801000-00008
pubmed: 3341714
Eisenhofer, R. et al. Contamination in low microbial biomass microbiome studies: Issues and recommendations. Trends Microbiol. 27, 105–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tim.2018.11.003 (2019).
doi: 10.1016/j.tim.2018.11.003
pubmed: 30497919
Salter, S. J. et al. Reagent and laboratory contamination can critically impact sequence-based microbiome analyses. BMC Biol. 12, 87. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12915-014-0087-z (2014).
doi: 10.1186/s12915-014-0087-z
pubmed: 25387460
pmcid: 4228153
DeSantis, C. E. et al. Breast cancer statistics, 2019. CA Cancer J. Clin. 69, 438–451. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21583 (2019).
Walker, S. P. et al. Non-specific amplification of human DNA is a major challenge for 16S rRNA gene sequence analysis. Sci. Rep. 10, 16356. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-73403-7 (2020).
doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-73403-7
pubmed: 33004967
pmcid: 7529756
Knights, D. et al. Bayesian community-wide culture-independent microbial source tracking. Nat. Methods 8, 761–763. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.1650 (2011).
doi: 10.1038/nmeth.1650
pubmed: 21765408
pmcid: 3791591
Davis, N. M., Proctor, D. M., Holmes, S. P., Relman, D. A. & Callahan, B. J. Simple statistical identification and removal of contaminant sequences in marker-gene and metagenomics data. Microbiome 6, 226. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40168-018-0605-2 (2018).
doi: 10.1186/s40168-018-0605-2
pubmed: 30558668
pmcid: 6298009
Grimm, L. J. et al. Growth dynamics of mammographic calcifications: differentiating ductal carcinoma in situ from benign breast disease. Radiology 292, 77–83. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2019182599 (2019).
doi: 10.1148/radiol.2019182599
pubmed: 31112087
He, Y. et al. Regional variation limits applications of healthy gut microbiome reference ranges and disease models. Nat. Med. 24, 1532–1535. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-018-0164-x (2018).
doi: 10.1038/s41591-018-0164-x
pubmed: 30150716
Pushalkar, S. et al. the pancreatic cancer microbiome promotes oncogenesis by induction of innate and adaptive immune suppression. Cancer Discov. 8, 403–416. https://doi.org/10.1158/2159-8290.CD-17-1134 (2018).
doi: 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-17-1134
pubmed: 29567829
pmcid: 6225783
Grossberg, A. J. et al. Multidisciplinary standards of care and recent progress in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. CA Cancer J. Clin. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21626 (2020).
doi: 10.3322/caac.21626
pubmed: 32683683
pmcid: 7722002
Flores Bueso, Y., Walker, S. P., Hogan, G., Claesson, M. J. & Tangney, M. Protoblock—A biological standard for formalin fixed samples. Microbiome 8, 122. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40168-020-00901-1 (2020).
doi: 10.1186/s40168-020-00901-1
pubmed: 32828122
pmcid: 7443293
Karim, M. O. et al. Triple assessment of breast lump: Should we perform core biopsy for every patient?. Cureus 12, e7479. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.7479 (2020).
doi: 10.7759/cureus.7479
pubmed: 32351857
pmcid: 7188022