Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Search in posts
Search in pages
Filter by Categories
Addendum
Announcement
Announcements
Author’ response
Author’s reply
Authors' response
Authors#x2019; response
Book Received
Book Review
Book Reviews
Books Received
Centenary Review Article
Clinical Image
Clinical Images
Commentary
Communicable Diseases - Original Articles
Correspondence
Correspondence, Letter to Editor
Correspondences
Correspondences & Authors’ Responses
Corrigendum
Corrrespondence
Critique
Current Issue
Editorial
Editorial Podcast
Errata
Erratum
FORM IV
GUIDELINES
Health Technology Innovation
IAA CONSENSUS DOCUMENT
Innovations
Letter to Editor
Malnutrition & Other Health Issues - Original Articles
Media & News
Notice of Retraction
Obituary
Original Article
Original Articles
Panel of Reviewers (2006)
Panel of Reviewers (2007)
Panel of Reviewers (2009) Guidelines for Contributors
Perspective
Policy
Policy Document
Policy Guidelines
Policy, Review Article
Policy: Correspondence
Policy: Editorial
Policy: Mapping Review
Policy: Original Article
Policy: Perspective
Policy: Process Paper
Policy: Scoping Review
Policy: Special Report
Policy: Systematic Review
Policy: Viewpoint
Practice
Practice: Authors’ response
Practice: Book Review
Practice: Clinical Image
Practice: Commentary
Practice: Correspondence
Practice: Letter to Editor
Practice: Method
Practice: Obituary
Practice: Original Article
Practice: Pages From History of Medicine
Practice: Perspective
Practice: Review Article
Practice: Short Note
Practice: Short Paper
Practice: Special Report
Practice: Student IJMR
Practice: Systematic Review
Pratice, Original Article
Pratice, Review Article
Pratice, Short Paper
Programme
Programme, Correspondence, Letter to Editor
Programme: Authors’ response
Programme: Commentary
Programme: Correspondence
Programme: Editorial
Programme: Original Article
Programme: Originial Article
Programme: Perspective
Programme: Rapid Review
Programme: Review Article
Programme: Short Paper
Programme: Special Report
Programme: Status Paper
Programme: Systematic Review
Programme: Viewpoint
Protocol
Public Notice
Research Brief
Research Correspondence
Retraction
Review Article
Reviewers
Short Paper
Some Forthcoming Scientific Events
Special Opinion Paper
Special Report
Special Section Nutrition & Food Security
Status Paper
Status Report
Strategy
Student IJMR
Systematic Article
Systematic Review
Systematic Review & Meta-Analysis
View Point
Viewpoint
White Paper
Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Search in posts
Search in pages
Filter by Categories
Addendum
Announcement
Announcements
Author’ response
Author’s reply
Authors' response
Authors#x2019; response
Book Received
Book Review
Book Reviews
Books Received
Centenary Review Article
Clinical Image
Clinical Images
Commentary
Communicable Diseases - Original Articles
Correspondence
Correspondence, Letter to Editor
Correspondences
Correspondences & Authors’ Responses
Corrigendum
Corrrespondence
Critique
Current Issue
Editorial
Editorial Podcast
Errata
Erratum
FORM IV
GUIDELINES
Health Technology Innovation
IAA CONSENSUS DOCUMENT
Innovations
Letter to Editor
Malnutrition & Other Health Issues - Original Articles
Media & News
Notice of Retraction
Obituary
Original Article
Original Articles
Panel of Reviewers (2006)
Panel of Reviewers (2007)
Panel of Reviewers (2009) Guidelines for Contributors
Perspective
Policy
Policy Document
Policy Guidelines
Policy, Review Article
Policy: Correspondence
Policy: Editorial
Policy: Mapping Review
Policy: Original Article
Policy: Perspective
Policy: Process Paper
Policy: Scoping Review
Policy: Special Report
Policy: Systematic Review
Policy: Viewpoint
Practice
Practice: Authors’ response
Practice: Book Review
Practice: Clinical Image
Practice: Commentary
Practice: Correspondence
Practice: Letter to Editor
Practice: Method
Practice: Obituary
Practice: Original Article
Practice: Pages From History of Medicine
Practice: Perspective
Practice: Review Article
Practice: Short Note
Practice: Short Paper
Practice: Special Report
Practice: Student IJMR
Practice: Systematic Review
Pratice, Original Article
Pratice, Review Article
Pratice, Short Paper
Programme
Programme, Correspondence, Letter to Editor
Programme: Authors’ response
Programme: Commentary
Programme: Correspondence
Programme: Editorial
Programme: Original Article
Programme: Originial Article
Programme: Perspective
Programme: Rapid Review
Programme: Review Article
Programme: Short Paper
Programme: Special Report
Programme: Status Paper
Programme: Systematic Review
Programme: Viewpoint
Protocol
Public Notice
Research Brief
Research Correspondence
Retraction
Review Article
Reviewers
Short Paper
Some Forthcoming Scientific Events
Special Opinion Paper
Special Report
Special Section Nutrition & Food Security
Status Paper
Status Report
Strategy
Student IJMR
Systematic Article
Systematic Review
Systematic Review & Meta-Analysis
View Point
Viewpoint
White Paper
View/Download PDF

Translate this page into:

Practice: Correspondence
159 (
2
); 254-258
doi:
10.4103/ijmr.ijmr_864_23

Low abundance of healthy bacteria in the gastric microbiota can be a potential biomarker for gastrointestinal diseases: A pilot study

Centre for Medical Biotechnology, Amity Institute of Biotechnology, Amity University, Noida 201 301, India
Department of Gastroenterology, Yashoda Super Specialty Hospital, Ghaziabad 201 001, India
Department of Gastroenterology, Max Super Specialty Hospital, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, India
Division of Biomedical Informatics, Indian Council of Medical Research, New Delhi 110 029, India
Department of Psychiatry, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi 110 029, India

*For correspondence: rajashreepatra79@yahoo.co.in

Licence
This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
Disclaimer:
This article was originally published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow and was migrated to Scientific Scholar after the change of Publisher.

Sir,

The gastrointestinal (GI) microbiota plays a crucial role in host defence, influencing factors such as GI motility, vitamin production, bile acid metabolism and more1. Dysbiosis disrupts these benefits and external factors such as diet and medication further complicate the situation2. Metagenomics research has linked the GI microbiota to immune and metabolic disorders3. Faecalibacterium, an indicator of intestinal health, was found to be depleted in GI disorders, raising interest in its potential as a probiotic4. The study aims to identify bacterial indicators, such as Faecalibacterium, for GI disorders and explores functional dynamics within the microbiota, providing insights into host–microbe interactions and disease prediction.

This study sequenced genomic DNA of 44 antral gastric biopsies taken during endoscopy by a gastroenterologist at Max Super Specialty Hospital, Vaishali, Ghaziabad, India, between August 2018 to December 2019 to understand the dysbiosis of healthy bacteria in GI disorders such as duodenal ulcer (DU), gastritis and gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Ethical clearance and patient’s informed consent were taken. Patient clinical information was recorded. The participants were selected based on the inclusion criteria (age 18-90 yr, informed consent for upper GI endoscopy and clinical signs of Helicobacter pylori related GI disease) and exclusion criteria (no history of antimicrobial drug use or usage of proton-pump inhibitors for three months prior). Two mucosal tissue samples were collected from each participant and placed in sample collection tubes with Brucella broth (Becton Dickinson, Sparks, MD, NJ, USA) and phosphate-buffered saline solution.

Genomic DNA from human tissue biopsy samples was extracted using the QIAamp DNA Mini Kit (QIAGEN GmbH, Hilden, Germany). It was quantified and assessed for quality using agarose gel electrophoresis. A specific primer with a sequencing linker was created for the 16S rRNA V3 and V4 region using the KAPA HiFi HotStart PCR Kit (R&D Cape Town, South Africa) for 26 cycles. Amplified signals were checked on a 1.2 per cent agarose gel. Round 1 PCR amplicons were further amplified (10 cycles) to include Illumina sequencing barcoded adaptors. Round2 PCR amplicons (the sequencing libraries) were examined on a gel. Samples underwent paired-end sequencing on the Illumina MiSeq v3 600-cycle cartridge, focusing on the V3-V4 primer sequences quality bases. Reads were stitched using Fastq-join3 and used for microbiome analysis in the QIIME pipeline. The UCLUST5 method clustered query sequences against the Greengenes 16S rRNA database (v13.8), generating a biome file with taxonomies assigned by the RDP7 classifier at ≥97 per cent sequence similarity. Operational taxonomic units (OTUs) were identified using acquired reads and QIIME scripts (https://qiime2.org/). MicrobiomeAnalyst (https://www.microbiomeanalyst.ca/) was employed for random forest analysis and correlation network construction based on the Spearman correlation coefficient.

Microbial alpha diversity in human tissue biopsy samples was calculated using QIIME 1.7.0, represented by the ACE (Abundance Based Coverage Estimators) index, and rarefaction curves were plotted on R Package-vegan (Version 2.6-4). MicrobiomeAnalyst was utilized for alpha diversity, core microbiome, cluster study, random forest and Spearman rank correlation5. The PICRUSt method was employed to predict microbial community metabolic potential based on 16S rRNA gene data6 referencing the Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) database for functional pathways associated with the bacteriome of diseases7. Graphs displaying the relative abundance of KEGG pathways were generated using statistical analysis of taxonomic and functional profile8.

A total of 44 participants (26 were male and 18 were female) (mean age of 45.5±18.2 yr; Supplementary Table) were included in this study. Of these, those individuals with GERD (n=18) had a mean age of 43±15.8 yr, individuals with DU (n=12) had a mean age of 48.1±12.6 yr, those with gastritis (n=9) had a mean age of 52.5±23.9 yr and the chosen controls (n=5) were 35.4±9.8 yr old. The mean age of the males was 45.3±17.1, whereas for females, it was 45.8±20.8 yr. Control participants were individuals seeking treatment for conditions like liver disease who underwent endoscopic screening as part of their medical evaluation.

Supplementary Table Characteristics of the participants
Characteristics Total (n=44), n (%) Male (n=26), n (%) Female (n=18), n (%) P
Age (yr), mean±SD 45.5±18.2 45.3±17.1 45.8±20.8 -
Control 5 (11.4) 2 (7.6) 3 (16.7) 0.262
Diseases category
DU 12 (27.3) 5 (19.2) 7 (38.9) 0.262
Gastritis 9 (20.4) 7 (27) 2 (11.1) 0.262
GERD 18 (40.9) 12 (46.2) 6 (33.3) 0.262

GERD, gastro-oesophageal reflux disease; SD, standard deviation; DU, duodenal ulcer

The rarefaction curve indicates sufficient sequence depth (

Supplementary Fig. 1
). Alpha diversity indices (Chao 1, ACE, Fisher, Simpson and Shannon) were used to assess within-sample diversity in disease-associated bacteriome. ACE revealed higher alpha diversity in GERD, gastritis and control groups compared to DU at the phylum level (P=0.01) (
Supplementary Fig. 2
).

In our initial bacterial population analysis, we compared three groups: control vs. DU, control vs. gastritis and control vs. GERD. Across all three groups, four major phyla were consistently present: Campylobacterota, Firmicutes, Actinobacteria and Bacteroidota (3-71%). Campylobacterota was notably prominent in all disease groups, particularly in gastritis (70%). Firmicutes dominated in control but had lower presence in gastritis, followed by Bacteroidota (13-15%). Proteobacteria and Actinobacteria were prevalent in all disease groups, with gastritis showing a lower abundance of Actinobacteria (4%) compared to control, DU and GERD (Fig. 1A-i, B-i and C-i).

Composition of gastric microbiota. (A) Relative abundance between control and duodenal ulcer (i) at phylum level (ii) at genus level. (B) Relative abundance between control and gastritis (i) at phylum level (ii) at genus level. (C) Relative abundance between control and GERD (i) at phylum level (ii) at genus level. GERD, gastro-oesophageal reflux disease; DU, duodenal ulcer.
Fig. 1
Composition of gastric microbiota. (A) Relative abundance between control and duodenal ulcer (i) at phylum level (ii) at genus level. (B) Relative abundance between control and gastritis (i) at phylum level (ii) at genus level. (C) Relative abundance between control and GERD (i) at phylum level (ii) at genus level. GERD, gastro-oesophageal reflux disease; DU, duodenal ulcer.

The top 20 genera were observed, with Helicobacter being notably abundant in all disease groups (10-70%). Controls had higher Streptococcus levels (9-10%), except for DU (18%). Controls featured Catenibacterium (25%), Faecalibacterium (12-16%) and Dialister (5%) as the dominant genera. In disease categories, prevalent genera included Veillonella, Neisseria, Haemophilus, Rothia, Dialister, Gemella and Fusobacterium with relative abundances ranging from 0.5 to 6.75 per cent (Fig. 1A-ii, B-ii and C-ii).

Core bacterial phyla Firmicutes, Proteobacteria, Bacteroidota, Actinobacteria, Fusobacteriota and Campylobacterota were common across all groups. Among 43 core genera, Streptococcus (75%), Veillonella (59%), Staphylococcus (57%), Prevotella 7 (55%), Cutibacterium (52%) and Haemophilus (50%) dominated. In the control group, Streptococcus, Catenibacterium (80%), Veillonella, Rothia, Prevotella 7 (60%), respectively and Faecalibacterium (40%) were prevalent (

Supplementary Fig. 3A
). In DU, Fusobacterium (67%) is predominant, followed by Streptococcus (58%) and others (
Supplementary Fig. 3B
). Gastritis had Porphyromonas, Lawsonella and Granulicatella (33%) (
Supplementary Fig. 3C
), while GERD included Gemella (17%) and Dialister (11%) among core microbes (
Supplementary Fig. 3D
).

Genus-level analysis revealed positive correlations of Fusobacterium, Veillonella and Neisseria with disease groups, indicating their potential involvement in disease-related microbial dynamics. Conversely, Faecalibacterium, Catenibacterium and Dialister showed negative correlations, suggesting their roles in maintaining a balanced microbial profile (Fig. 2A). In this study, Faecalibacterium was found to have positive correlations with Catenibacterium, Dialister, Rothia and Gemella, while it showed a negative correlation with Fusobacterium (Fig. 2B). Dialister also had positive correlations with Faecalibacterium, Corynebacterium and Catenibacterium but a negative correlation with Fusobacterium (Fig. 2C). In addition, Fusobacterium was found to have positive correlations with Veillonella and Gemella (Fig. 2D).

Pattern search analysis: (A) Top 25 genus associated with the control and disease groups (B) Top 25 genus correlated with Faecalibacterium (C) Top 25 genus associated with Dialister (D) Genera associated with Fusobacterium.
Fig. 2
Pattern search analysis: (A) Top 25 genus associated with the control and disease groups (B) Top 25 genus correlated with Faecalibacterium (C) Top 25 genus associated with Dialister (D) Genera associated with Fusobacterium.

Single-factor statistical analysis identified five significant features (P ≤0.05) in taxon abundances: Fusobacterium (P=0.03), Catenibacterium (P=0.041), Faecalibacterium (P=0.044), Dialister (P=0.047) and Prevotella_7 (P=0.05). Faecalibacterium were more abundant in control and DU compared to gastritis and GERD (

Supplementary Fig. 4A
). Fusobacterium was the most abundant in gastritis, followed by DU, GERD and control (
Supplementary Fig. 4B
). Dialister also showed the same pattern of abundance as Faecalibacterium (
Supplementary Fig 4C
).

The study utilized 16S rDNA sequencing data and Greengenes annotated OTUs to predict the metabolic capabilities of the bacteriome. Using KEGG Orthology, metagenome contributions were determined for control and disease categories. A total of 500 KO IDs were identified in both disease and control groups, revealing several significant KEGG metabolic pathways when comparing control to disease groups. Methane metabolism was significantly higher among all disease groups. In DU, five pathways were notably elevated (

Supplementary Fig. 5A
), while gastritis exhibited seven significant pathways, with control group showing higher carbohydrate and glycan metabolism (
Supplementary Fig. 5B
) and GERD displaying increased carbon, sulphur and glyoxylate and dicarboxylate metabolism (
Supplementary Fig. 5C
).

This study underscores the link between GI microbiota and overall well-being, investigating beneficial bacteria and their connection to disease-associated microbes. Biopsy samples revealed varying species richness, with GERD having the highest, followed by gastritis and DU, aligning with earlier observations9. This study found that the phyla Bacteroidetes and Firmicutes were predominant in the GI microbiota of the controls similar to a previous study10. There are also reports on Firmicutes being higher in control group11 while Actinobacteria were lower in individuals with gastritis12. Faecalibacterium which belongs to phylum Firmicutes, known for its anti-H. pylori properties, was more abundant in control in the present study similar to a prior report3. The GC-associated bacteria (Veillonella and Fusobacterium) and Faecalibacterium have a negative correlation with one another, according to correlation analysis. This demonstrates how an increase in the abundance of Fusobacterium can result in a decrease in the number of Faecalibacterium, a type of beneficial bacterium that is supported by previous research13. Individuals with gastritis and GERD exhibited lower SCFA-producing bacteria, including Faecalibacterium, and reduced overall SCFA levels, making it a potential therapeutic and biomarker for GI diseases14. This study shows the importance of a balanced host-microorganism relationship for optimal health and disease prevention. It suggests investigating microbial imbalances, such as Faecalibacterium, Catenibacterium and Dialister, as potential markers for various GI disorders. In addition, certain microflora like Fusobacterium may serve as diagnostic indicators for GI diseases. Integrating Faecalibacterium as a biomarker could transform disease management, offering personalized interventions based on an individuals gut microbiome. The research hints at the impact of gastric microbiota on the nervous system, affecting brain development and function, with potential implications for preventing immune-related and neuropsychiatric disorders in the future15. However, limitations, such as a small sample size and lack of healthy controls, are acknowledged, emphasizing the need for larger, diverse studies to validate findings and explore these interactions further.

Financial support and sponsorship

This study was funded by the Science and Engineering Research Board, Department of Science and Technology, Government of India (EMR/2016/003676).

Conflicts of interest

None.

Supplementary Fig 1

Supplementary Fig 1 Rarefaction curve of the data from the V3-V4 region of the 16S rRNA genes of the gastric microbiota contained in the 44 human tissue biopsy samples using next-generation sequencing. GERD, gastro-oesophageal reflux disease; DU, duodenal ulcer.

Supplementary Fig 2

Supplementary Fig 2 Alpha diversity comparison between the control and disease groups at index, ACE at taxonomic level of phylum with P=0.01. ACE, abundance based coverage estimates.

Supplementary Fig 3

Supplementary Fig 3 The core bacterial genera in the control and disease groups are determined by applying the parameters of sample dominance (≥20%) and relative abundance (≥0.01%). (A) Control, (B) Duodenal ulcer, (C) Gastritis and (D) Gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. Heatmap showing the relative abundances of the most prevalent bacterial phyla and genera in human biopsy samples as well as their detection thresholds. Red is the most common, and blue is the least common in the colour key, which illustrates the range of threshold relative abundance of the distinct values.

Supplementary Fig 4

Supplementary Fig 4 The average abundance based on the t-test among the control and disease groups is shown own for each bacterial genus (A) Faecalibacterium, (B) Fusobacterium and (C) Dialister.

Supplementary Fig 5

Supplementary Fig 5 An extended error plot of the statistically significant differences between the control and disease groups (A) Control vs. duodenal ulcer (B) Control vs. gastritis and (C) Control vs. gastro-oesophageal reflux disease.

References

  1. , , , , . Role of the gut microbiota in immunity and inflammatory disease. Nat Rev Immunol. 2013;13:321-35.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. , , , , , , . Influence of diet on the gut microbiome and implications for human health. J Transl Med. 2017;15:73.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. , , . Role of the microbiota in immunity and inflammation. Cell. 2014;157:121-41.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. , , , , , , . The critical role of Faecalibacterium prausnitzii in human health: An overview. Microb Pathog. 2020;149:104344.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. , , , , . Using microbiomeanalyst for comprehensive statistical, functional, and meta-analysis of microbiome data. Nat Protoc. 2020;15:799-821.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. , , , , , , . Predictive functional profiling of microbial communities using 16S rRNA marker gene sequences. Nat Biotechnol. 2013;31:814-21.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. , . Statistical, visual and functional analysis of microbiome data. Canada: McGill University; .
  8. , , , , . STAMP: Statistical analysis of taxonomic and functional profiles. Bioinformatics. 2014;30:3123-4.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. , , , , , , . Analysis of gastric microbiota and Helicobacter pylori infection in gastroesophageal reflux disease. Gut Pathog. 2022;14:38.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. , , . The human gastric microbiota: Is it time to rethink the pathogenesis of stomach diseases? United European Gastroenterol J. 2015;3:255-60.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. , , , , , , . What is the healthy gut microbiota composition?A changing ecosystem across age, environment, diet, and diseases. Microorganisms. 2019;7:14.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. , , , , , , . Structure of the human gastric bacterial community in relation to Helicobacter pylori status. ISME J. 2011;5:574-9.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. , , , , , , . Potential of fecal microbiota for detection and postoperative surveillance of colorectal cancer. BMC Microbiol. 2021;21:156.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. , , , , , , . Functional metabolic map of Faecalibacterium prausnitzii, a beneficial human gut microbe. J Bacteriol. 2014;196:3289-302.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. , , , , , , . Implications of gut microbiota in neurodegenerative diseases. Frontiers in Immunology. 2022;13:785644.
    [Google Scholar]
Show Sections
Scroll to Top