4.7 Article

Dysbiosis of the microbiome in gastric carcinogenesis

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 7, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-16289-2

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Health and Medical Research Council, Australia Early Career fellowship [APP1111461]
  2. Cancer Australia priority-driven collaborative cancer research grant [1129488]
  3. Cancer Institute NSW Career Development Fellowship [15/CDF/1-11]
  4. Ministry of Higher Education, Malaysia [UM.C/625/HIR/MOHE/CHAN/13/1]
  5. University of New South Wales

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The gastric microbiome has been proposed as an etiological factor in gastric carcinogenesis. We compared the gastric microbiota in subjects presenting with gastric cancer (GC, n = 12) and controls (functional dyspepsia (FD), n = 20) from a high GC risk population in Singapore and Malaysia. cDNA from 16S rRNA transcripts were amplified (515F-806R) and sequenced using Illumina MiSeq 2 x 250 bp chemistry. Increased richness and phylogenetic diversity but not Shannon's diversity was found in GC as compared to controls. nMDS clustered GC and FD subjects separately, with PERMANOVA confirming a significant difference between the groups. H. pylori serological status had a significant impact on gastric microbiome a-diversity and composition. Several bacterial taxa were enriched in GC, including Lactococcus, Veilonella, and Fusobacteriaceae (Fusobacterium and Leptotrichia). Prediction of bacterial metabolic contribution indicated that serological status had a significant impact on metabolic function, while carbohydrate digestion and pathways were enriched in GC. Our findings highlight three mechanisms of interest in GC, including enrichment of pro-inflammatory oral bacterial species, increased abundance of lactic acid producing bacteria, and enrichment of short chain fatty acid production pathways.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available