4.7 Article

Temporal association between human upper respiratory and gut bacterial microbiomes during the course of COVID-19 in adults

期刊

COMMUNICATIONS BIOLOGY
卷 4, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s42003-021-01796-w

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Key Research and Development Program of China [2017ZX10103009-002, 2019YFC1200603, 2018YFC2000500]
  2. Special fund for COVID-19 diagnosis and treatment of Nantong Science and Technology Bureau [SFCDT3-2]
  3. Second Tibetan Plateau Scientific Expedition and Research (STEP) program [2019QZKK0503]
  4. Key Research Program of the Chinese Academy of Sciences [FZDSW-219]
  5. Chinese National Natural Science Foundation [31970571]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study conducted longitudinal analyses of throat and anal microbiomes in 35 COVID-19 patients and 19 healthy controls. Results showed lower bacterial diversity in COVID-19 patients, but observed a synchronous restoration of upper respiratory and gut microbiomes in some mild patients.
SARS-CoV-2 is the cause of COVID-19. It infects multiple organs including the respiratory tract and gut. Dynamic changes of regional microbiomes in infected adults are largely unknown. Here, we performed longitudinal analyses of throat and anal swabs from 35 COVID-19 and 19 healthy adult controls, as well as 10 non-COVID-19 patients with other diseases, by 16S rRNA gene sequencing. The results showed a partitioning of the patients into 3-4 categories based on microbial community types (I-IV) in both sites. The bacterial diversity was lower in COVID-19 patients than healthy controls and decreased gradually from community type I to III/IV. Although the dynamic change of microbiome was complex during COVID-19, a synchronous restoration of both the upper respiratory and gut microbiomes from early dysbiosis towards late more diverse status was observed in 6/8 mild COVID-19 adult patients. These findings reveal previously unknown interactions between upper respiratory and gut microbiomes during COVID-19.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据