4.6 Article

Sputum Microbiome Composition in Patients with Squamous Cell Lung Carcinoma

期刊

LIFE-BASEL
卷 12, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/life12091365

关键词

lung cancer; squamous cell lung carcinoma; sputum microbiome; taxonomic composition; Streptococcus

资金

  1. Russian Science Foundation [18-14-00022p]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study compared the taxonomic composition of the sputum microbiome between untreated LUSC patients and healthy controls. The results showed significant differences in the structure of bacterial communities between the two groups. Certain genera were found to be enriched in LUSC patients, while others were significantly reduced, indicating a decrease in beta diversity in the microbiome of LUSC patients.
Background: Recent findings indicate that the host microbiome can have a significant impact on the development of lung cancer by inducing an inflammatory response, causing dysbiosis, and generating genome damage. The aim of this study was to search for bacterial communities specifically associated with squamous cell carcinoma (LUSC). Methods: In this study, the taxonomic composition of the sputum microbiome of 40 men with untreated LUSC was compared with that of 40 healthy controls. Next-Generation sequencing of bacterial 16S rRNA genes was used to determine the taxonomic composition of the respiratory microbiome. Results: There were no differences in alpha diversity between the LUSC and control groups. Meanwhile, differences in the structure of bacterial communities (beta diversity) among patients and controls differed significantly in sputum samples (pseudo-F = 1.53; p = 0.005). Genera of Streptococcus, Bacillus, Gemella, and Haemophilus were found to be significantly enriched in patients with LUSC compared to the control subjects, while 19 bacterial genera were significantly reduced, indicating a decrease in beta diversity in the microbiome of patients with LUSC. Conclusions: Among other candidates, Streptococcus (Streptococcus agalactiae) emerges as the most likely LUSC biomarker, but more research is needed to confirm this assumption.

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

4.6
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