Back to all available

A multi-Omic analysis delineates a causal protective role for Bifidobacteriaceae and implicates key host genes in inflammatory bowel disease

bioinformatics
genomics
gastroenterology-and-hepatology

Abstract

Background: While gut microbiota dysbiosis is a hallmark of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), the causal microbial drivers and their host-mediated mechanisms remain elusive. This study leverages an integrated multi-omics approach, combining Mendelian randomization (MR) and transcriptome analysis, to bridge the gap from microbial causality to host molecular pathways.

Methods: We performed a two-sample MR analysis using large-scale genome-wide association study (GWAS) data to identify specific gut microbiota taxa with a causal effect on IBD risk. Subsequently, we conducted a multi-level bioinformatic analysis of IBD patient transcriptomes to elucidate the downstream host genes, regulatory networks, and immune cell interactions modulated by these causal microbes.

Results: Our MR analysis established a robust causal protective effect of the family Bifidobacteriaceae against IBD. Integrating this finding with transcriptomic data, we identified three key host genes as potential mediators acting through distinct mechanisms: LCT, whose regulation may foster a protective prebiotic niche; MCM6, which appears to function as a hub driving the proliferation of pathogenic immune infiltrates; and UBXN4, a critical regulator of cellular proteostasis, the failure of which can precipitate inflammatory stress.

Conclusions: This study moves beyond association to delineate a causal protective role for Bifidobacteriaceae in IBD and pinpoints specific host genes (LCT, MCM6, UBXN4) through which this effect is likely orchestrated. These findings provide a novel mechanistic framework for host-microbiota interactions and highlight new pathways for therapeutic intervention in IBD.

Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].