Back to all available

Clinical strains isolated from early-stage colorectal cancer patients promote tumorigenesis

bioinformatics
microbiology
gastroenterology-and-hepatology
oncology

Abstract

Background.
Colorectal cancer (CRC) is prevalent worldwide and is associated with gut commensals. Recent studies have highlighted the effects of gut microbes on CRC development driven by their strain diversity. Nevertheless, the impact of the gut microbial community on tumorigenesis in early-stage (ES) CRC remains unexplored.

Methods.
To assess the potential gut microbial community, which is critical to tumorigenesis in early-stage CRC, we collected publicly available shotgun metagenomes from CRC patient faecal samples from a Japanese population. Correlation analysis of the microbial profiles derived from the metagenomes revealed an early-stage (ES) CRC-associated community. To elucidate the strain diversity of the targeted community, we isolated strains from early-stage (ES) CRC patient faecal samples and employed comparative genomics. To evaluate the strain-specific effects of the community on tumorigenesis, we introduced an isolated strain cocktail into a CRC mouse model.

Results.
Among the most significant ES CRC-associated species, we identified Lancefieldella parvula (Lp), as reported in a previous study. The 22 species were identified as positively correlated with Lp. Eight of the 22 species were associated with ES CRC, including Schaalia odontolytica (So) and Solobacterium SGB6829. So and Solobacterium moorei (Sm) were previously reported as potential species that promote CRC. Thus, we isolated clinical strains of Lp, So, and Sm from faecal samples as potential members of the ES CRC-associated community. Comparative genomics revealed that iron-related genes were shared among clinical strains. In the oral challenge with clinical strains, namely, Lp, So, and Sm, the mice exhibited shorter survival and significantly increased tumorigenesis, suggesting that the cocktail of clinical strains is more pathogenic to the CRC mouse model than the type strain is. In summary, we inferred that the ES CRC-associated community could promote CRC, and the effects depend on the strains involved.
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].