Back to all available

Altered tongue coating microbiome and metagenomic profiles in chronic atrophic gastritis versus non-atrophic gastritis: An observational study in Helicobacter pylori-negative patients

bioinformatics
microbiology
translational-medicine
gastroenterology

Abstract

Background.
As the diagnosis of chronic atrophic gastritis (CAG) relies on endoscopy, there is an urgent need to develop non-invasive biomarkers. The tongue coating microbiome, given its easy accessibility and potential association with digestive health, represents an ideal candidate. To eliminate the confounding effects of Helicobacter pylori , this study aimed to clarify the differences in the structure and function of the tongue coating microbiota between H. pylori -negative CAG patients and those with Chronic Non-Atrophic Gastritis (CNAG).
Methods .
Tongue coating samples were collected from patients with CAG and CNAG. The diversity, community composition, and differential taxa of the tongue coating microbiota between the two groups were analyzed via 16S rDNA high-throughput sequencing. Linear discriminant analysis Effect Size (LEfSe) was used to screen for biomarkers, and PICRUSt2 was employed for functional prediction.
Results .
A total of 39 tongue coating samples were included for sequencing (21 from the CAG group and 18 from the CNAG group). The species richness (Chao1 index) of the tongue coating microbiota in the CAG group was significantly lower than that in the CNAG group ( P = 0.017). There was a significant difference in Beta diversity between the two groups (PERMANOVA, P = 0.005). Regarding community composition, at the phylum level, the abundances of Bacillota and Bacteroidota were depleted , while the abundance of Pseudomonadota was enriched in the CAG group. At the genus level, the abundances of Neisseria and Haemophilus were enriched , whereas the abundances of Prevotella and Veillonella were depleted in the CAG group. LEfSe analysis identified Pseudoleptotrichia and TM7x as key differential taxa associated with CAG. Functional prediction analysis revealed highly similar overall functional profiles between the two groups. In contrast, significant differences were observed in the community structure and specific taxa.
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].