nach oben

Current Oncology Reports

Erschienen in:

04.04.2024 | REVIEW

Current Trends and Challenges of Microbiome Research in Prostate Cancer

verfasst von: Shaun Trecarten, Bernard Fongang, Michael Liss

Erschienen in: Current Oncology Reports | Ausgabe 5/2024

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose of Review

The role of the gut microbiome in prostate cancer is an emerging area of research interest. However, no single causative organism has yet been identified. The goal of this paper is to examine the role of the microbiome in prostate cancer and summarize the challenges relating to methodology in specimen collection, sequencing technology, and interpretation of results.

Recent Findings

Significant heterogeneity still exists in methodology for stool sampling/storage, preservative options, DNA extraction, and sequencing database selection/in silico processing. Debate persists over primer choice in amplicon sequencing as well as optimal methods for data normalization. Statistical methods for longitudinal microbiome analysis continue to undergo refinement.

Summary

While standardization of methodology may help yield more consistent results for organism identification in prostate cancer, this is a difficult task due to considerable procedural variation at each step in the process. Further reproducibility and methodology research is required.

•• Kustrimovic N, Bombelli R, Baci D, Mortara L. Microbiome and prostate cancer: a novel target for prevention and treatment. Int J Mol Sci. 2023;24:1511. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms24021511. This paper provides a thorough overview of the role of the intraprostatic, urinary, and gut microbiome in the development/progression of prostate cancer.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

• Fujita K, Matsushita M, De Velasco MA, Hatano K, Minami T, Nonomura N, et al. The gut-prostate axis: a new perspective of prostate cancer biology through the gut microbiome. Cancers. 2023;15:1375. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15051375. This review describes the gut-prostate axis with role of dietary influences on gut microbiome.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

• Hsiao Y-C, Liu C-W, Yang Y, Feng J, Zhao H, Lu K. DNA damage and the gut microbiome: from mechanisms to disease outcomes. DNA. 2023;3:13–32. https://doi.org/10.3390/dna3010002.CrossRef

Xia B, Wang J, Zhang D, Hu X. The human microbiome links to prostate cancer risk and treatment (Review). Oncol Rep. 2023;49:1–12. https://doi.org/10.3892/or.2023.8560. This study discusses role of gut microbiome in prostate cancer and elaborates on direct and indirect mechanisms for cancer development.CrossRef

Ma J, Gnanasekar A, Lee A, Li WT, Haas M, Wang-Rodriguez J, et al. Influence of intratumor microbiome on clinical outcome and immune processes in prostate cancer. Cancers. 2020;12:2524. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers12092524.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Stamey TA, Fair WR, Timothy MM, Chung HK. Antibacterial nature of prostatic fluid. Nature. 1968;218:444–7. https://doi.org/10.1038/218444a0.CrossRefPubMed

Gatti G, Quintar AA, Andreani V, Nicola JP, Maldonado CA, Masini-Repiso AM, et al. Expression of Toll-like receptor 4 in the prostate gland and its association with the severity of prostate cancer. Prostate. 2009;69:1387–97. https://doi.org/10.1002/pros.20984.CrossRefPubMed

Cohen RJ, Shannon BA, McNEAL JE, Shannon T, Garrett KL. Propionibacterium acnes associated with inflammation in radical prostatectomy specimens: a possible link to cancer evolution? J Urol. 2005;173:1969–74. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000158161.15277.78.CrossRefPubMed

Eisenhofer R, Minich JJ, Marotz C, Cooper A, Knight R, Weyrich LS. Contamination in low microbial biomass microbiome studies: issues and recommendations. Trends Microbiol. 2019;27:105–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tim.2018.11.003.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Sfanos KS, Sauvageot J, Fedor HL, Dick JD, De Marzo AM, Isaacs WB. A molecular analysis of prokaryotic and viral DNA sequences in prostate tissue from patients with prostate cancer indicates the presence of multiple and diverse microorganisms. Prostate. 2008;68:306–20. https://doi.org/10.1002/pros.20680.CrossRefPubMed

11.

Yow MA, Tabrizi SN, Severi G, Bolton DM, Pedersen J, Giles GG, et al. Characterisation of microbial communities within aggressive prostate cancer tissues. Infect Agent Cancer. 2017;12:4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13027-016-0112-7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

12.

Cavarretta I, Ferrarese R, Cazzaniga W, Saita D, Lucianò R, Ceresola ER, et al. The microbiome of the prostate tumor microenvironment. Eur Urol. 2017;72:625–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2017.03.029.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Banerjee S, Alwine JC, Wei Z, Tian T, Shih N, Sperling C, et al. Microbiome signatures in prostate cancer. Carcinogenesis. 2019;40:749–64. https://doi.org/10.1093/carcin/bgz008.CrossRefPubMed

14.

Miyake M, Ohnishi K, Hori S, Nakano A, Nakano R, Yano H, et al. Mycoplasma genitalium infection and chronic inflammation in human prostate cancer: detection using prostatectomy and needle biopsy specimens. Cells. 2019;8:212. https://doi.org/10.3390/cells8030212.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

15.

Feng Y, Ramnarine VR, Bell R, Volik S, Davicioni E, Hayes VM, et al. Metagenomic and metatranscriptomic analysis of human prostate microbiota from patients with prostate cancer. BMC Genomics. 2019;20:146. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12864-019-5457-z.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

16.

• Tsydenova IA, Ibragimova MK, Tsyganov MM, Litviakov NV. Human papillomavirus and prostate cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis. Sci Rep. 2023;13:16597. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-43767-7. Meta-analysis of 27 case-control trials describing higher risk of prostate cancer compared to normal tissue or controls with BPH.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

17.

Aragón IM, Herrera-Imbroda B, Queipo-Ortuño MI, Castillo E, Del Moral JS-G, Gómez-Millán J, et al. The urinary tract microbiome in health and disease. Eur Urol Focus. 2018;4:128–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2016.11.001.CrossRefPubMed

18.

de Vos WM, Tilg H, Hul MV, Cani PD. Gut microbiome and health: mechanistic insights. Gut. 2022;71:1020–32. https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2021-326789.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Golombos DM, Ayangbesan A, O’Malley P, Lewicki P, Barlow L, Barbieri CE, et al. The role of gut microbiome in the pathogenesis of prostate cancer: a prospective, pilot study. Urology. 2018;111:122–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2017.08.039.CrossRefPubMed

20.

Sfanos KS, Markowski MC, Peiffer LB, Ernst SE, White JR, Pienta KJ, et al. Compositional differences in gastrointestinal microbiota in prostate cancer patients treated with androgen axis-targeted therapies. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2018;21:539–48. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-018-0061-x.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

21.

Liss MA, White JR, Goros M, Gelfond J, Leach R, Johnson-Pais T, et al. Metabolic biosynthesis pathways identified from fecal microbiome associated with prostate cancer. Eur Urol. 2018;74:575–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.06.033.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

22.

Liu Y, Yang C, Zhang Z, Jiang H. Gut microbiota dysbiosis accelerates prostate cancer progression through increased LPCAT1 expression and enhanced DNA repair pathways. Front Oncol. 2021;11:679712. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2021.679712.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

23.

Pernigoni N, Zagato E, Calcinotto A, Troiani M, Mestre RP, Calì B, et al. Commensal bacteria promote endocrine resistance in prostate cancer through androgen biosynthesis. Science. 2021;374:216–24. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abf8403.CrossRefPubMed

24.

Mathay C, Hamot G, Henry E, Georges L, Bellora C, Lebrun L, et al. Method optimization for fecal sample collection and fecal DNA extraction. Biopreservation Biobanking. 2015;13:79–93. https://doi.org/10.1089/bio.2014.0031.CrossRefPubMed

25.

Carroll IM, Ringel-Kulka T, Siddle JP, Klaenhammer TR, Ringel Y. Characterization of the fecal microbiota using high-throughput sequencing reveals a stable microbial community during storage. PLoS ONE. 2012;7:e46953. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0046953.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

26.

Watson E-J, Giles J, Scherer BL, Blatchford P. Human faecal collection methods demonstrate a bias in microbiome composition by cell wall structure. Sci Rep. 2019;9:16831. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-53183-5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

27.

Baranzini SE. Insights into microbiome research 2: experimental design, sample collection, and shipment. Mult Scler Houndmills Basingstoke Engl. 2018;24:1419–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/1352458518788962.CrossRef

28.

• Short MI, Hudson R, Besasie BD, Reveles KR, Shah DP, Nicholson S, et al. Comparison of rectal swab, glove tip, and participant-collected stool techniques for gut microbiome sampling. BMC Microbiol. 2021;21:26. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12866-020-02080-3. Microbiome methods study comparing stool collection techniques including validation of the glove tip collection technique.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

29.

Ahmed S, Macfarlane GT, Fite A, McBain AJ, Gilbert P, Macfarlane S. Mucosa-associated bacterial diversity in relation to human terminal ileum and colonic biopsy samples. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2007;73:7435–42. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.01143-07.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

30.

Wu W-K, Chen C-C, Panyod S, Chen R-A, Wu M-S, Sheen L-Y, et al. Optimization of fecal sample processing for microbiome study — the journey from bathroom to bench. J Formos Med Assoc. 2019;118:545–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfma.2018.02.005.CrossRefPubMed

31.

• Liang Y, Dong T, Chen M, He L, Wang T, Liu X, et al. Systematic analysis of impact of sampling regions and storage methods on fecal gut microbiome and metabolome profiles. MSphere. 2020;5:e00763-19. https://doi.org/10.1128/mSphere.00763-19. Study examining effects of stool sampling, homogenization and storage conditions.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

32.

Perez-Carrasco V, Soriano-Lerma A, Soriano M, Gutiérrez-Fernández J, Garcia-Salcedo JA. Urinary microbiome: yin and yang of the urinary tract. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2021; 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcimb.2021.617002

33.

Wheeler KM, Liss MA. The microbiome and prostate cancer risk. Curr Urol Rep. 2019;20:66. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-019-0922-4.CrossRefPubMed

34.

Sidebottom AM. A brief history of microbial study and techniques for exploring the gastrointestinal microbiome. Clin Colon Rectal Surg. 2023;36:98–104. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0042-1760678.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

35.

Kool J, Tymchenko L, Shetty SA, Fuentes S. Reducing bias in microbiome research: comparing methods from sample collection to sequencing. Front Microbiol. 2023;14:1094800. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2023.1094800.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

36.

•• Li X, Shi X, Yao Y, Shen Y, Wu X, Cai T, et al. Effects of stool sample preservation methods on gut microbiota biodiversity: new original data and systematic review with meta-analysis. Microbiol Spectr. 2023;11:e04297-22. https://doi.org/10.1128/spectrum.04297-22. Review and meta-analysis focusing on the impact of stool preservation methods.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

37.

Sinha R, Abu-Ali G, Vogtmann E, Fodor AA, Ren B, Amir A, et al. Assessment of variation in microbial community amplicon sequencing by the Microbiome Quality Control (MBQC) project consortium. Nat Biotechnol. 2017;35:1077–86. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.3981.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

38.

Costea PI, Zeller G, Sunagawa S, Pelletier E, Alberti A, Levenez F, et al. Towards standards for human fecal sample processing in metagenomic studies. Nat Biotechnol. 2017;35:1069–76. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.3960.CrossRefPubMed

39.

Greathouse KL, Sinha R, Vogtmann E. DNA extraction for human microbiome studies: the issue of standardization. Genome Biol. 2019;20:212. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13059-019-1843-8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

40.

Structure, function and diversity of the healthy human microbiome. Nature. 2012;486: 207–214. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11234

41.

Qin J, Li R, Raes J, Arumugam M, Burgdorf KS, Manichanh C, et al. A human gut microbial gene catalog established by metagenomic sequencing. Nature. 2010;464:59–65. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08821.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

42.

Marotz C, Amir A, Humphrey G, Gaffney J, Gogul G, Knight R. DNA extraction for streamlined metagenomics of diverse environmental samples. Biotechniques. 2017;62:290–3. https://doi.org/10.2144/000114559.CrossRefPubMed

43.

Huseyin CE, Rubio RC, O’Sullivan O, Cotter PD, Scanlan PD. The fungal frontier: a comparative analysis of methods used in the study of the human gut mycobiome. Front Microbiol. 2017;8:1432. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2017.01432.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

44.

Shkoporov AN, Ryan FJ, Draper LA, Forde A, Stockdale SR, Daly KM, et al. Reproducible protocols for metagenomic analysis of human faecal phageomes. Microbiome. 2018;6:68. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40168-018-0446-z.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

45.

Kwa WT, Sundarajoo S, Toh KY, Lee J. Application of emerging technologies for gut microbiome research. Singapore Med J. 2023;64:45–52. https://doi.org/10.4103/singaporemedj.SMJ-2021-432.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

46.

Fischer MA, Güllert S, Neulinger SC, Streit WR, Schmitz RA. Evaluation of 16S rRNA gene primer pairs for monitoring microbial community structures showed high reproducibility within and low comparability between datasets generated with multiple archaeal and bacterial primer pairs. Front Microbiol. 2016;7:1297. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2016.01297.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

47.

Abellan-Schneyder I, Matchado MS, Reitmeier S, Sommer A, Sewald Z, Baumbach J, et al. Primer, pipelines, parameters: issues in 16S rRNA gene sequencing. mSphere. 2021;6:e01202-20. https://doi.org/10.1128/mSphere.01202-20.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

48.

de la Cuesta-Zuluaga J, Escobar JS. Considerations for optimizing microbiome analysis using a marker gene. Front Nutr. 2016;3:26. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2016.00026.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

49.

Claesson MJ, Wang Q, O’Sullivan O, Greene-Diniz R, Cole JR, Ross RP, et al. Comparison of two next-generation sequencing technologies for resolving highly complex microbiota composition using tandem variable 16S rRNA gene regions. Nucleic Acids Res. 2010;38:e200. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkq873.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

50.

Chen Z, Hui PC, Hui M, Yeoh YK, Wong PY, Chan MCW, et al. Impact of preservation method and 16S rRNA hypervariable region on gut microbiota profiling. mSystems. 2019;4:e00271-18. https://doi.org/10.1128/mSystems.00271-18.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

51.

Kim S-W, Suda W, Kim S, Oshima K, Fukuda S, Ohno H, et al. Robustness of gut microbiota of healthy adults in response to probiotic intervention revealed by high-throughput pyrosequencing. DNA Res Int J Rapid Publ Rep Genes Genomes. 2013;20:241–53. https://doi.org/10.1093/dnares/dst006.CrossRef

52.

• Kameoka S, Motooka D, Watanabe S, Kubo R, Jung N, Midorikawa Y, et al. Benchmark of 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing using Japanese gut microbiome data from the V1–V2 and V3–V4 primer sets. BMC Genomics. 2021;22:527. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12864-021-07746-4. Comparison of V1-2 versus V3-4 in the analysis of gut microbiome in 192 volunteers.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

53.

Schloss PD, Gevers D, Westcott SL. Reducing the effects of PCR amplification and sequencing artifacts on 16S rRNA-based studieS. PLoS ONE. 2011;6:e27310. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0027310.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

54.

Huse SM, Huber JA, Morrison HG, Sogin ML, Welch DM. Accuracy and quality of massively parallel DNA pyrosequencing. Genome Biol. 2007;8:R143. https://doi.org/10.1186/gb-2007-8-7-r143.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

55.

Caporaso JG, Lauber CL, Walters WA, Berg-Lyons D, Huntley J, Fierer N, et al. Ultra-high-throughput microbial community analysis on the Illumina HiSeq and MiSeq platforms. ISME J. 2012;6:1621–4. https://doi.org/10.1038/ismej.2012.8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

56.

Wensel CR, Pluznick JL, Salzberg SL, Sears CL. Next-generation sequencing: insights to advance clinical investigations of the microbiome. J Clin Invest. 2022;132:e154944. https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI154944.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

57.

Callahan BJ, McMurdie PJ, Holmes SP. Exact sequence variants should replace operational taxonomic units in marker-gene data analysis. ISME J. 2017;11:2639–43. https://doi.org/10.1038/ismej.2017.119.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

58.

Callahan BJ, McMurdie PJ, Rosen MJ, Han AW, Johnson AJA, Holmes SP. DADA2: high resolution sample inference from Illumina amplicon data. Nat Methods. 2016;13:581–3. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.3869.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

59.

DeSantis TZ, Hugenholtz P, Larsen N, Rojas M, Brodie EL, Keller K, et al. Greengenes, a chimera-checked 16S rRNA gene database and workbench compatible with ARB. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2006;72:5069–72. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.03006-05.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

60.

Quast C, Pruesse E, Yilmaz P, Gerken J, Schweer T, Yarza P, et al. The SILVA ribosomal RNA gene database project: improved data processing and web-based tools. Nucleic Acids Res. 2013;41:D590–6. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gks1219.CrossRefPubMed

61.

Wang Q, Garrity GM, Tiedje JM, Cole JR. Naïve Bayesian classifier for rapid assignment of rRNA sequences into the new bacterial taxonomy. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2007;73:5261–7. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.00062-07.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

62.

Nucleotide BLAST: search nucleotide databases using a nucleotide query. [cited 11 Sep 2023]. Available: https://blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Blast.cgi?PAGE_TYPE=BlastSearch&BLAST_SPEC=MicrobialGenomes

63.

Almeida A, Mitchell AL, Tarkowska A, Finn RD. Benchmarking taxonomic assignments based on 16S rRNA gene profiling of the microbiota from commonly sampled environments. GigaScience. 2018;7:giy054. https://doi.org/10.1093/gigascience/giy054.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

64.

Pérez-Cobas AE, Gomez-Valero L, Buchrieser C. Metagenomic approaches in microbial ecology: an update on whole-genome and marker gene sequencing analyses. Microb Genomics. 2020;6:mgen000409. https://doi.org/10.1099/mgen.0.000409.CrossRef

65.

Vinje H, Liland KH, Almøy T, Snipen L. Comparing K-mer based methods for improved classification of 16S sequences. BMC Bioinformatics. 2015;16:205. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12859-015-0647-4.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

66.

Klappenbach JA, Dunbar JM, Schmidt TM. rRNA operon copy number reflects ecological strategies of bacteria. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2000;66:1328–33.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

67.

Větrovský T, Baldrian P. The variability of the 16S rRNA gene in bacterial genomes and its consequences for bacterial community analyses. PLoS ONE. 2013;8:e57923. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0057923.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

68.

Ranjan R, Rani A, Metwally A, McGee HS, Perkins DL. Analysis of the microbiome: advantages of whole genome shotgun versus 16S amplicon sequencing. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2016;469:967–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbrc.2015.12.083.CrossRefPubMed

69.

Sims D, Sudbery I, Ilott NE, Heger A, Ponting CP. Sequencing depth and coverage: key considerations in genomic analyses. Nat Rev Genet. 2014;15:121–32. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg3642.CrossRefPubMed

70.

Kuczynski J, Lauber CL, Walters WA, Parfrey LW, Clemente JC, Gevers D, et al. Experimental and analytical tools for studying the human microbiome. Nat Rev Genet. 2011;13:47–58. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg3129.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

71.

Miller JR, Koren S, Sutton G. Assembly algorithms for next-generation sequencing data. Genomics. 2010;95:315–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygeno.2010.03.001.CrossRefPubMed

72.

Sedlar K, Kupkova K, Provaznik I. Bioinformatics strategies for taxonomy independent binning and visualization of sequences in shotgun metagenomics. Comput Struct Biotechnol J. 2016;15:48–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csbj.2016.11.005.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

73.

Breitwieser FP, Lu J, Salzberg SL. A review of methods and databases for metagenomic classification and assembly. Brief Bioinform. 2017;20:1125–36. https://doi.org/10.1093/bib/bbx120.CrossRefPubMedCentral

74.

Yok NG, Rosen GL. Combining gene prediction methods to improve metagenomic gene annotation. BMC Bioinformatics. 2011;12:20. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-12-20.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

75.

Kelley DR, Liu B, Delcher AL, Pop M, Salzberg SL. Gene prediction with Glimmer for metagenomic sequences augmented by classification and clustering. Nucleic Acids Res. 2012;40:e9. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkr1067.CrossRefPubMed

76.

Trimble WL, Keegan KP, D’Souza M, Wilke A, Wilkening J, Gilbert J, et al. Short-read reading-frame predictors are not created equal: sequence error causes loss of signal. BMC Bioinformatics. 2012;13:183. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-13-183.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

77.

Huntemann M, Ivanova NN, Mavromatis K, Tripp HJ, Paez-Espino D, Tennessen K, et al. The standard operating procedure of the DOE-JGI Metagenome Annotation Pipeline (MAP vol 4). Stand Genomic Sci. 2016;11:17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40793-016-0138-x.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

78.

Alcock BP, Raphenya AR, Lau TTY, Tsang KK, Bouchard M, Edalatmand A, et al. CARD 2020: antibiotic resistome surveillance with the comprehensive antibiotic resistance database. Nucleic Acids Res. 2020;48:D517–25. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkz935.CrossRefPubMed

79.

Stewart RD, Auffret MD, Snelling TJ, Roehe R, Watson M. MAGpy: a reproducible pipeline for the downstream analysis of metagenome-assembled genomes (MAGs). Bioinformatics. 2019;35:2150–2. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/bty905.CrossRefPubMed

80.

Quince C, Delmont TO, Raguideau S, Alneberg J, Darling AE, Collins G, et al. DESMAN: a new tool for de novo extraction of strains from metagenomes. Genome Biol. 2017;18:181. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13059-017-1309-9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

81.

Nazeen S, Yu YW, Berger B. Carnelian uncovers hidden functional patterns across diverse study populations from whole metagenome sequencing reads. Genome Biol. 2020;21:47. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13059-020-1933-7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

82.

Nayfach S, Bradley PH, Wyman SK, Laurent TJ, Williams A, Eisen JA, et al. Automated and accurate estimation of gene family abundance from shotgun metagenomes. PLoS Comput Biol. 2015;11:e1004573. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004573.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

83.

Xia Y. Statistical normalization methods in microbiome data with application to microbiome cancer research. Gut Microbes. 2023;15:2244139. https://doi.org/10.1080/19490976.2023.2244139.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

84.

Hong J, Karaoz U, de Valpine P, Fithian W. To rarefy or not to rarefy: robustness and efficiency trade-offs of rarefying microbiome data. Bioinformatics. 2022;38:2389–96. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btac127.CrossRefPubMed

85.

Robin JD, Ludlow AT, LaRanger R, Wright WE, Shay JW. Comparison of DNA quantification methods for next generation sequencing. Sci Rep. 2016;6:24067. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep24067.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

86.

Wu WW, Phue J-N, Lee C-T, Lin C, Xu L, Wang R, et al. Robust sub-nanomolar library preparation for high throughput next generation sequencing. BMC Genomics. 2018;19:326. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12864-018-4677-y.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

87.

Lozupone C, Lladser ME, Knights D, Stombaugh J, Knight R. UniFrac: an effective distance metric for microbial community comparison. ISME J. 2011;5:169–72. https://doi.org/10.1038/ismej.2010.133.CrossRefPubMed

88.

de Aguirre Cárcer D, Denman SE, McSweeney C, Morrison M. Evaluation of subsampling-based normalization strategies for tagged high-throughput sequencing data sets from gut microbiomes. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2011;77:8795–8. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.05491-11.CrossRef

89.

McMurdie PJ, Holmes S. Waste not, want not: why rarefying microbiome data is inadmissible. PLoS Comput Biol. 2014;10:e1003531. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003531.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

90.

Weiss S, Xu ZZ, Peddada S, Amir A, Bittinger K, Gonzalez A, et al. Normalization and microbial differential abundance strategies depend upon data characteristics. Microbiome. 2017;5:27. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40168-017-0237-y.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

91.

McKnight DT, Huerlimann R, Bower DS, Schwarzkopf L, Alford RA, Zenger KR. Methods for normalizing microbiome data: an ecological perspective. Methods Ecol Evol. 2019;10:389–400. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.13115.CrossRef

92.

Chen L, Reeve J, Zhang L, Huang S, Wang X, Chen J. GMPR: A robust normalization method for zero-inflated count data with application to microbiome sequencing data. PeerJ. 2018;6:e4600. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4600.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

93.

Mulenga M, Kareem SA, Sabri AQ, Seera M, Govind S, Samudi C, et al. Feature extension of gut microbiome data for deep neural network-based colorectal cancer classification. IEEE Access. 2021;9:23565–78. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3050838.CrossRef

94.

• Swift D, Cresswell K, Johnson R, Stilianoudakis S, Wei X. A review of normalization and differential abundance methods for microbiome counts data. WIREs Comput Stat. 2023;15:e1586. https://doi.org/10.1002/wics.1586. Comprehensive review and comparison of methods for differential abundance and normalization.CrossRef

95.

Park S-Y, Ufondu A, Lee K, Jayaraman A. Emerging computational tools and models for studying gut microbiota composition and function. Curr Opin Biotechnol. 2020;66:301–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copbio.2020.10.005.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

96.

•• Kodikara S, Ellul S, Lê Cao K-A. Statistical challenges in longitudinal microbiome data analysis. Brief Bioinform. 2022;23:bbac273. https://doi.org/10.1093/bib/bbac273. Review of the challenges associated with statistical analysis of logitudinal microbiome data.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

97.

Liu L, Shih Y-CT, Strawderman RL, Zhang D, Johnson BA, Chai H. Statistical analysis of zero-inflated nonnegative continuous data: a review. Stat Sci. 2019;34:253–79. https://doi.org/10.1214/18-STS681.CrossRef

98.

Zhang X, Guo B, Yi N. Zero-Inflated gaussian mixed models for analyzing longitudinal microbiome data. PLoS ONE. 2020;15:e0242073. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0242073.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

99.

Lee J, Sison-Mangus M. A Bayesian semiparametric regression model for joint analysis of microbiome data. Front Microbiol. 2018; 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2018.00522

100.

McGeachie MJ, Chang H-H, Weiss ST. CGBayesNets: conditional Gaussian Bayesian network learning and inference with mixed discrete and continuous data. PLOS Comput Biol. 2014;10:e1003676. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003676.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Titel: Current Trends and Challenges of Microbiome Research in Prostate Cancer
verfasst von: Shaun Trecarten
Bernard Fongang
Michael Liss
Publikationsdatum: 04.04.2024
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Current Oncology Reports / Ausgabe 5/2024
Print ISSN: 1523-3790
Elektronische ISSN: 1534-6269
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11912-024-01520-x

Update Onkologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Live-Webinar "Urologie und Sexualmedizin in der Praxis"

Springer Medizin

Current Trends and Challenges of Microbiome Research in Prostate Cancer

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Recent Findings

Summary

Neu im Fachgebiet Onkologie

Erhebliches Risiko für Kehlkopfkrebs bei mäßiger Dysplasie

15% bedauern gewählte Blasenkrebs-Therapie

Erhöhtes Risiko fürs Herz unter Checkpointhemmer-Therapie

Costims – das nächste heiße Ding in der Krebstherapie?

Update Onkologie

Live-Webinar "Urologie und Sexualmedizin in der Praxis"

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Recent Findings

Summary

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 5/2024

Ovarian Suppression: Early Menopause, Late Effects

Perioperative Neurocognitive Function in Glioma Surgery

Management of Oligometastatic and Locally Recurrent Urothelial Carcinoma

Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Geriatric Oncology

Advances in Radionuclide Therapies for Patients with Neuro-endocrine Tumors

Radionuclide Theranostics in Neuroendocrine Neoplasms: An Update

Neu im Fachgebiet Onkologie

Erhebliches Risiko für Kehlkopfkrebs bei mäßiger Dysplasie

15% bedauern gewählte Blasenkrebs-Therapie

Erhöhtes Risiko fürs Herz unter Checkpointhemmer-Therapie

Costims – das nächste heiße Ding in der Krebstherapie?

Update Onkologie