CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 302Bacteriophages and microbial interactionsGut microbiota and healthViral-associated cancers and disorders

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 53 of the 53 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Diagnostic Potential and Interactive Dynamics of the Colorectal Cancer Virome

Open access
Hannigan, Geoffrey D., Duhaime, Melissa B., Ruffin, Mack T., Koumpouras, Charlie C., Schloss, Patrick D.·2018·mBio
DOI 10.1128/mbio.02248-18PMC PMC6247079

Published version of a preprint

Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Colorectal cancer is a leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States and worldwide. Its risk and severity have been linked to colonic bacterial community composition. Although human-specific viruses have been linked to other cancers and diseases, little is known about colorectal cancer virus communities. We addressed this knowledge gap by identifying differences in colonic virus communities in the stool of colorectal cancer patients and how they compared to bacterial community differences. The results suggested an indirect role for the virome in impacting colorectal cancer by modulating the associated bacterial community. These findings both support the idea of a biological role for viruses in colorectal cancer and provide a new understanding of basic colorectal cancer etiology.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1128/mbio.02248-18

Cites

53 of 53 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

FIG 1 Cohort and sample processing outline. Thirty subject stool samples were collected from healthy subjects and adenoma (precancer) and carcinoma (cancer) patients. Stool samples were split into two aliquots, the first of which was used for bacterial sequencing and the second of which was used for virus sequencing. Bacterial sequencing was done using both 16S rRNA amplicon and whole-metagenomic shotgun sequencing techniques. Virus samples were purified for viruses using filtration and a combination of chloroform (bacterial lysis) and DNase (exposed genomic DNA degradation). The resulting encapsulated virus DNA was sequenced using whole-metagenomic shotgun sequencing.
FIG 1 Cohort and sample processing outline. Thirty subject stool samples were collected from healthy subjects and adenoma (precancer) and carcinoma (cancer) patients. Stool samples were split into two aliquots, the first of which was used for bacterial sequencing and the second of which was used for virus sequencing. Bacterial sequencing was done using both 16S rRNA amplicon and whole-metagenomic shotgun sequencing techniques. Virus samples were purified for viruses using filtration and a combination of chloroform (bacterial lysis) and DNase (exposed genomic DNA degradation). The resulting encapsulated virus DNA was sequenced using whole-metagenomic shotgun sequencing.CC BY · PubMed Central
FIG 2 Results from healthy versus cancer classification models built using virome signatures, bacterial 16S rRNA gene sequence signatures, whole-metagenomic signatures, and a combination of virome and 16S rRNA gene sequence signatures. (A) An example receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve for visualizing the performance of each of the models for classifying stool as coming from either an individual with a cancerous colon or an individual with a healthy colon. (B) Quantification of the AUC variation for each model and how it compared to each of the other models based on 15 iterations. A pairwise Wilcoxon test with a false-discovery-rate multiple-hypothesis correction demonstrated that all models are significantly different from each other (P value < 0.01). (C) Mean decrease in accuracy (measurement of importance) of each operational taxonomic unit within the 16S rRNA gene classification model when removed from the classification model. The mean is represented by a point, and bars represent standard errors. ID, identifier. (D) Mean decrease in accuracy of each operational virus unit in the virome classification model. (E) Mean decrease in accuracy of each operational genomic unit and operational taxonomic unit in the model using both 16S rRNA gene and virome features.
FIG 2 Results from healthy versus cancer classification models built using virome signatures, bacterial 16S rRNA gene sequence signatures, whole-metagenomic signatures, and a combination of virome and 16S rRNA gene sequence signatures. (A) An example receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve for visualizing the performance of each of the models for classifying stool as coming from either an individual with a cancerous colon or an individual with a healthy colon. (B) Quantification of the AUC variation for each model and how it compared to each of the other models based on 15 iterations. A pairwise Wilcoxon test with a false-discovery-rate multiple-hypothesis correction demonstrated that all models are significantly different from each other (P value < 0.01). (C) Mean decrease in accuracy (measurement of importance) of each operational taxonomic unit within the 16S rRNA gene classification model when removed from the classification model. The mean is represented by a point, and bars represent standard errors. ID, identifier. (D) Mean decrease in accuracy of each operational virus unit in the virome classification model. (E) Mean decrease in accuracy of each operational genomic unit and operational taxonomic unit in the model using both 16S rRNA gene and virome features.CC BY · PubMed Central
FIG 3 Lysogenic phage relative abundance in disease states. Phage OVUs were predicted to be either lytic or lysogenic, and the relative abundances of lysogenic phages were quantified and are represented as a box plot. None of the data from the disease groups were statistically significant.
FIG 3 Lysogenic phage relative abundance in disease states. Phage OVUs were predicted to be either lytic or lysogenic, and the relative abundances of lysogenic phages were quantified and are represented as a box plot. None of the data from the disease groups were statistically significant.CC BY · PubMed Central
FIG 4 Relative-abundance correlations between bacterial OTUs and virome OVUs. (A) Pearson correlation coefficient values from comparisons between all bacterial OTUs (x axis) and viral OVUs (y axis), with blue representing positive correlations and red representing negative correlations. Bar plots indicate the levels of viral (left) and bacterial (bottom) operational unit importance in their colorectal cancer classification models, such that the most important units are shown in the top left corner. (B) Magnification of the boxed region in panel A, highlighting the correlation between the most important bacterial OTUs and virome OVUs. The most important operational units are shown in the top left corner of the heat map, and the correlation scale is the same as in panel A. (C) Histogram quantifying the frequencies of Pearson correlation coefficients between all bacterial OTUs and virome OVUs.
FIG 4 Relative-abundance correlations between bacterial OTUs and virome OVUs. (A) Pearson correlation coefficient values from comparisons between all bacterial OTUs (x axis) and viral OVUs (y axis), with blue representing positive correlations and red representing negative correlations. Bar plots indicate the levels of viral (left) and bacterial (bottom) operational unit importance in their colorectal cancer classification models, such that the most important units are shown in the top left corner. (B) Magnification of the boxed region in panel A, highlighting the correlation between the most important bacterial OTUs and virome OVUs. The most important operational units are shown in the top left corner of the heat map, and the correlation scale is the same as in panel A. (C) Histogram quantifying the frequencies of Pearson correlation coefficients between all bacterial OTUs and virome OVUs.CC BY · PubMed Central
FIG 5 Community network analysis utilizing predicted interactions between bacterial and phage operational genomic units. (A) Visualization of the community network for our colorectal cancer cohort. (B) Scatter plot illustrating the correlation between importance (mean decrease in accuracy) and the degree of centrality for each OVU. A linear regression line was fitted to illustrate the correlations (blue) found to be statistically significantly and weakly correlated (P value = 0.00409, R = 0.176).
FIG 5 Community network analysis utilizing predicted interactions between bacterial and phage operational genomic units. (A) Visualization of the community network for our colorectal cancer cohort. (B) Scatter plot illustrating the correlation between importance (mean decrease in accuracy) and the degree of centrality for each OVU. A linear regression line was fitted to illustrate the correlations (blue) found to be statistically significantly and weakly correlated (P value = 0.00409, R = 0.176).CC BY · PubMed Central
FIG 6 Final working hypothesis from this study. These panels summarize our thoughts on our results and represent interesting future directions that we predict will build on the presented work. (A) Basic model illustrating the connections between the virome, bacterial communities, and colorectal cancer. (B) Working hypothesis of how the bacteriophage community is associated with colorectal cancer and the associated bacterial community. ROS, reactive oxygen species.
FIG 6 Final working hypothesis from this study. These panels summarize our thoughts on our results and represent interesting future directions that we predict will build on the presented work. (A) Basic model illustrating the connections between the virome, bacterial communities, and colorectal cancer. (B) Working hypothesis of how the bacteriophage community is associated with colorectal cancer and the associated bacterial community. ROS, reactive oxygen species.CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 53 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–300 of 302

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Hannigan, G. D., Duhaime, M. B., Ruffin, M. T., Koumpouras, C. C., & Schloss, P. D.
Affiliations
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • Pennsylvania State University (US)
Corresponding author
Schloss, Patrick D.
ORCID
Venue
mBio
Publisher
American Society for Microbiology
Published
2018-12-21
Volume
9
Issue
6
ISSN
  • 2150-7511 (ISSN-L)
  • 2161-2129
DOI
10.1128/mbio.02248-18
PMC
PMC6247079
OpenAlex
W2950868848
Cited by
298
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 32 · 2025: 40 · 2024: 34 · 2023: 45 · 2022: 48 · 2021: 52 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 25 · 2018: 1
FWCI
18.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • mBio (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Funders
HHS | National Institutes of Health (P30DK034933, T32AI007528, 5U01CA86400)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Virology › Bacteriophages and microbial interactions
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gut microbiota and health
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Viral-associated cancers and disorders
Keywords
colorectal cancer, virome, human viruses, colonic microbiota, gut bacterial community, cancer etiology, viral-bacterial interactions, cancer diagnosis
MeSH terms
Bacteria, Bacteriophages, Feces, Humans, RNA, Ribosomal, 16S, Viruses, Colorectal Neoplasms, Cohort Studies, Metagenomics, Microbiota

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review