CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 90

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Faecal Microbiota Composition Varies between Patients with Breast Cancer and Healthy Women: A Comparative Case-Control Study

Bobin-Dubigeon, Christine, Luu, Huyen Trang, Leuillet, Sébastien, Lavergne, Sidonie N., Carton, Thomas, Le Vacon, Françoise, Michel, Catherine, Nazih, Hassane, Bard, Jean-Marie·2021·Nutrients
DOI 10.3390/nu13082705PMC PMC8399700
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The intestinal microbiota plays an essential role in many diseases, such as obesity, irritable bowel disease (IBD), and cancer. This study aimed to characterize the faecal microbiota from early-stage breast cancer (BC) patients and healthy controls. Faeces from newly diagnosed breast cancer patients, mainly for an invasive carcinoma of no specific type (HR+ and HER2−), before any therapeutic treatment and healthy controls were collected for metabarcoding analyses. We show that the Shannon index, used as an index of diversity, was statistically lower in the BC group compared to that of controls. This work highlights a reduction of microbial diversity, a relative enrichment in Firmicutes, as well as a depletion in Bacteroidetes in patients diagnosed with early BC compared to those of healthy women. A tendency towards a decreased relative abundance of Odoribacter sp., Butyricimonas sp., and Coprococcus sp. was observed. This preliminary study suggests that breast cancer patients may differ from healthy subjects in their intestinal bacterial composition.

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 · 10.3390/nu13082705

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Study design.
Figure 1 Study design.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 The α-diversity of faecal microbiota in the 2 studied groups identified by 16S rRNA gene sequencing: (a) Rarefied Chao1 index; (b) Shannon index. Indicated p values are not adjusted on age.
Figure 2 The α-diversity of faecal microbiota in the 2 studied groups identified by 16S rRNA gene sequencing: (a) Rarefied Chao1 index; (b) Shannon index. Indicated p values are not adjusted on age.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3 Barplots of relative abundances at the phylum level for individual data (a) or means per condition (b). Only taxa present on average in all samples at a threshold ≥0.5% or present in at least 10% of samples at a threshold ≥0.5% are individually represented.
Figure 3 Barplots of relative abundances at the phylum level for individual data (a) or means per condition (b). Only taxa present on average in all samples at a threshold ≥0.5% or present in at least 10% of samples at a threshold ≥0.5% are individually represented.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 4 Barplots of relative abundances at the family level for individual data (a) or means per condition (b). Only taxa present on average in all samples at a threshold ≥0.5% or present in at least 10% of samples at a threshold ≥0.5% are individually represented.
Figure 4 Barplots of relative abundances at the family level for individual data (a) or means per condition (b). Only taxa present on average in all samples at a threshold ≥0.5% or present in at least 10% of samples at a threshold ≥0.5% are individually represented.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 5 Heatmap of relative abundances at the genus level for individual data. Only taxa present on average in all samples at a threshold ≥0.5% or present in at least 10% of samples at a threshold ≥0.5% are individually represented. Taxa present at a threshold ≤0.01% in a sample were artificially considered as absent in this sample for this graphical representation.
Figure 5 Heatmap of relative abundances at the genus level for individual data. Only taxa present on average in all samples at a threshold ≥0.5% or present in at least 10% of samples at a threshold ≥0.5% are individually represented. Taxa present at a threshold ≤0.01% in a sample were artificially considered as absent in this sample for this graphical representation.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

Research works printed but not linked: 37

  1. Wiseman, 2018, Nutrition and cancer: Prevention and survival, Br. J. Nutr., 122, 481, 10.1017/S0007114518002222 · DOI
  2. Huybrechts, 2020, The Human Microbiome in Relation to Cancer Risk: A Systematic Review of Epidemiologic Studies, Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev., 29, 1856, 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-20-0288 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Bhatt, 2017, The role of the microbiome in cancer development and therapy, CA Cancer J. Clin., 67, 326, 10.3322/caac.21398 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Sheflin, 2014, Cancer-promoting effects of microbial dysbiosis, Curr. Oncol. Rep., 16, 406, 10.1007/s11912-014-0406-0 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Rajagopala, 2017, The Human Microbiome and Cancer. Cancer Prev Res, Am. Assoc. Cancer Res., 10, 226
  6. Lakritz, 2015, Gut bacteria require neutrophils to promote mammary tumorigenesis, Oncotarget, 6, 9387, 10.18632/oncotarget.3328 · DOI
  7. Wirtz, 2013, Frequent antibiotic use and second breast cancer events, Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev., 22, 1588, 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-13-0454 · DOI
  8. Luu, 2017, Intestinal Proportion of Blautia sp. is Associated with Clinical Stage and Histoprognostic Grade in Patients with Early-Stage Breast Cancer, Nutr. Cancer, 69, 267, 10.1080/01635581.2017.1263750 · DOI
  9. Heymann, 2020, Centre de Ressources Biologiques-Tumorothèque: Bioresources and Associated Clinical Data Dedicated to Translational Research in Oncology at the Institut de Cancérologie de l’Ouest, France, Open J. Bioresour., 7, 5, 10.5334/ojb.62 · DOI
  10. Schloss, 2009, Introducing mothur: Open-Source, Platform-Independent, Community-Supported Software for Describing and Comparing Microbial Communities, Appl. Environ. Microbiol., 75, 7537, 10.1128/AEM.01541-09 · DOI
  11. Golombos, 2018, The Role of Gut Microbiome in the Pathogenesis of Prostate Cancer: A Prospective, Pilot Study, Urology, 111, 122, 10.1016/j.urology.2017.08.039 · DOI
  12. Gao, 2015, Microbiota disbiosis is associated with colorectal cancer, Front. Microbiol., 6, 20, 10.3389/fmicb.2015.00020 · DOI · Paper page
  13. Pellegrini, 2020, Gut microbiota composition after diet and probiotics in overweight breast cancer survivors: A randomized open-label pilot intervention trial, Nutrition, 74, 110749, 10.1016/j.nut.2020.110749 · DOI
  14. Arslan, 2014, Circulating estrogen metabolites and risk of breast cancer in postmenopausal women, Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., 23, 1290, 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-14-0009 · DOI
  15. Odamaki, T., Kato, K., Sugahara, H., Hashikura, N., Takahashi, S., Xiao, J.-Z., Abe, F., and Osawa, R. (2016). Age-related changes in gut microbiota composition from newborn to centenarian: A cross-sectional study. BMC Microbiol., 16. · DOI · Paper page
  16. Claesson, 2011, Composition, variability, and temporal stability of the intestinal microbiota of the elderly, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 108, 4586, 10.1073/pnas.1000097107 · DOI · Paper page
  17. Lahti, 2014, Tipping elements in the human intestinal ecosystem, Nat. Commun., 5, 4344, 10.1038/ncomms5344 · DOI
  18. An, 2018, Age-Dependent Changes in GI Physiology and Microbiota: Time to Reconsider?, Gut, 67, 2213, 10.1136/gutjnl-2017-315542 · DOI · Paper page
  19. Mueller, 2006, Differences in Fecal Microbiota in Different European Study Populations in Relation to Age, Gender, and Country: A Cross-Sectional Study, Appl. Environ. Microbiol., 72, 1027, 10.1128/AEM.72.2.1027-1033.2006 · DOI · Paper page
  20. Hamilton, 2005, Species diversity or biodiversity?, J. Environ. Manag., 75, 89, 10.1016/j.jenvman.2004.11.012 · DOI
  21. Ahn, 2013, Human gut microbiome and risk for colorectal cancer, J. Natl. Cancer Inst., 105, 1907, 10.1093/jnci/djt300 · DOI · Paper page
  22. Sha, 2013, The biodiversity and composition of the dominant fecal microbiota in patients with inflammatory bowel disease, Diagn. Microbiol. Infect. Dis., 75, 245, 10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2012.11.022 · DOI
  23. Labus, 2017, Differences in gut microbial composition correlate with regional brain volumes in irritable bowel syndrome, Microbiome, 5, 49, 10.1186/s40168-017-0260-z · DOI · Paper page
  24. Ling, 2016, Alterations in the Fecal Microbiota of Patients with HIV-1 Infection: An Observational Study in A Chinese Population, Sci. Rep., 6, 30673, 10.1038/srep30673 · DOI
  25. Vaiserman, 2017, Gut Microbiota: A Player in Aging and a Target for Anti-Aging Intervention, Ageing Res. Rev., 35, 36, 10.1016/j.arr.2017.01.001 · DOI · Paper page
  26. Plottel, 2011, Microbiome and malignancy, Cell Host Microbe., 10, 324, 10.1016/j.chom.2011.10.003 · DOI · Paper page
  27. Parida, S., and Sharma, D. (2019). The Microbiome-Estrogen Connection and Breast Cancer Risk. Cells, 8. · DOI
  28. Butel, 2014, Probiotics, gut microbiota and health, Médecine Mal. Infectieuses., 44, 1, 10.1016/j.medmal.2013.10.002 · DOI
  29. Shen, 2010, Molecular characterization of mucosal adherent bacteria and associations with colorectal adenomas, Gut Microbes., 1, 138, 10.4161/gmic.1.3.12360 · DOI · Paper page
  30. Bailey, 2011, Exposure to a social stressor alters the structure of the intestinal microbiota: Implications for stressor-induced immunomodulation, Brain Behav. Immun., 25, 397, 10.1016/j.bbi.2010.10.023 · DOI · Paper page
  31. Bhargava, 2014, Gut Microbiome and Multiple Sclerosis, Curr. Neurol. Neurosci. Rep., 14, 492, 10.1007/s11910-014-0492-2 · DOI · Paper page
  32. Montassier, 2016, Pretreatment gut microbiome predicts chemotherapy-related bloodstream infection, Genome Med., 8, 49, 10.1186/s13073-016-0301-4 · DOI
  33. Thomas, 2016, Tissue-Associated Bacterial Alterations in Rectal Carcinoma Patients Revealed by 16S rRNA Community Profiling, Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol., 6, 179, 10.3389/fcimb.2016.00179 · DOI · Paper page
  34. Mikó, E., Kovács, T., Sebő, É., Tóth, J., Csonka, T., Ujlaki, G., Sipos, A., Szabó, J., Méhes, G., and Bai, P. (2019). Microbiome—Microbial Metabolome—Cancer Cell Interactions in Breast Cancer—Familiar, but Unexplored. Cells, 8. · DOI
  35. Saad, 2016, Linking Gut Microbiota and Inflammation to Obesity and Insulin Resistance, Physiology, 31, 283, 10.1152/physiol.00041.2015 · DOI
  36. Morris, 2011, Inflammation and increased aromatase expression occur in the breast tissue of obese women with breast cancer, Cancer Prev. Res., 4, 1021, 10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-11-0110 · DOI
  37. Wu, 2020, Gut Microbiome Associations with Breast Cancer Risk Factors and Tumor Characteristics: A Pilot Study, Breast Cancer Res. Treat., 182, 451, 10.1007/s10549-020-05702-6 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 90

Metadata

Authors
Bobin-Dubigeon, C., Luu, H. T., Leuillet, S., Lavergne, S. N., Carton, T., Le Vacon, F., Michel, C., Nazih, H., & Bard, J.-M.
Affiliations
  • Institut de Cancérologie de l’Ouest, 44805 Saint-Herblain, France
  • EA 2160—IUML FR3473 CNRS, Nantes University, 44035 Nantes, France
  • Biofortis Mérieux NutriSciences, 3 Route de la Chatterie, 44800 Saint-Herblain, France
  • Research Center of Human Nutrition CRNH Ouest, 44093 Nantes, France
ORCID
Venue
Nutrients
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2021-08-05
Volume
13
Issue
8
Pages
2705
ISSN
2072-6643
DOI
10.3390/nu13082705
PMC
PMC8399700
Cited by
90
References
9
Language
en
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (vor)

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