Cargando…

Comparing Analytical Methods for Gut Microbiome and Aging: Gut Microbiota and Body Weight in the MrOS

Gut microbiome datasets comprise microbial taxa relative abundances that necessarily sum to 1; analysis ignoring this feature may produce misleading results. We assessed 163 genera from the first batch of Microbiome Ancillary Study (n=530) stool samples and examined associations between microbiota a...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Shardell, Michelle, Parimi, Neeta, Langsetmo, Lisa, Orwoll, Eric, Shikany, James, Kado, Deborah, Cawthon, Peggy
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7743514/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/geroni/igaa057.3074
_version_ 1783624235548147712
author Shardell, Michelle
Parimi, Neeta
Langsetmo, Lisa
Orwoll, Eric
Shikany, James
Kado, Deborah
Cawthon, Peggy
author_facet Shardell, Michelle
Parimi, Neeta
Langsetmo, Lisa
Orwoll, Eric
Shikany, James
Kado, Deborah
Cawthon, Peggy
author_sort Shardell, Michelle
collection PubMed
description Gut microbiome datasets comprise microbial taxa relative abundances that necessarily sum to 1; analysis ignoring this feature may produce misleading results. We assessed 163 genera from the first batch of Microbiome Ancillary Study (n=530) stool samples and examined associations between microbiota and body weight. We compared conventional Bayesian linear regression (BLR) and network analysis to their compositional counterparts, adjusting for past weight and other covariates. Conventional BLR identified Roseburia and Dialister (positive association) and Coprococcus-1 (negative association) after multiple comparisons adjustment(P<.0125). No conventional network module was associated with weight. Using compositional BLR, men with higher Coprococcus-2 and Acidaminococcus had higher weight, whereas men with higher Coprococcus-1 and Ruminococcus-1 had lower weight (P<.05), but findings were non-significant after multiple comparisons adjustment. Two compositional network modules with respective hub taxa Blautia and Faecalibacterium were associated with weight(P<.01). Findings depended on analytical workflow; compositional analysis is advocated to appropriately handle the sum-to-1 constraint.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7743514
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-77435142020-12-21 Comparing Analytical Methods for Gut Microbiome and Aging: Gut Microbiota and Body Weight in the MrOS Shardell, Michelle Parimi, Neeta Langsetmo, Lisa Orwoll, Eric Shikany, James Kado, Deborah Cawthon, Peggy Innov Aging Abstracts Gut microbiome datasets comprise microbial taxa relative abundances that necessarily sum to 1; analysis ignoring this feature may produce misleading results. We assessed 163 genera from the first batch of Microbiome Ancillary Study (n=530) stool samples and examined associations between microbiota and body weight. We compared conventional Bayesian linear regression (BLR) and network analysis to their compositional counterparts, adjusting for past weight and other covariates. Conventional BLR identified Roseburia and Dialister (positive association) and Coprococcus-1 (negative association) after multiple comparisons adjustment(P<.0125). No conventional network module was associated with weight. Using compositional BLR, men with higher Coprococcus-2 and Acidaminococcus had higher weight, whereas men with higher Coprococcus-1 and Ruminococcus-1 had lower weight (P<.05), but findings were non-significant after multiple comparisons adjustment. Two compositional network modules with respective hub taxa Blautia and Faecalibacterium were associated with weight(P<.01). Findings depended on analytical workflow; compositional analysis is advocated to appropriately handle the sum-to-1 constraint. Oxford University Press 2020-12-16 /pmc/articles/PMC7743514/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/geroni/igaa057.3074 Text en © The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Gerontological Society of America. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Abstracts
Shardell, Michelle
Parimi, Neeta
Langsetmo, Lisa
Orwoll, Eric
Shikany, James
Kado, Deborah
Cawthon, Peggy
Comparing Analytical Methods for Gut Microbiome and Aging: Gut Microbiota and Body Weight in the MrOS
title Comparing Analytical Methods for Gut Microbiome and Aging: Gut Microbiota and Body Weight in the MrOS
title_full Comparing Analytical Methods for Gut Microbiome and Aging: Gut Microbiota and Body Weight in the MrOS
title_fullStr Comparing Analytical Methods for Gut Microbiome and Aging: Gut Microbiota and Body Weight in the MrOS
title_full_unstemmed Comparing Analytical Methods for Gut Microbiome and Aging: Gut Microbiota and Body Weight in the MrOS
title_short Comparing Analytical Methods for Gut Microbiome and Aging: Gut Microbiota and Body Weight in the MrOS
title_sort comparing analytical methods for gut microbiome and aging: gut microbiota and body weight in the mros
topic Abstracts
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7743514/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/geroni/igaa057.3074
work_keys_str_mv AT shardellmichelle comparinganalyticalmethodsforgutmicrobiomeandaginggutmicrobiotaandbodyweightinthemros
AT parimineeta comparinganalyticalmethodsforgutmicrobiomeandaginggutmicrobiotaandbodyweightinthemros
AT langsetmolisa comparinganalyticalmethodsforgutmicrobiomeandaginggutmicrobiotaandbodyweightinthemros
AT orwolleric comparinganalyticalmethodsforgutmicrobiomeandaginggutmicrobiotaandbodyweightinthemros
AT shikanyjames comparinganalyticalmethodsforgutmicrobiomeandaginggutmicrobiotaandbodyweightinthemros
AT kadodeborah comparinganalyticalmethodsforgutmicrobiomeandaginggutmicrobiotaandbodyweightinthemros
AT cawthonpeggy comparinganalyticalmethodsforgutmicrobiomeandaginggutmicrobiotaandbodyweightinthemros