Cargando…

Systematically assessing microbiome–disease associations identifies drivers of inconsistency in metagenomic research

Evaluating the relationship between the human gut microbiome and disease requires computing reliable statistical associations. Here, using millions of different association modeling strategies, we evaluated the consistency—or robustness—of microbiome-based disease indicators for 6 prevalent and well...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Tierney, Braden T., Tan, Yingxuan, Yang, Zhen, Shui, Bing, Walker, Michaela J., Kent, Benjamin M., Kostic, Aleksandar D., Patel, Chirag J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8890741/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35235560
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3001556
_version_ 1784661710421884928
author Tierney, Braden T.
Tan, Yingxuan
Yang, Zhen
Shui, Bing
Walker, Michaela J.
Kent, Benjamin M.
Kostic, Aleksandar D.
Patel, Chirag J.
author_facet Tierney, Braden T.
Tan, Yingxuan
Yang, Zhen
Shui, Bing
Walker, Michaela J.
Kent, Benjamin M.
Kostic, Aleksandar D.
Patel, Chirag J.
author_sort Tierney, Braden T.
collection PubMed
description Evaluating the relationship between the human gut microbiome and disease requires computing reliable statistical associations. Here, using millions of different association modeling strategies, we evaluated the consistency—or robustness—of microbiome-based disease indicators for 6 prevalent and well-studied phenotypes (across 15 public cohorts and 2,343 individuals). We were able to discriminate between analytically robust versus nonrobust results. In many cases, different models yielded contradictory associations for the same taxon–disease pairing, some showing positive correlations and others negative. When querying a subset of 581 microbe–disease associations that have been previously reported in the literature, 1 out of 3 taxa demonstrated substantial inconsistency in association sign. Notably, >90% of published findings for type 1 diabetes (T1D) and type 2 diabetes (T2D) were particularly nonrobust in this regard. We additionally quantified how potential confounders—sequencing depth, glucose levels, cholesterol, and body mass index, for example—influenced associations, analyzing how these variables affect the ostensible correlation between Faecalibacterium prausnitzii abundance and a healthy gut. Overall, we propose our approach as a method to maximize confidence when prioritizing findings that emerge from microbiome association studies.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8890741
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-88907412022-03-03 Systematically assessing microbiome–disease associations identifies drivers of inconsistency in metagenomic research Tierney, Braden T. Tan, Yingxuan Yang, Zhen Shui, Bing Walker, Michaela J. Kent, Benjamin M. Kostic, Aleksandar D. Patel, Chirag J. PLoS Biol Meta-Research Article Evaluating the relationship between the human gut microbiome and disease requires computing reliable statistical associations. Here, using millions of different association modeling strategies, we evaluated the consistency—or robustness—of microbiome-based disease indicators for 6 prevalent and well-studied phenotypes (across 15 public cohorts and 2,343 individuals). We were able to discriminate between analytically robust versus nonrobust results. In many cases, different models yielded contradictory associations for the same taxon–disease pairing, some showing positive correlations and others negative. When querying a subset of 581 microbe–disease associations that have been previously reported in the literature, 1 out of 3 taxa demonstrated substantial inconsistency in association sign. Notably, >90% of published findings for type 1 diabetes (T1D) and type 2 diabetes (T2D) were particularly nonrobust in this regard. We additionally quantified how potential confounders—sequencing depth, glucose levels, cholesterol, and body mass index, for example—influenced associations, analyzing how these variables affect the ostensible correlation between Faecalibacterium prausnitzii abundance and a healthy gut. Overall, we propose our approach as a method to maximize confidence when prioritizing findings that emerge from microbiome association studies. Public Library of Science 2022-03-02 /pmc/articles/PMC8890741/ /pubmed/35235560 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3001556 Text en © 2022 Tierney et al https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Meta-Research Article
Tierney, Braden T.
Tan, Yingxuan
Yang, Zhen
Shui, Bing
Walker, Michaela J.
Kent, Benjamin M.
Kostic, Aleksandar D.
Patel, Chirag J.
Systematically assessing microbiome–disease associations identifies drivers of inconsistency in metagenomic research
title Systematically assessing microbiome–disease associations identifies drivers of inconsistency in metagenomic research
title_full Systematically assessing microbiome–disease associations identifies drivers of inconsistency in metagenomic research
title_fullStr Systematically assessing microbiome–disease associations identifies drivers of inconsistency in metagenomic research
title_full_unstemmed Systematically assessing microbiome–disease associations identifies drivers of inconsistency in metagenomic research
title_short Systematically assessing microbiome–disease associations identifies drivers of inconsistency in metagenomic research
title_sort systematically assessing microbiome–disease associations identifies drivers of inconsistency in metagenomic research
topic Meta-Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8890741/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35235560
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3001556
work_keys_str_mv AT tierneybradent systematicallyassessingmicrobiomediseaseassociationsidentifiesdriversofinconsistencyinmetagenomicresearch
AT tanyingxuan systematicallyassessingmicrobiomediseaseassociationsidentifiesdriversofinconsistencyinmetagenomicresearch
AT yangzhen systematicallyassessingmicrobiomediseaseassociationsidentifiesdriversofinconsistencyinmetagenomicresearch
AT shuibing systematicallyassessingmicrobiomediseaseassociationsidentifiesdriversofinconsistencyinmetagenomicresearch
AT walkermichaelaj systematicallyassessingmicrobiomediseaseassociationsidentifiesdriversofinconsistencyinmetagenomicresearch
AT kentbenjaminm systematicallyassessingmicrobiomediseaseassociationsidentifiesdriversofinconsistencyinmetagenomicresearch
AT kosticaleksandard systematicallyassessingmicrobiomediseaseassociationsidentifiesdriversofinconsistencyinmetagenomicresearch
AT patelchiragj systematicallyassessingmicrobiomediseaseassociationsidentifiesdriversofinconsistencyinmetagenomicresearch