Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36198381›Full record

SynthesisJournal of advanced research2023

Meta-analysis of fecal viromes demonstrates high diagnostic potential of the gut viral signatures for colorectal cancer and adenoma risk assessment.

Fang Chen, Shenghui Li, Ruochun Guo, Fanghua Song, Yue Zhang, Xifan Wang, Xiaokui Huo, Qingbo Lv, Hayan Ullah, Guangyang Wang and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of advanced research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
7.1field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

40 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 44 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.

Fang ChenPharmaceutical Research Center, Second Affiliated Hospital, Dalian Medical University, Dalian, China; Puensum Genetech Institute, Wuhan, China; Department of Microbiology, College of Basic Medical Sciences, Dalian Medical University, Dalian, China.
Shenghui LiPuensum Genetech Institute, Wuhan, China.
Ruochun GuoPuensum Genetech Institute, Wuhan, China.
Fanghua SongAmbulatory Chemotherapy Center, Department of Medical Oncology, Dalian University Affiliated Xinhua Hospital, Dalian, China.
Yue ZhangPuensum Genetech Institute, Wuhan, China.
Xifan WangKey Laboratory of Precision Nutrition and Food Quality, Department of Nutrition and Health, China Agricultural University, Beijing, China; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.
Xiaokui HuoPharmaceutical Research Center, Second Affiliated Hospital, Dalian Medical University, Dalian, China.
Qingbo LvPuensum Genetech Institute, Wuhan, China.
Hayan UllahDepartment of Microbiology, College of Basic Medical Sciences, Dalian Medical University, Dalian, China.
Guangyang WangDepartment of Microbiology, College of Basic Medical Sciences, Dalian Medical University, Dalian, China.
Yufang MaDepartment of Microbiology, College of Basic Medical Sciences, Dalian Medical University, Dalian, China.
Qiulong YanDepartment of Microbiology, College of Basic Medical Sciences, Dalian Medical University, Dalian, China. Electronic address: qiulongy1988@163.com.
Xiaochi MaPharmaceutical Research Center, Second Affiliated Hospital, Dalian Medical University, Dalian, China. Electronic address: maxc1978@163.com.
Dalian Medical University · CNMinistry of Education · SA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionViruses have been reported as inducers of tumorigenesis. Little studies have explored the impact of the gut virome on the progression of colorectal cancer. However, there is still a problem with the repeatability of viral signatures across multiple cohorts.

objectivesThe present study aimed to reveal the repeatable gut vial signatures of colorectal cancer and adenoma patients and decipher the potential of viral markers in disease risk assessment for diagnosis.

methods1,282 available fecal metagenomes from 9 published studies for colorectal cancer and adenoma were collected. A gut viral catalog was constructed via a reference-independent approach. Viral signatures were identified by cross-cohort meta-analysis and used to build predictive models based on machine learning algorithms. New fecal samples were collected to validate the generalization of predictive models.

resultsThe gut viral composition of colorectal cancer patients was drastically altered compared with healthy, as evidenced by changes in some Siphoviridae and Myoviridae viruses and enrichment of Microviridae, whereas the virome variation in adenoma patients was relatively low. Cross-cohort meta-analysis identified 405 differential viruses for colorectal cancer, including several phages of Porphyromonas, Fusobacterium, and Hungatella that were enriched in patients and some control-enriched Ruminococcaceae phages. In 9 discovery cohorts, the optimal risk assessment model obtained an average cross-cohort area under the curve of 0.830 for discriminating colorectal cancer patients from controls. This model also showed consistently high accuracy in 2 independent validation cohorts (optimal area under the curve, 0.906). Gut virome analysis of adenoma patients identified 88 differential viruses and achieved an optimal area under the curve of 0.772 for discriminating patients from controls.

conclusionOur findings demonstrate the gut virome characteristics in colorectal cancer and adenoma and highlight gut virus-bacterial synergy in the progression of colorectal cancer. The gut viral signatures may be new targets for colorectal cancer treatment. In addition, high repeatability and predictive power of the prediction models suggest the potential of gut viral biomarkers in non-invasive diagnostic tests of colorectal cancer and adenoma.

Indexed as

AdenomaColorectal NeoplasmsGastrointestinal MicrobiomeVirusesBiomarkersHumansRisk AssessmentViromeBiomarkersColorectal cancerDiagnostic virome signatureGut viromeMachine learningMeta-analysisRisk assessment model

Identifiers

PMID36198381
PMCPMC10334131
OpenAlexW4299348237

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.