ArticleJournal of translational medicine2024
Gut metatranscriptomics based de novo assembly reveals microbial signatures predicting immunotherapy outcomes in non-small cell lung cancer.
Article in Journal of translational medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Microbiome and Response to Therapy in Triple Negative Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review.Oncology research · 2026Pooled it
- Gut microbiome changes and cancer immunotherapy outcomes associated with dietary interventions: a systematic review of preclinical and clinical evidence.Journal of translational medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Gene-level gut microbiome signatures as predictive biomarkers for response to immune checkpoint inhibitors across multiple cancer types.Gut microbes · 2026Article
- Microbial Influence on Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy in Non-Small Cell Carcinoma: The Gut-Lung-Immune Axis.Cancers · 2026Review
- Harnessing the Microbiome in Cancer Immunotherapy: Regulation, Prediction, and Therapeutic Targeting.Annual review of immunology · 2026Review
- Gut microbiome-driven modulation of the tumor immune microenvironment optimizes dual checkpoint blockade in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.ESMO open · 2026Article
- The Dynamic Gut Microbiota: Monitoring Alterations During Lung Cancer Progression for Diagnosis and Precision Medicine.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Emerging Therapeutic Approaches for Modulating the Intestinal Microbiota.Pharmaceutics · 2026Review
- Harnessing the Gut Microbiota to Improve Cancer Immunotherapy: Focus on Lung Cancer.Immune network · 2026Review
- Role of gut microbiome in suppression of cancers.Gut microbes · 2025Review
- The Role of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Cancer Therapy: Mechanism and Therapeutic Advances.MedComm · 2025Review
- The dark matter in cancer immunology: beyond the visible- unveiling multiomics pathways to breakthrough therapies.Journal of translational medicine · 2025Review
- Exploring fecal microbiota signatures associated with immune response and antibiotic impact in NSCLC: insights from metagenomic and machine learning approaches.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2025Article
- Host and bacterial urine proteomics might predict treatment outcomes for immunotherapy in advanced non-small cell lung cancer patients.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAdvanced-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) poses treatment challenges, with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) as the main therapy. Emerging evidence suggests the gut microbiome significantly influences ICI efficacy. This study explores the link between the gut microbiome and ICI outcomes in NSCLC patients, using metatranscriptomic (MTR) signatures.
methodsWe utilized a de novo assembly-based MTR analysis on fecal samples from 29 NSCLC patients undergoing ICI therapy, segmented according to progression-free survival (PFS) into long (> 6 months) and short (≤ 6 months) PFS groups. Through RNA sequencing, we employed the Trinity pipeline for assembly, MMSeqs2 for taxonomic classification, DESeq2 for differential expression (DE) analysis. We constructed Random Forest (RF), Support Vector Machine (SVM), and Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) machine learning (ML) algorithms and comprehensive microbial profiles.
resultsWe detected no significant differences concerning alpha-diversity, but we revealed a biologically relevant separation between the two patient groups in beta-diversity. Actinomycetota was significantly overrepresented in patients with short PFS (vs long PFS, 36.7% vs. 5.4%, p < 0.001), as was Euryarchaeota (1.3% vs. 0.002%, p = 0.009), while Bacillota showed higher prevalence in the long PFS group (66.2% vs. 42.3%, p = 0.007), when comparing the abundance of corresponding RNA reads. Among the 120 significant DEGs identified, cluster analysis clearly separated a large set of genes more active in patients with short PFS and a smaller set of genes more active in long PFS patients. Protein Domain Families (PFAMs) were analyzed to identify pathways enriched in patient groups. Pathways related to DNA synthesis and Translesion were more enriched in short PFS patients, while metabolism-related pathways were more enriched in long PFS patients. E. coli-derived PFAMs dominated in patients with long PFS. RF, SVM and XGBoost ML models all confirmed the predictive power of our selected RNA-based microbial signature, with ROC AUCs all greater than 0.84. Multivariate Cox regression tested with clinical confounders PD-L1 expression and chemotherapy history underscored the influence of n = 6 key RNA biomarkers on PFS.
conclusionAccording to ML models specific gut microbiome MTR signatures' associate with ICI treated NSCLC outcomes. Specific gene clusters and taxa MTR gene expression might differentiate long vs short PFS.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.