J Cancer 2021; 12(4):1023-1032. doi:10.7150/jca.50918 This issue

Research Paper

Comparison of clinicopathological parameters, prognosis, micro-ecological environment and metabolic function of Gastric Cancer with or without Fusobacterium sp. Infection

Siru Nie1,2,3, Ang Wang1,2,3, Yuan Yuan1,2,3✉

1. Tumor Etiology and Screening Department of Cancer Institute and General Surgery, The First Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang 110001, China.
2. Key Laboratory of Cancer Etiology and Prevention in Liaoning Education Department, The First Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang 110001, China.
3. Key Laboratory of GI Cancer Etiology and Prevention in Liaoning Province, The First Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang 110001, China.

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). See http://ivyspring.com/terms for full terms and conditions.
Citation:
Nie S, Wang A, Yuan Y. Comparison of clinicopathological parameters, prognosis, micro-ecological environment and metabolic function of Gastric Cancer with or without Fusobacterium sp. Infection. J Cancer 2021; 12(4):1023-1032. doi:10.7150/jca.50918. Available from https://www.jcancer.org/v12p1023.htm

File import instruction

Abstract

Background: Fusobacterium sp. plays a crucial role in the tumorigenesis and development of gastrointestinal tumors. Our research group previously disclosed that Fusobacterium sp. was more abundant in gastric cancer (GC) tissues than adjacent non-cancerous (NC) tissues. However, Fusobacterium sp. did not exist in all GC tissues and the differentiated features of GC with or without Fusobacterium sp. infection is not clear.

Methods: The expression data of 61 GC tissues came from 16S rRNA gene sequencing. Comparison groups were defined based on sOTU at the genus level of Fusobacterium sp., which was performed by the Qiime2 microbiome bioinformatics platform. We used Chi-square and Fisher's exact test to compare clinicopathological parameters, and used Kaplan-Meier analysis, Cox univariate and multivariate analysis to compare prognosis. Micro-ecological environment comparison was characterized by 16S rRNA gene sequencing, and the metabolic function prediction was applied by PICRUSt2. Results of microbial diversity, differential enrichment genus and metabolic function in GC with or without Fusobacterium sp. infection was validated with 229 GC tissues downloaded from an independent cohort in ENA database (PRJNA428883).

Results: The infection rate of Fusobacterium sp. in 61 GC tissues was 52.46% and elderly GC patients were more prone to Fusobacterium sp. infection. GC patients infected with Fusobacterium sp. were more likely to have tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and p53 expression. The microbial diversity and microbial structure showed significant differences between two GC tissue groups with 42 differential enrichment genera. The metabolic function of Fusobacterium sp.-positive GC tissues was related to the biosynthesis of lysine, peptidoglycan, and tRNA. The differences in microbial structure, the existence of some differential enrichment genera and the metabolic function of Fusobacterium sp.-positive GC tissues, were then validated by 229 GC tissues of an independent cohort.

Conclusions: Fusobacterium sp. infection can affect the phenotypic characteristics, micro-ecological environment, and metabolic functions of GC, which may provide a basis for further exploring the relationship between Fusobacterium sp. infection and carcinogenesis of GC.

Keywords: Fusobacterium sp., gastric cancer, 16S rRNA, clinicopathological feature, micro-ecological environment, metabolic function