On exploring cross-sectional stability and persistence of microbiome in a multiple body site colorectal cancer dataset

There are several ways to recover signature microbiome of a disease pathology. One way is to look at the core microbiome, which comprises microbial species prevalent across majority of the samples. At a finer level, certain subcommunities may exhibit stable signature across the sampling space. There can also be similarity of differential patterns across different body sites. In view of above, and leveraging recent advancements in analytical strategies, we revisit a multi-factorial Iranian ColoRectal Cancer (CRC) dataset, and explore stable and persistent patterns in the microbiome. For this purpose, 16S rRNA gene is amplified from saliva and stool samples of CRC patients using healthy controls as a baseline (n = 80). The dataset is supplemented with demographical and nutritional data of the study participants that were collected through filled questionnaire. Our results indicate that certain microbial species i.e., Actinobacteriota, Bifidobacterium, Prevotella and Fusobacterium are consistently present in the CRC patients suggesting their potential as diagnostic biomarkers of disease. Additionally, we identified a group of microbes such as Akkermansia, Selenomonas, Clostridia_UCG-014, Lautropia, Granulicatella, Bifidobacterium, and Gemella that exhibit similar differential response across body sites irrespective of where they are found, whether in saliva or stool samples. This suggest that a part of saliva microbiome can act as a proxy for stool microbiome giving further credence to oral-gut axis. Overall, our findings underscore the importance of exploring stable microbial biomarkers in multifactorial CRC dataset by marginalizing out variabilities, with the potential for improved diagnosis and treatment strategies.

Introduction

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is regarded as third most reported cancer around the world having a mortality rate of 1.8 million (Baidoun et al., 2021). The incidence of CRC is expected to rise globally, with an increase rate of 2.2 millions new cases and 1.1 millions deaths by 2030 particularly in western countries (Arnold et al., 2016). In Iran, CRC is prevalent in both genders, however, its ranked fourth most diagnosed cancer in males whilst second in Iranian females (Sung et al., 2021). It is believed that complex interplay between immune system, transcriptome, microbiome and metabolome might drive colon carcinogenesis and progression (Yang et al., 2019). The human gastrointestinal tract hosts a wide range of microbial community ∼10¹³ which surpass the number of genes in human genome by more than 150-fold. There is growing evidence implicating gut microbiota in the development of CRC via potential carcinogenic bacteria such as Fusobacterium as well as beneficial bacteria such as Bifidobacterium (Bullman et al., 2017; Wu et al., 2021; Yu et al., 2017). In our previous studies (Rezasoltani et al., 2022; Rezasoltani et al., 2024), we employed a comprehensive sampling strategy to understand microbial makeup in oral and fecal samples obtained from an Iranian CRC cohort. However, microbial ecology, particularly in the context of stable and persistent microbiome remains unexplored. Majority of the existing analytical strategies focus on divulging differential patterns from hypothesis-driven studies without considering the underpinning ecology that exerts pressure on the microbial communities either due to biotic or abiotic influences. Furthermore, the research studies are increasingly incorporating additional datasets and multi-omics modalities which leads to development of new class of methods designed to not only explore discriminating features (typically a subset) across study design (in a case-control, spatial or temporal setting), but also find correlations of subset of features across datasets (Ijaz et al., 2024). Therefore, guided by these recent developments, in this paper, we revisit the dataset, and:

a) apply a recently developed dynamic approach (Shade and Stopnisek, 2019) that recovers core microbiome by considering site-specific occupancies, and then fits a neutral model to further categorize the core microbiome into those that can be deterministically explained (either selected by host pressure or dispersal limitation) and those that are neutral. Note that the core microbial species typically exhibit functional redundancy, which stabilizes the ecosystem and possess specialized functions that can shape the microbiome landscape. The definition of core microbiome is debatable, and often implies a crisp “prevalence” threshold, i.e., how many samples should a microbe be observed in to tag it as part of core. These thresholds differ for different body sites and diseases (Shetty et al., 2017) and hence an incentive to use a more dynamic strategy

b) recover ensembles of stable microbial subcommunities through a recently developed Ensemble Quotient Optimization algorithm (Shan et al., 2023), where collated relative abundance of these subcommunities either remain stable, or show a step-response. Note that whilst the overall proportion of the microbial subcommunities remain stable, the constituent members may adjust their abundances in relationship to each other; and

c) employ a multi-study group derivative of sparse Projection to Latent Structure—Discriminant Algorithm called MINT algorithm (Rohart et al., 2017) since we have a multi-factorial study design: group (healthy cohort [HC], CRC) X body site (saliva, stool). The aim is to recover microbial species that show a similar differential response between healthy individuals and CRC patients irrespective of which body site they are observed in.

The novelty in this study is to decipher those patterns which were not previously possible due to limitations of the traditional statistical approaches. Using the CRC dataset from Iranian study establishes two directions: to highlight disparities in saliva and stool microbiome specific to environmental exposures and dietary habits in Iran; and to go beyond the region-specific psychosocial stressors, marginalizing out variations, and establish a signature microbiome for CRC. The MINT algorithm, with its ability to recover inter-study nuances, should help in establishing biomarker signatures from saliva microbiome that are not only discriminant between healthy and CRC cohort but also act as a proxy for gut microbial profiles. These may potentially lead to developing diagnostic modalities.

Materials and methods

Bioinformatics

Our previous studies (Rezasoltani et al., 2022; Rezasoltani et al., 2024) provides an overview of the study design, sampling, and their processing. In brief, we collected saliva and stool samples of CRC patients and healthy controls. A total of 80 samples were screened for participation in this study in which only 78 underwent for final analysis due to low read numbers (< 5,000 reads).

Overall, we have obtained 13,571,662 paired end reads from 78 samples. On these, we recovered representative operational taxonomic units (OTUs) at 99% similarity using the same approach as used previously (Ijaz et al., 2018) with the modifications: (a) we have used the recent SILVA SSU Ref NR database release v.138 (Quast et al., 2012); and (b) we generated the rooted phylogenetic tree within the QIIME2 framework (Bolyen et al., 2019). Furthermore, we used PICRUSt2 (Douglas et al., 2020) within the QIIME environment to recover KEGG enzymes (10,543 enzymes for 78 samples) and MetaCyc pathway (489 enzymes for 78 samples) predictions for all the samples. For this purpose, we used the parameters –p-hsp-method pic –p-max-nsti 2 in qiime picrust2 full-pipeline.¹ QIIME2 was also used to generate a final BIOM file that combined abundance information with the new taxonomy with a final n = 78 × P = 23,989 OTUs abundance table with the summary statistics of OTUs per sample as [Min: 49,786; 1st Quartile: 105,250; Median: 114,756; Mean: 113,357; 3rd Quartile: 123,510; Max: 159,166].

Statistics

As a pre-processing step, we selected for samples with > 5,000 reads, removed typical contaminants such as Mitochondria and Chloroplasts, as well as any operational taxonomic units (OTUs) that were unassigned at all levels, as per recommendations given at https://docs.qiime2.org/2022.8/tutorials/filtering/, and then included only those samples relevant to this study, thus giving a final table of n = 78 × P = 23,370 OTUs with the summary statistics of reads mapping to these OTUs for samples as follows: [Min: 49,769; 1st Quartile: 104,419; Median: 113,840; Mean: 112,174;3rd Quartile: 122,755; Max: 159,159]. On this table, we have performed multivariate statistical analyses within in the context of meta data, with detailed provided in the Supplementary material.

Results

Core microbiota and neutral modeling

Significant differences (p < 0.05) are observed in richness estimates of OTUs between: HC saliva and CRC saliva; HC stool and CRC saliva; and HC saliva and CRC stool samples (Supplementary Figure 1). For MetaCyc pathways, we also observed significant differences (p < 0.05) in richness and Shannon entropy between HC saliva and CRC stool, as well as between HC stool and CRC saliva samples. Further exploration based on PERMANOVA suggested 3.7, 3, and 2.3% variation (p < 0.001) between HC and CRC in terms of composition, phylogeny, and metabolic function, respectively. PCoA analysis suggests distinct microbiota between stool and saliva samples giving credence to the presence of unique core microbiome.

The core microbiome was then recovered using a dynamic approach where site-specific occupancy and replicate consistency within these sites decided which OTUs become part of the core microbiome (Figures 1, 2). Figures 1A, D show the results when site-specific occupancy (sites differing by body site) was used for HC, and CRC cohort, respectively. Figures 1B, C, E, F, show the results for HC saliva, HC stool, CRC saliva, and CRC stool, respectively, and employed no occupancy criteria. Using the occupancy criteria, the minimum prevalence threshold was observed to be ∼0.5 (Figure 1A) for the core OTUs in both HC and CRC cohort. Core OTUs detected in HC saliva (Figure 1B) were highly prevalent (∼1; Figure 1D). CRC Saliva (Figure 1E) on the other hand showed marked variation across cohorts with the minimum prevalence threshold of core OTUs detected at ∼0.86 and suggesting more inter-subject differences. The converse was observed for stool samples, where the detected minimum occupancy threshold was lower for HC (Figure 1C) than the CRC cohort (Figure 1F). The solid green points in occupancy-abundance diagrams are the core OTUs that fall within the 95% confidence interval of the fitted neutral model. The core OTUs that fall above (red) or below (blue) this range are considered deterministic, with particular interest in those that fall over the model as they are selected by the host pressure determined implicitly by the underlying environment.

FIGURE 1

Figure 1. Core microbiome [red, green and blue points in (A–F)] identified through a dynamic approach and shown on species occupancy abundance diagrams. Six approaches are used: those that incorporate a site-specific occupancy criterion (occupancy being saliva, and stool) are shown in (A) HC and (D) CRC, respectively, whilst results with no site-specific occupancy are shown in (B) HC saliva, (C) HC stool, (E) CRC saliva, and (F) CRC stool, respectively. To identify the thresholds for core microbiome, we calculate the function C (that implicitly incorporates explanatory power of the chosen core subset in terms of capturing beta diversity) and is shown below the species occupancy diagram. The blue dotted line represents the threshold for “Last 2% decrease” criteria where OTUs are incorporated in the core subset until there is no more than 2% decrease in beta diversity. Independently, a neutral model is fitted with those OTUs that fall within the 95% interval confidence intervals shown in green, whilst non-neutral OTUs with observed frequency above the predicted frequency from the neutral model (selected by the host) are shown in red colors, and those with observed frequency below the predicted frequency from the neutral model (selected by dispersal limitation) are shown in green colors.

FIGURE 2

Figure 2. The count of core OTUs with taxonomic assignment at phylum level, and whether they are neutral, fitted below, or above the model, as per core microbiome inference in Figure 1. Phyla with fewer OTUs are not seen properly using a single scale, and are shown separately for each model in Supplementary Figure 3.

Pie charts in Supplementary Figure 2 illustrates the proportional classification of core OTUs at phylum level. Across all the six models used in core microbiome analysis, majority of the core OTUs belonged to the phyla Firmicutes, Campilobacterota and Proteobacteria, whilst those belonging to Patescibacteria, Campilobacterota and Fusobacteriota were low. Notably, Actinobacteriota is the only phyla that distinguish HC saliva from CRC saliva albeit at a lower proportion of 1.61%. Core OTUs belonging to Desulfobacterota is exclusively observed in HC stool and is absent from CRC stool. Although the core microbiota is similar across all six models, their proportions differ. CRC saliva samples display more phyla level diversity in core OTUs as compared to the CRC stool samples. Neutrality analysis indicates that majority of the OTUs influenced by the host belonged to the phylum Firmicutes. There are more core OTUs belonging to Firmicutes and Proteobacteria selected by host (above the neutral model) for CRC cohort than for the healthy cohort (Figure 2). Bacteroidota on the other hand shows the opposite response, i.e., more core OTUs selected for HC than for CRC patients.

Differential abundant taxa analysis taking into account paired nature of samples

Due to the paired nature of data, where multiple subjects provided both saliva and stool samples, respectively, we employed a specialized QCAT-C association test (Supplementary Figure 4). This test effectively minimizes Type 1 errors due to correlations introduced by paired nature and at the same times gives differential taxa at different lineages. Whilst on an average, the abundance profile showed a similar response between HC and CRC cohort for differential taxa on same body sites, there are some taxa that stood out. These include: Halomonadaceae family is low abundant in stool than in saliva for HC, with opposite response for CRC; [Eubacterium]_brachy_group, Bifidobacterium, and Fusobacterium genus significantly different between saliva and stool for HC than for CRC cohort; and Actinobacteriota phylum more abundant in CRC saliva than in HC saliva cohort.

Stable microbial subcommunities identified through Ensemble Quotient Optimization (EQO) algorithm

We next identified microbial subcommunities (at genus level) where collated abundance of community members remained stable for each cohort (subcommunities for HC Saliva and CRC Saliva are shown in Supplementary Figure 5 whilst those of HC Stool and CRC Stool are shown in Supplementary Figure 6, respectively). The quality of fit is shown by Coefficient of Variation (CV) with lower values representing higher stability. Many of the genera were common in the stable microbial communities of saliva samples of HC and CRC cohort i.e., Actinobacillus, Selenmonadaceae, Granulicatella, Selenomonas, Campylobacter, Saccharimonadaceae, Leptotrichia, Porphyromonas, Actinomyces, Neisseria, Fusobacterium, Veillonella, Prevotella and Streptococcus. Those that were only part of stable cohort in CRC saliva are Aggregatibacter, Bifidobacterium, Megasphaera, Gamella, Stomatobaculum, Atopobium, Rothia, and Lactobacillus (Supplementary Figure 5). Similarly, those microbial genera that are common between CRC stool and HC stool are Bilophila, Sutterella, Lachnospiraceae_NK4A136 group, Dialister, Muribaculaceae, Oscillospiraceae; UCG-10, Agathobacter, Oscillospiraceae; UCG-002, Alistipes, Christensenellaceae_R-7 group, Roseburia, Faecalibacterium, Escherichia-shigella, Barnesiellaceae, Prevotella and, Bacteroides. Those genera that are part of stable cohort in CRC stool are Eubacterium_siraeum group, [Ruminococcus]_torques_group, Dorea, Granulicatella, Lactobacillus, Pseudomonas, Paraprevotella, Bifidobacterium, and Streptococcus (Supplementary Figure 6).

We then applied the EQO approach again, but this time, the aim is to find subcommunity whose relative abundance change across body sites, i.e., it had a differential response between stool and saliva samples for both HC, and CRC cohort (Figure 3). Membership of key genera in this subcommunity, with more proportional representation in stool (irrespective of whether the sample comes from HC or CRC) include: Prevotella, Bacteroides, Parabacteroides, Escherichia-shigella, and Lachnospiraceae_NK4A136 group. Some genera that were more abundant in HC saliva (in comparison to HC stool) include: Prevotella, Gemella and, Megasphaera, and those that have more proportional representation in CRC saliva (in comparison to CRC stool) include: Prevotella and, Rothia.

FIGURE 3

Figure 3. Shows the ensemble with differential response between saliva and stool samples for (A) HC and (B) CRC cohort. The left plots show the fitness value evolution of the genetic algorithm in finding these ensembles highlighting the convergence to a steady state solution whilst the right plots show the relative abundance profiles of these ensembles with coefficient of determination (CD) value, for which a larger absolute value implies stronger difference.

Clade level differential analyses using heat trees

Whilst previous differential analysis (QCAT-C) was done to show differences at different lineages (phylum, class, order, family, genus), we employed differential heat trees to see whether there are significant changes across lineages of the same node, or at clade level. The results are shown in Supplementary Figure 7 where the highlighted branches with different colors represent the significant enriched taxonomic paths in both groups (Brown: enriched in HC; Green: enriched in CRC). The tree highlights that Fusobacteriota, Erysipelatoclostridiaceae and Lachnospiraceae are the most discriminatory taxa between CRC and HCs cohorts as these are only dominant in CRC (Supplementary Figure 7).

Identifying inter-site biases using MINT analysis

To see which genera have similar differential response across body sites, we have employed a multi study group derivative of sparse Projection to Latent structure Discriminant Analysis (sPLS-DA) called MINT algorithm (also called P-Integration algorithm). The method gives non-zero loading vectors (weightage associated with differential taxa) for each study (Figures 4, 5) colored by the cohort these genera are upregulated in. Whilst several discriminatory genera were recovered, our focus lies solely on those, that show concordance across different body sites, whether saliva or stool. These are represented by the bars that are not joined by dotted lines in Figure 4 (for males) and Figure 5 (for females), and are the taxa that have a consistent response (same color), and thereby serve as diagnostic proxies. These include Akkermansia, Selenomonas, Ruminococcaceae; CAG-352, Roseburia, Prevotella, Streptococcus, Blautia, Parasutterella, [Eubacterium]_coprostanoligenes_group, [Eubacterium]_hallii_group, Lachnospira, Atopobium, Colidextribacter, Christensenellaceae_R-7_group, Ruminococcus, Clostridia_UCG-014 and Gemella that are upregulated in CRC male cohort (as compared to HC), while Granulicatella, Bifidobacterium, Lachnospiraceae_UCG-010, Lautropia, and Saccharimonadales are upregulated in CRC female cohort (as compared to HC). Erysipelatoclostridiaceae; UCG-004, Dialister, Desulfovibrio, Enterococcus, Prevotellaceae_UCG-003, Coprobacter, Hydrogenoanaerobacterium, Absconditabacteriales_(SR1), Clostridium_sensu_stricto_1, Peptococcus, Klebsiella, Haemophilus, Erysipelotrichaceae_UCG-003, Collinsella, Bilophila, Porphyromonas, Anaerostipes, Leptotrichia, Capnocytophaga, Barnesiella, Lachnospiraceae_UCG-001, Solobacterium, [Ruminococcus]_gnavus_group, Oscillospirales; UCG-010, Saccharimonadaceae; TM7x, Coprococcus and, Mitsuokella are upregulated in HC males whilst Faecalibacterium, Tannerella, Campylobacter, Candidatus_Saccharimonas, Abiotrophia and Aggregatibacter are upregulated in HC females.

FIGURE 4

Figure 4. MINT results for inter-study comparison between HC and CRC for males, and across different body sites (stool and saliva). The algorithm is a two-step process where in (A), two components were found that reduce the classification error rates (using centroids.dist in the function) in the algorithm, and in (B) shows the number of non-zero coefficients in these two components represented with a diamond. Panel (C) shows the reduced ordered representation of samples using all the genera in the first two components (MINT PLS-DA) with ellipse representing 95% confidence interval and percentage variations explained by these components in axes labels, whilst in (D) the same samples are shown but only using the discriminants from the two components (MINT sPLS-DA). Panels (E–G) then show the loading components for both studies, HC and CRC, with dotted lines connecting them if they disagree. The color of the bars in (E–G) show the category where the genera have maximum abundance across all groups considered. Note that in the loading diagrams, the length of the bar and not the directions of bar are important and highlights relative significance for that genus against others. Heatmap of these genera along with further information is displayed in Supplementary Figure 8.

FIGURE 5

Figure 5. MINT results for inter-study comparison between HC and CRC for females, and across different body sites (stool and saliva). The algorithm is a two-step process where in (A), two components were found that reduce the classification error rates (using centroids.dist in the function) in the algorithm, and in (B) shows the number of non-zero coefficients in these two components represented with a diamond. Panel (C) shows the reduced ordered representation of samples using all the genera in the first two components (MINT PLS-DA) with ellipse representing 95% confidence interval and percentage variations explained by these components in axes labels, whilst in (D) the same samples are shown but only using the discriminants from the two components (MINT sPLS-DA). Panels (E,F) then show the loading components for both studies, HC and CRC, with dotted lines connecting them if they disagree. The color of the bars in (E,F) show the category where the genera have maximum abundance across all groups considered. Note that in the loading diagrams, the length of the bar and not the directions of bar are important and highlights relative significance for that genus against others. Heatmap of these genera along with further information is displayed in Supplementary Figure 9.

Next, we wanted to explore if nutrition plays a differential role. For this purpose, we generated heatmaps of the discriminant genera identified from MINT algorithm for both males and females (Supplementary Figures 8, 9) and then applied hierarchical (using average linkages) clustering to identify clusters. By superimposing nutritional annotations, we did not find any clustering, neither for males nor for females. The samples mainly clustered together by Treatment (HC, and CRC), and Treatment2 (Stool and Saliva).

Discussion

Growing literature highlights the role of microbiota in tumorigenesis and progression of CRC (Chen et al., 2020; Drewes et al., 2016; Mizutani et al., 2020; Wirbel et al., 2019). Despite this, the full understanding of the microbiome and its intricate interactions with the host remains incomplete and necessitates further investigation. The key to understanding how microbiota is linked to a particular disease is dependent on how stable the microbiota is and whether the patterns hold across majority of the subjects. In this study, we have revisited a CRC microbiome dataset (Rezasoltani et al., 2022; Rezasoltani et al., 2024) from the point of view of finding consistent, stable, and persistent microbiome. The analytical approaches used in this study offer several advantages. The dynamic core microbiome inference learns minimum occupancy threshold from the datasets, highlighting only those microbial taxa that remain consistently observed across all subjects. Based on this analysis, the dominant phyla are Firmicutes, Campylobacterota and Proteobacteria whilst Patescibacteria, Campilobacterota and Fusobacteriota are least abundant across all study cohorts. Notably, Firmicutes and Proteobacteria are selectively enriched in CRC Patients. Firmicutes, the most dominant phylum in the gut has mixed trends, with some species being beneficial while other species i.e., Eubacterium eligens and, Eubacterium rectale showing significant association with CRC (Sneath et al., 1986). In contrast, Proteobacteria are generally regarded as gut commensals with pathogenic features (Joly et al., 2010) that have a strong correlation with CRC (Sinha et al., 2016). A higher abundance of Proteobacteria in the gut is typically seen as gut dysbiosis indicator, suggesting a potential marker of diseases susceptibility (Shin et al., 2015; Xu et al., 2023).

We utilized the EQO algorithm to investigate stable microbial subcommunities within each cohort. These are subcommunities whose overall relative abundance remain stable whilst abundances of individual members of these subcommunities may vary in response to each other. In CRC saliva and stool samples, the membership of genera contributing to overall stability includes Aggregatibacter, Megasphaera, Eubacterium_siraeum group, Dorea, Granulicatella, Paraprevotella, Bifidobacterium, and Streptococcus. Notably, Bifidobacterium is the only genus present in both CRC saliva and stool, suggesting its potential as a prognostic marker. Bifidobacterium typically plays a role in intestinal epithelial cell differentiation and numerous studies have highlighted its beneficial effects, particularly in enhancing either the efficacy of immunotherapies or antitumor immunity which can suppress colon cancer (Ijaz et al., 2018; Rohart et al., 2017; Shan et al., 2023; Shetty et al., 2017). However, our studies observed elevated amount of Bifidobacterium both in the CRC saliva and stool supporting previous study conducted by Quast et al. (2012) who reported that 30% of the CRC patients have intratumor Bifidobacterium. This suggests Bifidobacterium might indicate mucosal barrier dysfunction or specific tumor characteristics.

Using EQO, we also identified subcommunities whose collated abundance (proportional abundance of member species) changes across body sites, showing differential responses of subcommunities between stool and saliva samples in both HC, and CRC cohorts. Genera more proportionally represented in the stool samples (regardless of whether the samples are from HC or CRC cohort) included Prevotella, Bacteroides, Parabacteroides, Escherichia-shigella, and Lachnospiraceae_NK4A136 group. In contrast, genera that are more proportionally represented in CRC saliva compared to CRC stool included Prevotella, and Rothia. Prevotella species are gram negative anaerobes of the phylum Bacteroidetes, and are known to increase in cancer population due to elevated IL17 producing cells in the mucosa (Sobhani et al., 2011). Although generally considered commensals, some Prevotella species can act as opportunistic pathogens involved in endogenous infections (Brook, 2004). Rothia, a member of Actinobacteria phylum, has been associated with CRC (Rezasoltani et al., 2024). Typically, an oral commensal, Rothia is implicated in various diseases particularly in immunosuppressed hosts (Amer et al., 2017; Mougeot et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2021).

Our differential analyses have identified microbial species, strongly associated with CRC progression, notably Fusobacteriota and Erysipelatoclostridiaceae. Fusobacterium nucleatum, is often found at higher level in CRC patients, and is linked to inflammation and triggers immune responses that promote the production of inflammatory cells. It also induces immune suppression by modulating immune cells such as natural killer cells, T cells and macrophages (Hashemi Goradel et al., 2019; Wu et al., 2019). Erysipelatoclostridiaceae, an opportunistic bacterium associated with metabolic syndromes or other diseases (Nishino et al., 2018; Shao et al., 2017; Morgan et al., 2023) was found in higher abundance in CRC patients suggesting a potential link to CRC progression.

The use of MINT algorithm offers patterns that have a consistent response across multiple body sites, and do not change direction in terms of differential response between HC and CRC. If they are upregulated in HC as compared to CRC in stool, they exhibit the same response in saliva. The converse is also true, and has led to identification of Akkermansia, Selenomonas, and Clostridia_UCG-014 as the key microbial genera in both stool and saliva of male CRC patients. Akkermansia, a gram-negative bacterium making up 1–4% of total human gut microbiota has been linked to various gastrointestinal diseases including Inflammatory bowel disease and cancer such as CRC (Gu et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2022). Selenomonas, and Clostridium also showed a close association with CRC patients supporting the previous published studies (Gao et al., 2017; Huo et al., 2022; Zwinsová et al., 2021). In contrast Lautropia, Granulicatella, and, Bifidobacterium were highly prevalent in female CRC patients validating existing literature (Costa et al., 2022; Kosumi et al., 2018; Li et al., 2020).

Overall, our research sheds light on the microbial ecology of individuals diagnosed with CRC, focusing on cross-sectional stability and persistence of the microbiome across multiple body sites, a largely unexplored area in scientific literature. We have utilized advanced statistical tools to unravel the complex interplay between microbiome, exposome, and other clinical parameters, whilst marginalizing for inconsistencies in results that may arise as a result of site-specific and subject-specific variabilities. Through a dynamic core microbiome approach that incorporates neutral modeling, we have further identified a signature microbiome associated with CRC, that is under selection pressure, as the microbial taxa that are fitted above the neutral model. These patterns demand exploration in further studies, not only for their diagnostic potential, but as target candidates for dietary intervention studies for treatment purposes. Furthermore, providing and analyzing stool samples may be inconvenient in a clinical setting. The MINT algorithm mitigates inter-study biases across body sites, enabling a direct gut-oral axis, and highlights the importance of using saliva swabs to give an account of microbes that are representative of CRC.

Data availability statement

The raw sequence files supporting the results of this article are available in the European Nucleotide Archive under the project accession number PRJEB76625 with details of the samples provided in Supplementary Data Sheet 1.

Ethics statement

The studies involving humans were approved by the Ethics Review Board of the Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences and the Ethics Committee of Taleghani Hospital, Tehran, Iran. The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

Author contributions

HAs: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Visualization, Writing – original draft. SR: Data curation, Writing – review and editing, Validation. MF: Data curation, Validation, Writing – review and editing. SJ: Data curation, Validation, Writing – review and editing. HAg: Data curation, Validation, Writing – review and editing. ZB: Data curation, Validation, Writing – review and editing. UI: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Software, Supervision, Visualization, Writing – original draft. LS: Funding acquisition, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Writing – review and editing.

Funding

The authors declare that financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article. HAs was supported by an EU funded scholarship (Programma Operativo Nazionale), University of Sassari financed by Region of Sardinia, and Erasmus+ Training Mobility to University of Glasgow. UI was supported by UKRI (EP/V030515/1 and MR/Z50628X/1). LS was supported by the Regione Autonoma Sardegna grant: legge regionale 12 22 December 2022 n. 22 and PRIN 2022 n: 2022BP837R.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

The authors declared that they were an editorial board member of Frontiers, at the time of submission. This had no impact on the peer review process and the final decision.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Supplementary material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2025.1449642/full#supplementary-material

Supplementary Data Sheet 1 | Metadata associated with the deposited sequences.

Supplementary Data Sheet 2 | Source data for core microbiome analysis.

Supplementary Data Sheet 3 | Supplementary material associated with this study.

Abbreviations

16S rRNA, 16S ribosomal RNA; CRC, colorectal cancer; OTUs, operational taxonomic units; EQO, Ensemble Quotient Optimization algorithm.

Footnotes

1. ^https://github.com/picrust/picrust2/wiki/q2-picrust2-tutorial/

References

Amer, A., Galvin, S., Healy, C., and Moran, G. (2017). The microbiome of potentially malignant oral leukoplakia exhibits enrichment for fusobacterium, leptotrichia, campylobacter, and rothia species. Front. Microbiol. 8:2391. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2017.02391

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Arnold, M., Sierra, M., Laversanne, M., Soerjomataram, I., Jemal, A., and Bray, F. (2016). Global patterns and trends in colorectal cancer incidence and mortality. Gut 66, 683–691. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2015-310912

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Baidoun, F., Elshiwy, K., Elkeraie, Y., Merjaneh, Z., Khoudari, G., Sarmini, M., et al. (2021). Colorectal cancer epidemiology: Recent trends and impact on outcomes. Curr. Drug Targets 22, 998–1009. doi: 10.2174/1389450121999201117115717

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Bolyen, E., Rideout, J., Dillon, M., Bokulich, N., Abnet, C., Al-Ghalith, G., et al. (2019). Reproducible, interactive, scalable and extensible microbiome data science using QIIME 2. Nat. Biotechnol. 37, 852–857. doi: 10.1038/s41587-019-0209-9

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Brook, I. (2004). Anaerobic pulmonary infections in children. Pediatr. Emerg. Care 20, 636–640. doi: 10.1097/01.pec.0000139751.63624.0b

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Bullman, S., Pedamallu, C., Sicinska, E., Clancy, T., Zhang, X., Cai, D., et al. (2017). Analysis of Fusobacterium persistence and antibiotic response in colorectal cancer. Science 358, 1443–1448. doi: 10.1126/science.aal5240

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Chen, Y., Yang, Y., and Gu, J. (2020). Clinical implications of the associations between intestinal microbiome and colorectal cancer progression. Cancer Manag. Res. 12, 4117–4128. doi: 10.2147/CMAR.S240108

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Costa, C., Vieira, P., Mendes-Rocha, M., Pereira-Marques, J., Ferreira, R., and Figueiredo, C. (2022). The tissue-associated microbiota in colorectal cancer: A systematic review. Cancers 14:3385. doi: 10.3390/cancers14143385

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Douglas, G., Maffei, V., Zaneveld, J., Yurgel, S., Brown, J., Taylor, C., et al. (2020). PICRUSt2 for prediction of metagenome functions. Nat. Biotechnol. 38, 685–688. doi: 10.1038/s41587-020-0548-6

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Drewes, J., Housseau, F., and Sears, C. (2016). Sporadic colorectal cancer: Microbial contributors to disease prevention, development and therapy. Br. J. Cancer 115, 273–280. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2016.189

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Gao, R., Kong, C., Huang, L., Li, H., Qu, X., Liu, Z., et al. (2017). Mucosa-associated microbiota signature in colorectal cancer. Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 36, 2073–2083. doi: 10.1007/s10096-017-3026-4

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Gu, Z., Pei, W., Zhang, Y., Zhu, J., Li, L., and Zhang, Z. (2021). Akkermansia muciniphila in inflammatory bowel disease and colorectal cancer. Chin. Med. J. 134, 2841–2843. doi: 10.1097/CM9.0000000000001829

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Hashemi Goradel, N., Heidarzadeh, S., Jahangiri, S., Farhood, B., Mortezaee, K., Khanlarkhani, N., et al. (2019). Fusobacterium nucleatum and colorectal cancer: A mechanistic overview. J. Cell. Physiol. 234, 2337–2344. doi: 10.1002/jcp.27250

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Huo, R., Wang, Y., Hou, S., Wang, W., Zhang, C., and Wan, X. (2022). Gut mucosal microbiota profiles linked to colorectal cancer recurrence. World J. Gastroenterol. 28, 1946–1964. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v28.i18.1946

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ijaz, U., Ameer, A., Saleem, F., Gul, F., Keating, C., and Javed, S. (2024). Specialty grand challenge: How can we use integrative approaches to understand microbial community dynamics? Front. Media SA 4:1432791. doi: 10.3389/fsysb.2024.1432791

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ijaz, U., Sivaloganathan, L., McKenna, A., Richmond, A., Kelly, C., Linton, M., et al. (2018). Comprehensive longitudinal microbiome analysis of the chicken cecum reveals a shift from competitive to environmental drivers and a window of opportunity for campylobacter. Front. Microbiol. 9:2452. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2018.02452

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Joly, F., Mayeur, C., Bruneau, A., Noordine, M., Meylheuc, T., Langella, P., et al. (2010). Drastic changes in fecal and mucosa-associated microbiota in adult patients with short bowel syndrome. Biochimie 92, 753–761. doi: 10.1016/j.biochi.2010.02.015

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Kosumi, K., Hamada, T., Koh, H., Borowsky, J., Bullman, S., Twombly, T., et al. (2018). The amount of bifidobacterium genus in colorectal carcinoma tissue in relation to tumor characteristics and clinical outcome. Am. J. Pathol. 188, 2839–2852. doi: 10.1016/j.ajpath.2018.08.015

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Li, D., Xi, W., Zhang, Z., Ren, L., Deng, C., Chen, J., et al. (2020). Oral microbial community analysis of the patients in the progression of liver cancer. Microb. Pathog. 149:104479. doi: 10.1016/j.micpath.2020.104479

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Mizutani, S., Yamada, T., and Yachida, S. (2020). Significance of the gut microbiome in multistep colorectal carcinogenesis. Cancer Sci. 111, 766–773. doi: 10.1111/cas.14298

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Morgan, P. A., Parbie, P. K., Ntiamoah, D. O., Boadu, A. A., Asare, P., Lamptey, I. N. K., et al. (2023). Gut microbiome variation in pulmonary TB patients with diabetes or HIV comorbidities. Front. Microbiomes 2:1123064. doi: 10.3389/frmbi.2023.1123064

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Mougeot, J., Beckman, M., Langdon, H., Brennan, M., and Bahrani Mougeot, F. (2020). Oral microbiome signatures in hematological cancers reveal predominance of actinomyces and rothia species. J. Clin. Med. 9:4068. doi: 10.3390/jcm9124068

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Nishino, K., Nishida, A., Inoue, R., Kawada, Y., Ohno, M., Sakai, S., et al. (2018). Analysis of endoscopic brush samples identified mucosa-associated dysbiosis in inflammatory bowel disease. J. Gastroenterol. 53, 95–106. doi: 10.1007/s00535-017-1384-4

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Quast, C., Pruesse, E., Yilmaz, P., Gerken, J., Schweer, T., Yarza, P., et al. (2012). The SILVA ribosomal RNA gene database project: Improved data processing and web-based tools. Nucleic Acids Res. 41, D590–D596. doi: 10.1093/nar/gks1219

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Rezasoltani, S., Aghdaei, H., Jasemi, S., Gazouli, M., Dovrolis, N., Sadeghi, A., et al. (2022). Oral microbiota as novel biomarkers for colorectal cancer screening. Cancers 15:192. doi: 10.3390/cancers15010192

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Rezasoltani, S., Azizmohammad Looha, M., Asadzadeh Aghdaei, H., Jasemi, S., Sechi, L., Gazouli, M., et al. (2024). 16S rRNA sequencing analysis of the oral and fecal microbiota in colorectal cancer positives versus colorectal cancer negatives in Iranian population. Gut Pathog. 16, 1–13. doi: 10.1186/s13099-024-00604-0

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Rohart, F., Eslami, A., Matigian, N., Bougeard, S., and Lê Cao, K. A. (2017). MINT: A multivariate integrative method to identify reproducible molecular signatures across independent experiments and platforms. BMC Bioinformatics 18:128. doi: 10.1186/s12859-017-1553-8

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Shade, A., and Stopnisek, N. (2019). Abundance-occupancy distributions to prioritize plant core microbiome membership. Curr. Opin. Microbiol. 49, 50–58. doi: 10.1016/j.mib.2019.09.008

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Shan, X., Goyal, A., Gregor, R., and Cordero, O. (2023). Annotation-free discovery of functional groups in microbial communities. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 7, 716–724. doi: 10.1038/s41559-023-02021-z

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Shao, T., Shao, L., Li, H., Xie, Z., He, Z., and Wen, C. (2017). Combined signature of the fecal microbiome and metabolome in patients with gout. Front. Microbiol. 8:268. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2017.00268

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Shetty, S., Hugenholtz, F., Lahti, L., Smidt, H., and de Vos, W. (2017). Intestinal microbiome landscaping: Insight in community assemblage and implications for microbial modulation strategies. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 41, 182–199. doi: 10.1093/femsre/fuw045

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Shin, N., Whon, T., and Bae, J. (2015). Proteobacteria: Microbial signature of dysbiosis in gut microbiota. Trends Biotechnol. 33, 496–503. doi: 10.1016/j.tibtech.2015.06.011

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Sinha, R., Ahn, J., Sampson, J., Shi, J., Yu, G., Xiong, X., et al. (2016). Fecal microbiota, fecal metabolome, and colorectal cancer interrelations. PLoS One 11:e0152126. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0152126

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Sneath, P., Mair, N., Sharpe, M., and Holt, J. (1986). Bergey’s Manual of Systematic Bacteriology, Volume 2. Philadelphia, PA: Williams & Wilkins.

Google Scholar

Sobhani, I., Tap, J., Roudot-Thoraval, F., Roperch, J., Letulle, S., Langella, P., et al. (2011). Microbial dysbiosis in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients. PLoS One 6:e16393. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0016393

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Sung, H., Ferlay, J., Siegel, R., Laversanne, M., Soerjomataram, I., Jemal, A., et al. (2021). Global cancer statistics 2020: Globocan estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J. Clin. 71, 209–249. doi: 10.3322/caac.21660

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Wang, F., Cai, K., Xiao, Q., He, L., Xie, L., and Liu, Z. (2022). Akkermansia muciniphila administration exacerbated the development of colitis-associated colorectal cancer in mice. J. Cancer 13, 124–133. doi: 10.7150/jca.63578

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Wang, Y., Zhang, Y., Qian, Y., Xie, Y., Jiang, S., Kang, Z., et al. (2021). Alterations in the oral and gut microbiome of colorectal cancer patients and association with host clinical factors. Int. J. Cancer doi: 10.1002/ijc.33596 Online ahead of print.

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Wirbel, J., Pyl, P., Kartal, E., Zych, K., Kashani, A., Milanese, A., et al. (2019). Meta-analysis of fecal metagenomes reveals global microbial signatures that are specific for colorectal cancer. Nat. Med. 25, 679–689. doi: 10.1038/s41591-019-0406-6

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Wu, J., Li, Q., and Fu, X. (2019). Fusobacterium nucleatum contributes to the carcinogenesis of colorectal cancer by inducing inflammation and suppressing host immunity. Transl. Oncol. 12, 846–851. doi: 10.1016/j.tranon.2019.03.003

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Wu, Y., Jiao, N., Zhu, R., Zhang, Y., Wu, D., Wang, A., et al. (2021). Identification of microbial markers across populations in early detection of colorectal cancer. Nat. Commun. 12:3063. doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-23265-y

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Xu, Y., Zhao, J., Ma, Y., Liu, J., Cui, Y., Yuan, Y., et al. (2023). The microbiome types of colorectal tissue are potentially associated with the prognosis of patients with colorectal cancer. Front. Microbiol. 14:1100873. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2023.1100873

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Yang, Y., Misra, B., Liang, L., Bi, D., Weng, W., Wu, W., et al. (2019). Integrated microbiome and metabolome analysis reveals a novel interplay between commensal bacteria and metabolites in colorectal cancer. Theranostics 9, 4101–4114. doi: 10.7150/thno.35186

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Yu, T., Guo, F., Yu, Y., Sun, T., Ma, D., Han, J., et al. (2017). Fusobacterium nucleatum promotes chemoresistance to colorectal cancer by modulating autophagy. Cell 170, 548–563.e16. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2017.07.008

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Zwinsová, B., Petrov, V., Hrivòáková, M., Smatana, S., Micenková, L., Kazdová, N., et al. (2021). Colorectal tumour mucosa microbiome is enriched in oral pathogens and defines three subtypes that correlate with markers of tumour progression. Cancers 13:4799. doi: 10.3390/cancers13194799

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar