Back

Identification of consensus head and neck cancer-associated microbiota signatures: a meta-analysis of 16S rRNA and The Cancer Microbiome Atlas datasets.

Yeo, K.; Li, R.; Wu, F.; Bouras, G.; Mai, L. T. H.; Smith, E.; Wormald, P.-J.; Valentine, R.; Psaltis, A. J.; Vreugde, S.; Fenix, K.

2023-07-27 oncology
10.1101/2023.07.25.23293137 medRxiv
Show abstract

ObjectiveMultiple reports have attempted to describe the tumour microbiota in head and neck cancer. However, these have failed to produce a consistent microbiota signature which may undermine understanding the importance of bacterial-mediated effects in head and neck cancer. The aim of this study is to consolidate these datasets and identify a consensus microbiota signature in head and neck cancer. MethodsWe analysed 11 published head and neck cancer 16S ribosomal RNA microbial datasets collected from cancer, cancer-adjacent and non-cancer tissue to generate a consensus microbiota signature. These signatures were then validated using The Cancer Microbiome Atlas database. ResultsWe identified unique bacteria enrichment within tissue types and correlated it with possible functional and clinical outcomes. ConclusionsOur meta-analysis demonstrates a consensus microbiota signature for head and neck cancer, highlighting its potential importance in this disease. HighlightsO_LIThe first meta-analysis of tissue microbiome in head and neck cancer containing eleven 16S ribosomal RNA and The Cancer Microbiome Atlas dataset. C_LIO_LIMicrobiome from head and neck tissues were able to distinguish tissue types (cancer, cancer-adjacent, non-cancer) using 16S rRNA sequencing and whole genome sequencing datasets. C_LIO_LISpecific bacterial genera correlate with different tumour microenvironment phenotypes. C_LIO_LIHigh abundance Fusobacterium in tumour tissue correlates with better overall survival. C_LI

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.