Back

Estimating the selection pressure of tumor growth on tumor tissue microbiomes

Li, L.; Ma, Z.

2024-03-18 oncology
10.1101/2024.03.17.24304406
Show abstract

BackgroundThe relationships between tumor and its microbiome are still puzzling, with possible bidirectional interactions. Tumor microbiomes may suppress or stimulate tumor growth on the one hand; on the other hand, tumor growth may exert selection pressure on its microbiomes. There is not any consensus on the mode and/or extension of the bidirectional interactions. The objective of this study is to estimate the selection pressure from the primary tumors on tumor microbiomes by comparing with the selection pressure from the solid normal tissues on their corresponding tissue microbiomes across 20+ cancer types. MethodsWe apply Sloan near neutral theory and big datasets of tumor tissue microbiomes from the TCGA (The Cancer Genome Atlas) databases to achieve the above objective. The near neutral theory model can determine the proportions of above-neutral, neutral and below-neutral species in microbial communities, corresponding with positive, neutral and negative selection pressures from host tissues. By comparing the proportions between the primary tumors and solid normal tissues, we can infer the selection pressure of tumor growth on tissue microbiomes. ResultsWe find that approximately 65% of species in solid normal tissue microbiomes are neutral, and the proportion is only 40% in the primary tumor microbiomes. In contrast, the proportion of positively selected species exceeds 60% in the primary tumor microbiomes. Furthermore, simulations with neutral theory model reveal that most abundant species are mostly neutral, while non-neutral species are in the long tail of the species abundance distributions. ConclusionsTumor growth exerts strong positive selection on resident microbiomes, driving the abundances of certain species above the levels expected by the neutral process. Nevertheless, neutral species are still among the most abundant species, suggesting the necessity to pay close attention to the low-abundance or rare species because they are likely to play a critical role in oncogenesis.

Matching journals

The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Genomics, Proteomics & Bioinformatics
based on 10 papers
Top 0.1%
10.1%
2
Scientific Reports
based on 701 papers
Top 16%
10.1%
3
Briefings in Bioinformatics
based on 11 papers
Top 0.1%
10.1%
4
PLOS ONE
based on 1737 papers
Top 63%
6.4%
5
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
based on 100 papers
Top 2%
5.3%
6
Nature Communications
based on 483 papers
Top 18%
4.5%
7
mSystems
based on 16 papers
Top 0.5%
2.9%
8
PeerJ
based on 46 papers
Top 1%
2.9%
50% of probability mass above
9
PLOS Computational Biology
based on 141 papers
Top 4%
2.9%
10
Cancers
based on 57 papers
Top 5%
2.3%
11
Cell Reports
based on 25 papers
Top 0.6%
2.3%
12
iScience
based on 74 papers
Top 2%
2.3%
13
Communications Biology
based on 36 papers
Top 1%
1.8%
14
Aging
based on 18 papers
Top 1%
1.8%
15
Clinical Cancer Research
based on 22 papers
Top 3%
1.8%
16
Bulletin of Mathematical Biology
based on 17 papers
Top 0.9%
1.6%
17
Frontiers in Oncology
based on 34 papers
Top 4%
1.6%
18
npj Precision Oncology
based on 14 papers
Top 2%
1.6%
19
Communications Medicine
based on 63 papers
Top 0.9%
1.6%
20
Clinical and Translational Medicine
based on 11 papers
Top 0.9%
1.3%
21
Heliyon
based on 57 papers
Top 7%
1.3%
22
Frontiers in Neuroscience
based on 29 papers
Top 3%
1.2%
23
Frontiers in Immunology
based on 140 papers
Top 7%
0.8%
24
EMBO Molecular Medicine
based on 15 papers
Top 2%
0.8%
25
Journal of Theoretical Biology
based on 29 papers
Top 3%
0.8%
26
Frontiers in Genetics
based on 32 papers
Top 5%
0.8%
27
Gut Microbes
based on 15 papers
Top 1%
0.8%
28
International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics
based on 13 papers
Top 3%
0.8%
29
International Journal of Molecular Sciences
based on 39 papers
Top 3%
0.8%
30
eLife
based on 262 papers
Top 30%
0.8%