Back

Clostridioides difficile Detection in a Human CRC Cohort

Anderson, S.; Cing, Z.; Drewes, J.; White, J.; Southward, T.; Beauregard, H.; Ferri, J. T.; Wanyiri, J. W.; Roslani, A.; Vadivelu, J.; Tang, S. N.; Queen, J.; Sears, C.

2026-02-28 infectious diseases
10.64898/2026.02.20.26346702 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundThe role of the gut microbiome and specific enteric bacteria in influencing the development of colorectal cancer (CRC) remains incompletely understood. Recently, it was shown that human CRC-derived strains of Clostridioides difficile were capable of inducing colonic tumorigenesis in a susceptible mouse model. We hypothesized that C. difficile contributes to the pathogenesis of human CRC and would be enriched in CRC tumors compared to paired normal tissues from the same individual. MethodsWe analyzed matched tumor/normal tissue samples from a cohort of 108 individuals presenting to a tertiary care hospital in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia for CRC resection between 2013-2014. We assessed the prevalence of C. difficile detection using 16S rRNA amplicon sequencing with high-resolution taxonomic assignment as well as culture and PCR. ResultsWe found that detection of C. difficile was prevalent (38% of individuals), but of low abundance (tumor median relative abundance 0.01%, paired normal 0.006% [p=0.4]). Detection of C. difficile was more prevalent in individuals with biofilm-positive tumor tissues than biofilm-negative (i.e., 81% of C. difficile-positive individuals were biofilm-positive vs. 63% of C. difficile-negative individuals [p=0.04]). Additionally, in exploratory analyses, we describe patterns of taxonomic and inferred functional pathway differences between C. difficile-positive and C. difficile-negative groups. ConclusionThese findings suggest that C. difficile is frequently present in low abundance in the tumor microbiome with a potentially significant impact on community composition and function.

Published in Open Forum Infectious Diseases (predicted rank #6) · training set

Matching journals

The top 7 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.