Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2026 Mar 11;21(3):e0344050. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0344050

Colorectal adenoma presence is associated with decreased menaquinone pathway functions in the gut microbiome of patients undergoing routine colonoscopy

Ilona Vilkoite 1,2,*, Ivars Silamiķelis 3, Jānis Kloviņš 3, Ivars Tolmanis 4, Aivars Lejnieks 5,6, Elīna Runce 7, Krista Cēbere 8, Ksenija Margole 9, Olga Sjomina 4,8,10, Laila Silamiķele 3
Editor: Jad El Masri11
PMCID: PMC12978465  PMID: 41811805

Abstract

Background

Colorectal adenomas are key precancerous lesions and a major target for colorectal cancer prevention. While gut microbiome alterations are well described in colorectal cancer, microbial composition and functional capacity at the adenoma stage remain poorly understood. Emerging metagenomic data suggest early adenomas are associated with loss of microbial metabolic functions supporting epithelial and immune homeostasis.

Objectives

To investigate the association between gut microbiome composition and functional pathways and the presence of colorectal adenomas in patients undergoing routine colonoscopy.

Materials and methods

This cross-sectional case–control study included adult patients undergoing routine colonoscopy. Participants were enrolled based on strict inclusion and exclusion criteria to minimize confounding factors such as inflammatory bowel disease, prior colorectal surgery, and recent antibiotic or probiotic use. Fecal samples were collected prior to bowel preparation, and gut microbiome taxonomic composition and functional pathways were analyzed using shotgun metagenomic sequencing.

Results

A total of 136 participants were included, of whom 56 had colorectal adenomas. Alpha diversity indices did not differ significantly between adenoma-positive and adenoma-negative groups. In contrast, beta diversity analysis revealed significant differences in overall microbial community structure. Descriptive genus-level differences suggested features of dysbiosis in adenoma-positive patients, including higher relative abundance of Bacteroides and Prevotella and lower abundance of Faecalibacterium and Anaerostipes. Differential abundance analysis identified a single species-level feature, UBA7597 sp003448195, enriched in the adenoma group. Functional profiling showed reduced microbial pathways related to menaquinone (vitamin K₂) biosynthesis, Stickland fermentation, and short-chain fatty acid (propionate) production in patients with adenomas.

Conclusions

The presence of colorectal adenomas was associated with reduced microbial metabolic functions linked to vitamin K₂ biosynthesis, amino acid fermentation, and propionate production, alongside compositional shifts toward a less functionally robust gut microbiome. These findings indicate that early colorectal neoplasia is accompanied by functional microbiome alterations that may serve as markers of adenoma-associated dysbiosis and provide insight into early metabolic changes in the colonic microenvironment.

Introduction

Colorectal cancer (CRC) remains a significant global health challenge, representing a substantial burden on both healthcare systems and affected individuals [1]. Owing to its high incidence and mortality rates, CRC ranks among the most prevalent and deadly malignancies worldwide. According to recent epidemiological data, CRC accounts for approximately 10% of all cancer cases and is the third most commonly diagnosed cancer globally, with an estimated 1.8 million new cases diagnosed annually [1].

The etiology of CRC is multifaceted, involving a complex interplay of genetic, environmental, and lifestyle factors [2]. Major risk factors include high consumption of red meat coupled with low fiber intake, obesity, lack of physical activity, substance abuse, and persistent bowel inflammation [3]. Among these factors, emerging research has increasingly recognized the pivotal role of the gut microbiome in the development and progression of CRC [46]. The human colon harbors a diverse and dynamic community of microorganisms, collectively known as the gut microbiota, which plays a fundamental role in maintaining intestinal homeostasis and influencing various aspects of host physiology [7]. Typically, polyps progress to malignancy following a well-defined path known as the adenoma-carcinoma sequence [8]. Alternatively, 15–30% of CRCs develop through the serrated pathway [9].

Polyps in the premalignant stage from both pathways can be screened and removed during colonoscopy to prevent the formation of CRC. However, if polyps are incompletely removed or go undetected, this can lead to the emergence of interval cancers. The formation of colorectal polyps precedes the development of cancer and is impacted by a range of environmental factors and the host’s genetics [8].

Alterations in the composition and function of the colon microbiota, including, but not limited to, dysbiosis have been implicated in the pathogenesis of CRC, particularly when these changes disrupt immune homeostasis, barrier integrity, or metabolic balance. Mounting evidence suggests that dysbiotic changes in the gut microbiota can contribute to chronic inflammation, aberrant immune responses, and metabolic dysregulation within the colonic microenvironment, thereby promoting tumorigenesis and tumor progression [10]. Understanding the intricate relationship between the colon microbiota and CRC pathogenesis holds immense promise for developing novel preventive and therapeutic strategies for this devastating disease.

Growing evidence suggests that qualitative or quantitative changes in the abundance of specific gut microbiota members could serve as markers for the future development of colorectal neoplasia. Although various studies have explored changes in gut microbiota composition in the context of colorectal adenomas, the results remain inconclusive [1113], highlighting the need for further research. Specifically, published studies differ in the reported direction and magnitude of microbial diversity changes, as well as in the identification of taxa associated with adenoma presence. Moreover, methodological heterogeneity, including differences in sequencing platforms, analytical pipelines, lesion characteristics, and population backgrounds, has contributed to inconsistent and sometimes conflicting findings.

Recent large-scale metagenomic studies have advanced understanding of the gut microbiome’s role in the early stages of colorectal carcinogenesis. Lee et al. [14] analyzed stool metagenomes from 971 colonoscopy-screened participants, identifying distinct microbial and functional profiles associated with tubular and sessile serrated adenomas. Tubular adenomas were characterized by reduced microbial methanogenesis and mevalonate metabolism, while serrated adenomas showed increased NAD/NADPH, bile acid, and sulfur metabolism. Many of these microbial and functional shifts were linked to environmental exposures, including diet and common medications such as aspirin. These findings underscore the importance of integrating metagenomic, functional, and environmental data when studying early neoplastic changes in the colon.

Investigations across diverse populations offer additional insights. Recent cohort work from Thailand further underscores this point. Using full- length 16S rRNA sequencing with PICRUSt2, Intarajak et al. [15] profiled stool from patients with hyperplastic polyps and tubular adenomas, reporting lesion-specific microbial and predicted functional signature – hyperplastic polyps enriched for sulfur-oxidation pathways (linked to sulfate-reducing bacteria) and tubular adenomas enriched for mevalonate metabolism, alongside reduced co-occurrence among SCFA producers. These data highlight that early, premalignant lesions can be accompanied by distinct community configurations and metabolic capacities across populations, motivating shotgun metagenomic studies to measure functions directly.

Our study aimed to evaluate the complex interplay between changes in the composition of the gut microbiota and the development of colorectal adenomas, known as precursors of CRC. The primary hypothesis was that the gut microbiota composition differs between individuals with and without colorectal adenomas. We described observed differences in gut microbiota composition and functions between individuals with and without colorectal adenomas.

Materials and methods

This was a single-centre case-control study conducted by a single expert with an adenoma detection rate (ADR) of 36% in the screening population. The study was conducted from April 1, 2021, to April 22, 2022, at the outpatient endoscopy unit of Health Center 4 in Riga, Latvia, as well as the Academic Histology Laboratory and the Latvian Biomedical Research and Study Center.

Ethics and informed consent statement

All study procedures were approved by the Central Medical Ethics Committee of Latvia (Permit No. 01–29.1.2/1751) and were conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. All participants were adults aged 18 years or older; no minors were enrolled.

Written informed consent was obtained from every participant prior to any study-related procedures. Participants received verbal and written information about the study goals, procedures, risks, data handling, and confidentiality. No waivers of consent were requested or granted.

This was a prospective study involving newly collected stool samples and clinical data; no retrospective data review and no use of anonymized archived samples were performed.

Participants and study design

In total, 146 patients were recruited for the study; however, ten patients were excluded due to poor bowel preparation, ulcerative colitis, or colorectal cancer. Overall, 136 patients over the age of 18, undergoing colonoscopy for various reasons, who provided informed consent and met the inclusion criteria, were included in the study.

The exclusion criteria were:

  • A history of colonoscopy procedures;

  • Inflammatory bowel diseases;

  • Hereditary polyposis syndrome;

  • Established CRC;

  • A history of significant intestinal surgeries (intestinal resection, bariatric surgery, etc.), except for appendectomy;

  • Any contraindications for polypectomy;

  • Incorrect and poor bowel preparation according to Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) of 0–1 in any of the three bowel segments;

  • Patients with standard contraindications to colonoscopy (including acute diverticulitis/suspected perforation);

  • Incomplete colonoscopy procedure (technical difficulties);

  • Women who are pregnant or breastfeeding;

  • Any acute illness up to the time of inclusion;

  • Oncologic diseases diagnosed within the past 3 years or with specific treatment completed less than 3 years ago.

  • Chronic kidney disease, autoimmune diseases, HIV, viral hepatitis B or C infections;

  • Chronic alcohol consumption;

  • Use of antibacterial, probiotic, and immunosuppressive drugs, as well as glucocorticosteroids and proton pump inhibitors in the last two months;

  • Diarrhea in the last two weeks.

To minimize the impact of major dietary and medication-related confounders on gut microbiome composition, patients who had used antibiotics or probiotic supplements within one month prior to inclusion were excluded from the study. In addition, none of the included participants reported adherence to a vegan or vegetarian diet at the time of enrolment. Although detailed dietary intake data were not systematically collected, these criteria were applied to reduce extreme dietary patterns known to influence gut microbial composition substantially.

Sample collection

Patients were recruited during the consultation, and a colonoscopy examination was scheduled, based on the indicated medical needs. During this consultation, after giving informed consent, patients were given a fecal collection kit. Participants were instructed to collect a stool sample on the day before bowel preparation using a sterile tube provided at the consent visit after giving informed consent. After defecation, samples were kept at room temperature for no longer than 15 minutes and then placed in the participant’s home freezer (- 20 °C). At the time of colonoscopy procedure (typically 24 h after sample collection), participants transported the frozen tube to the endoscopy unit. On arrival, samples were immediately placed into a medical −20 °C freezer. Within 48 h of collection, all specimens were transferred to long- term storage at −80 °C in Latvian Genome Centre where they remained until aliquoting for DNA extraction. Only samples collected prior to any bowel preparation and meeting all requirements (room temperature ≤15 min; home freezing initiated ≤15 min post- defecation) were included. During aliquoting, tubes were handled on dry ice, and a single freeze- thaw occurred only at the point of DNA extraction. These procedures are consistent with established recommendations indicating that short- term −20 °C stabilization followed by −80 °C storage preserves overall community profiles for shotgun metagenomics. Although all samples were frozen within 15 minutes of defecation and subsequently stored at −80 °C, some oxygen- sensitive taxa might have been affected during early handling. However, such short- term storage is consistent with prior validated protocols [16].

Colonoscopy procedure

The examination methodology complied with recognized standards and requirements and was described in detail in the author’s previously published work [17]. Colonoscopy examinations were performed with the Olympus EVIS EXERA III (CF-HQ190L/l) video colonoscope. All examinations were performed by a single endoscopist who had 9 years of experience and performs over 1300 colonoscopies annually. In addition, colonoscopy procedures were performed under the supervision of an anesthesiologist, using short-term intravenous sedation based on propofol. The dosage of medication was determined by the anesthesiologist.

Bowel cleanliness was assessed by an endoscopist using the BBPS (Boston Bowel Preparation Scale). Four subjects were excluded from the study due to inadequate bowel preparation, as indicated by a score of 0–1 in any of the three bowel sections. The time of evacuation of the instrument from the cecum for each performed colonoscopy was not less than 7 minutes and was monitored by the endoscopy assistant.

Any detected polyps were described in the colonoscopy report according to the Paris [18] and NICE [19] classifications; the location and size of each polyp in the colon were also specified.

Morphological analysis was performed for all detected or removed polyps. When a polyp was identified, at least two biopsy samples were taken prior to polypectomy. Polyps were resected using either the cold loop or diathermocoagulation technique (hot loop), depending on size. In cases of non-resectable lesions, multiple biopsies were taken, and patients were referred for surgical treatment.

Morphological diagnosis of lesions found during colonoscopy

All removed polyps and specimens from biopsied lesions were transmitted to the Academic Histology laboratory (Riga, Latvia) for morphological diagnostics. All samples were analyzed by expert pathologists and characterized according to the World Health Organization criteria, depending on morphological characteristics [20]. All lesions were described as serrated polyps and lesions, low-grade dysplasia (LGD), high-grade dysplasia (HGD), superficial submucosal invasive carcinoma (SM-s; < 1000 μm of submucosal invasion) and deep submucosal invasive carcinoma (SM-d; ≥ 1000 μm of submucosal invasion). No traditional serrated adenoma (TAS), sessile serrated lesion with dysplasia (SSL-D), or unclassified serrated adenoma were found morphologically.

Determining microbiome composition by metagenome sequencing

Microbial DNA was extracted from faeces provided by study participants using the FastDNA Spin Kit for Soil (MP Biomedicals). The amount of DNA extracted was assessed using the Qubit dsDNA HS Assay Kit reagent kit. The DNA samples were stored at minus 20°C in the restricted-access facilities of the Latvian Genome Centre.

Metagenome sequencing

Libraries for metagenomic shotgun sequencing were prepared using MGIEasy Universal DNA Library Prep Kit (MGI Tech Co., Ltd.). The input of DNA was 300 ng. Preparation steps briefly: DNA shearing into 420 bp fragments by S220 focused-ultrasonicator (Covaris) followed by size selection using magnetic beads; end repair and A-tailing; adapter ligation followed by magnetic beads cleanup of adapter-ligated DNA; PCR amplification and cleanup of the product; quality control; denaturation; single strand circularization; enzymatic digestion; cleanup of enzymatic digestion product; quality control. The quality and quantity of the resulting libraries was determined with an Agilent Bioanalyzer 2100 and a Qubit® 2.0 fluorometer. Metagenome sequencing was performed using the DNBSEQ-G400RS sequencing platform with the reagent set DNBSEQ-G400RS High-throughput Sequencing Set (FCL PE150) (MGITechCo., Ltd.) according to manufacturer’s instructions, obtaining 20 million reads per sample.

Data analysis

Read quality evaluation was performed with FastQC. Adapter cutting and read trimming was performed with fastp (0.20.0) by using default trimming parameters. Paired reads with a length of 100 bp or longer were retained for further data processing. Reads originating from the host were removed with bowtie2 (v2.3.5.1) using GRCh38 as a reference. Taxonomic classification was performed with Kraken 2.1.2 and Bracken 2.7 against UHGG database (version 2) using Kraken’s confidence threshold value of 0.1. HUMAnN 3.8 [21] was used to perform functional profiling.

Statistical analysis

Statistical analyses were performed using R Studio 4.4.1 [22]. Depth normalization for alpha diversity calculation was performed by constructing a multinomial distribution from metagenomic read count table and drawing n samples from each distribution where n = 101889 is the minimum number of brackens classified reads for sample with the lowest coverage. For each sample alpha diversity indices (Shannon, Simpson, inverse Simpson and Pielou’s evenness) were calculated and this process was repeated 10000 times in total. The mean values of the diversity indices across iterations were then used as the representative alpha diversity metrics for each sample. Aitchison’s distance was used to evaluate the beta diversity. Transformed taxonomic data obtained by centered log ratio transformation with scikit-bio 0.5.5 were used for the construction of principal component analysis biplot with scikit-learn 0.22.

Differential abundance was tested with limma 3.60.2. Samples with less than 100000 assigned metagenomic reads were removed. Metagenomic features with at least 100 reads present in at least 10% of samples were retained. The P-value of < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. In addition, differential abundance and functional data were analyzed using the R packageMaAsLin2 [23], with adenoma status, sex, BMI, smoking status, and the presence of gastrointestinal diseases as fixed effects, and run ID as a random effect. A default Q-value (FDR) of < 0.25 was considered statistically significant.

This was an exploratory cross-sectional case– control study; therefore, no a priori sample size calculation was performed. The sample size (n = 136) was determined based on recruitment feasibility and consistency with similar metagenomic studies investigating microbiota- adenoma associations [14,24].

Results

Of the 136 enrolled participants, 123 samples passed quality control and were included in taxonomic analyses, while 135 samples were retained for functional pathway profiling.

Demographic data

A total of 146 individuals were recruited for this study, including 85 polyp-free individuals, and 61 with colorectal adenomas. During the study, 10 patients were excluded (3 patients with ulcerative colitis, 3 with colorectal cancer, and 4 with poor bowel preparation). All 136 patients were divided into two groups based on the presence (42%, n = 56) or the absence (58%, n = 80) of colorectal adenomas. Patient characteristics are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1. Demographic characteristics of adenoma and control group patients.

Variable All (n = 136) Adenoma group (n = 56) Control group (n = 80) p-value
Age (mean ± SD) 53.03 ± 5.4 45.61 ± 3.0 <0.001
Gender, N (%) – Male 53 27 26 0.027
Gender, N (%) – Female 83 29 54 0.027
BMI (mean ± SD) 27.5 ± 4.2 25.7 ± 5.2 0.039
Place of residence- Capital city 52 32 20 0.053
Place of residence- Outside capital 84 24 60 0.053
Education- bachelor’s or equivalent 84 47 37 <0.001
Educstion – Lower levels 52 9 43 <0.001
Lifestyle- Physically active 55 41 14 <0.001
Lifestyle- Physically inactive 81 15 66 <0.001
Smoking- Smoker 8 5 3 0.28
Smoking- Non-smoker 128 51 77 0.28

In total, 77 adenomas were found in 56 patients. From 56 patients 8 had high-risk adenomas (14%) and 48 had low-risk adenomas (86%), p < 0.001.

Out of the adenoma-positive patients, 49% were male (27 patients) and 51% were female (29 patients), with a p-value of 0.05. The male/female ratio of the adenoma and control groups was 27/29 and 26/54, respectively. A total of 51.8% of female patients and 48.2% of male patients had at least one colorectal adenoma. The mean age of adenoma-positive patients was 55.3 ± 13.5, while the mean age of adenoma-negative patients was 45.6 ± 13 (p < 0.001).

Among male patients, 15.4% of all detected colorectal adenomas were high-grade dysplasia (HGD), compared to 11.1% in female patients (p = 0.704). Overall, 41 patients (73.2%) had single tubular adenomas and 15 (26.8%) patients had multiple tubular adenomas (p < 0.001).

The BMI of the adenoma group was 27.51 ± 4.18, while that of the control group was 25.73 ± 5.22 (p = 0.039). Statistically significant differences were found between patients with and without adenomas in age, gender distribution, educational level, place of residence, and physical activity habits (all p < 0.05). Patients in the adenoma group were older, more likely to live in the capital, more likely to have higher education, and significantly more likely to be physically active compared to the control group.

Microbiome composition

The median number of paired-end reads obtained was 22830377 (IQR 10336229). After quality control and exclusion of host reads, 123 samples from 136 were retained for analysis (50 from adenoma positive and 73 from adenoma-negative patients), with a median of 22658664 reads per sample (IQR-interquartile range: 10326052). The median percentage of classified reads was 88.76% (IQR 2.71%).

The relative abundance of the detected genera in patients with colorectal adenomas (AD) and patients without adenomas (CO) is shown in Fig 1. The most common genera in both groups were Faecalibacterium, Bacteroides, Blautia_A, Alistipes, Prevotella and Roseburia. In addition, the archaeal representative Methanomassiliicoccus_A was found to be present among the 20 most common genera.

Fig 1. Genus-level taxonomic composition of fecal microbiota.

Fig 1

Genus-level relative abundance of fecal microbiota in patients with colorectal adenomas (AD) and adenoma-free controls (CO), assessed by shotgun metagenomic sequencing. Bar plots display the relative abundance of the 20 most prevalent bacterial genera across study groups. Both groups were dominated by Faecalibacterium, Bacteroides, Blautia_A, Alistipes, Prevotella, and Roseburia. Differences shown are descriptive; no genus-level taxa reached statistical significance after false discovery rate (FDR) correction in multivariable differential abundance analyses.

Diversity analysis

Alpha diversity.

Four commonly used diversity metrics were calculated: Shannon index, Simpson index, inverse Simpson index, and Pielou’s evenness. Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation (SD). Overall, alpha diversity showed slightly higher diversity in the control group compared to the adenoma group, but none of these differences reached statistical significance.

  • Shannon index: The mean- 4,6 ± 0,42 in the CO group and 4,53 ± 0,43 in the AD group.

  • Inverse Simpson index: The mean- 41,47 ± 16,28 in CO and 37,68 ± 17,37 in AD.

  • Pielou’s evenness: The mean- 0,65 ± 0,05 in CO and 0,64 ± 0,05 in AD.

  • Simpson index: The mean-0,97 ± 0.02 in CO and 0,97 ± 0,02 in AD.

These results indicate a trend to higher microbial diversity in patients without colorectal adenomas; however, the observed differences were not statistically significant.

Beta diversity.

Beta diversity analysis at the species level using PCA (Principal Component Analysis) showed statistically significant differences between AD and CO (p = 0.0002). The principal components PC1 and PC2 together explained 18.37% of the variance, indicating differences in the structure of the microbial community (Fig 2). The AD group had greater microbiota heterogeneity and a stronger association with the genera Prevotella, Bacteroides, Collinsella and Holdemanella, while the CO group was enriched with Faecalibacterium, Anaerostipes and other beneficial taxa. CO samples clustered more tightly, indicating a more stable microbiome.

Fig 2. Beta diversity analysis of gut microbiota.

Fig 2

Principal component analysis (PCA) of gut microbiota beta diversity at the species level in adenoma-positive (AD, n  =  50) and adenoma-negative control (CO, n  =  73) groups, based on Aitchison distance after centered log-ratio (CLR) transformation. Each point represents an individual sample. The first two principal components (PC1 and PC2) together explain 18.37% of the total variance. Overall microbial community structure differed significantly between groups (p  =  0.0002), with greater inter-individual variability observed in the adenoma group.

Differential abundance analysis

MaAsLin2 models were adjusted for adenoma status, age, sex, BMI, smoking status, gastrointestinal comorbidities, and run ID. Differential abundance analysis using MaAsLin2 with FDR correction (<0.25) identified one statistically significant altered taxon- UBA7597 sp003448195.

This microorganism showed a significantly higher relative abundance in the AD group compared to the CO group (LogFC = 3.44; FDR = 0.002). A positive LogFC value corresponds to an increase in the AD group. Although the mean relative abundance was low, the result reached statistical significance (p = 1.03 × 10 ⁻ ⁶), and the Bayes factor (B = 4.68) supported the robustness of this finding.

The only species-level feature passing FDR correction was UBA7597 sp003448195, a UHGG v2 placeholder metagenome- assembled genome (MAG) taxonomically classified within Firmicutes_A> Clostridia_A> Oscillospirales> Oscillospiraceae [25,26]. Because this genome lacks a cultured representative and a curated phenotype, it should be considered taxonomically uncharacterized.

In HUMAnN species-stratified pathway tables, UBA7597 sp003448195 contributed negligibly to each of the six pathways that differed between groups, indicating that the observed functional differences reflect community-level metabolic alterations rather than being attributable to this taxon alone.

No other taxa were found to have significant differences between groups after FDR correction. Results were obtained by analyzing 123 metagenomic samples using the linear model approach (limma) and MaAsLin2 (Fig 3).

Fig 3. Differential abundance of UBA7597 sp003448195 in adenoma and control groups.

Fig 3

Differential abundance of UBA7597 sp003448195 between adenoma-positive (AD, n  =  50) and control (CO, n  =  73) groups identified using MaAsLin2 multivariable modeling. Models were adjusted for adenoma status, age, sex, BMI, smoking status, gastrointestinal comorbidities, and sequencing run ID. The species showed significantly higher relative abundance in the adenoma group (LogFC  =  3.44; p  =  1.03  ×  10⁻⁶; FDR  =  0.002). Boxes represent interquartile ranges, horizontal lines indicate medians, and whiskers denote data range.

Functional analysis

To investigate the potential differences in microbial functions depending on colorectal adenoma presence status, we evaluated the functional profile of the gut microbiome. Multivariable association analysis considering various fixed effects, revealed significant differences in six functions depending on colorectal adenoma presence using the MaAsLin2 model with an FDR < 0.25. The results of the analysis have been summarized in Fig 4. Of the 136 participants enrolled in the study, 135 samples were retained for functional pathway analysis after quality control.

Fig 4. Differentially abundant microbial functional pathways.

Fig 4

Differentially abundant microbial metabolic pathways between adenoma-positive (AD) and adenoma-negative control (CO) groups identified using HUMAnN functional profiling and MaAsLin2 multivariable analysis. Pathways shown met the significance threshold of FDR  <  0.25. All displayed pathways were more abundant in control samples and included menaquinone (vitamin K₂) biosynthesis pathways (PWY-7371, PWY-7992), Stickland amino acid fermentation pathways (PROPFERM-PWY, PWY-8188, PWY-8189), and pyruvate fermentation to propionate (PWY-5494). Results reflect community-level functional differences rather than contributions of individual taxa.

All pathways showed a higher relative abundance in the CO group. Two of them- PWY-7371 and PWY-7992 were associated with menaquinone (vitamin K2) biosynthesis (coefficients 1.57 and 1.52; FDR = 0.14). Three pathways – PROPFERM-PWY, PWY-8188 and PWY-8189 – corresponded to Stickland fermentation pathways with oxidative and reductive reactions of amino acids (each with a coefficient of 1.04; FDR = 0.18). In addition to PWY-5494 (pyruvate fermentation to propanoate II), the pathway that contributes to the production of SCFA (propionate) was also dysregulated in the AD group (coefficient 1.01; FDR = 0.23). All identified pathways were more widely distributed and had higher mean values in the CO group, while their reduced abundance and narrower distribution were observed in the AD group. Results were obtained by analyzing 135 metagenomic samples, and each of the pathways demonstrated differences between groups.

Discussion

CRC is a major global health burden. Gut microbiota alterations (dysbiosis) have been linked to colorectal adenomas – the precursors of CRC [27].

Yet, despite prior work [1113], evidence on microbiome differences between individuals with and without adenomas remains inconclusive, warranting further study.

We analyzed gut microbiota composition in 136 patients (123 after QC) undergoing colonoscopy, grouped into AD (adenoma) and CO (control) groups. Only one microbial taxon differed significantly between groups. Most detected adenomas were low-risk tubular adenomas <10 mm without high-grade dysplasia or villous structure – a category rarely investigated in previous studies [28].

Colorectal adenoma incidence in our study appeared influenced by host and environmental factors affecting gut microbiota. Advanced age is linked to microbiota shifts toward a pro-inflammatory and less functionally diverse profile, potentially increasing neoplastic risk [2932]. Sex-related hormonal and immune differences may influence gut microbiota and colorectal neoplasia risk [33,34]. Lifestyle factors such as urban living, higher education, and smoking can alter microbial balance through lower fiber intake, processed food consumption, and reduced SCFA-producing bacteria [3538].

Previous studies on gut microbiota diversity in colorectal cancer have shown inconsistent results- some report reduced diversity, others no significant differences. Our findings align with those suggesting that alpha diversity alone is not a reliable marker of adenoma presence [39,40].

While alpha diversity did not differ significantly between groups, beta diversity analysis demonstrated differences in overall microbial community structure, indicating altered microbiome composition in adenoma-positive patients. PCA patterns were descriptive and should not be over-interpreted. Similar findings were reported by Deng et al. [24], who as well observed increased inter-individual variability despite unchanged overall diversity [4].

In this study, beta diversity did not differ significantly between AD and CO. Descriptively, AD showed greater inter-individual variability on the PCA biplot. The genus- level composition was dominated by Faecalibacterium, Bacteroides, Blautia_A, Alistipes, and Prevotella, while differential abundance analysis identified only one statistically significant species-level feature- UBA7597 sp003448195 (LogFC = 3.44; FDR = 0.002). Members of the Oscillospiraceae family are obligate anaerobes involved in energy recovery from dietary fiber fermentation and are often associated with butyrate and propionate production, which contribute to epithelial homeostasis and immune regulation [26].

Functional profiling revealed reduced microbial pathways for menaquinone (vitamin K₂) biosynthesis, Stickland fermentation, and short-chain fatty acid (propionate) production in the AD group, suggesting community-wide metabolic alterations linked to early dysbiosis.

Genera such as Prevotella, Collinsella, and Holdemanella appeared more frequently in the AD group, though differences were not statistically significant. Prevotella has been linked to mucosal inflammation and low-fiber diets [41], while Faecalibacterium, Anaerostipes, and Bacteroides produce butyrate, supporting mucosal integrity and anti-inflammatory balance [4244]. These trends align with previous studies suggesting that shifts between pro- and anti-inflammatory taxa may accompany, rather than cause, early adenoma- related changes [4548].

Collinsella is also known to affect intestinal permeability and bile acid metabolism and has been associated with metabolic disorders and low-grade inflammation [47,49].

Differential abundance analysis identified one significant taxon - UBA7597 sp003448195- enriched in adenoma patients. According to the UHGG v2 database, it belongs to Firmicutes_A > Clostridia_A > Oscillospirales > Oscillospiraceae and represents an uncultured metagenome-assembled genome [25]. While its phenotype remains uncharacterized, genomic evidence from related Oscillospiraceae members suggests involvement in anaerobic carbohydrate fermentation and short-chain fatty acid production- processes essential for colonic energy balance and mucosal homeostasis.

The higher abundance of UBA7597 sp003448195 in the AD group should be viewed as an association rather than causation. This uncharacterized Oscillospiraceae genome contributed minimally to altered pathways in HUMAnN, suggesting community- level rather than taxon-specific effects. Despite strong statistical significance (LogFC = 3.44; FDR = 0.002; p = 1.03 × 10 ⁻ ⁶; B = 4.68), it should be considered a potential biomarker of microbiome alteration, not a driver of pathology. Similar findings were reported by Deng et al. [24], who observed higher abundance of Esherichia, Shigella and Clostridium species in polyp patients, indicating microbial shifts may mark early dysbiosis in adenoma formation.

To complement taxonomic findings, we analyzed functional pathway differences between groups. Six pathways (all FDR < 0.25) showed higher activity in controls, including two for menaquinone biosynthesis (PWY-7371, PWY-7992), three for Stickland fermentation (PWY-8188, PWY-8189, PROPFERM-PWY), and one for SCFA production (PWY-5494).

Literature identifies model contributors to these pathways, including Escherichia coli [49,50], Bacteroides fragilis [51], Clostridium spp., Klebsiella aerogenes, Bacillus subtilis, and certain Lactobacillus species [33,52], which are known to support redox balance and gut metabolic function.

Reduced menaquinone biosynthetic activity in adenoma patients likely reflects altered microbial metabolic potential rather than causation. While vitamin K₂ modulates epithelial proliferation and oxidative balance [51,5355], our results show only an association between decreased pathway abundance and adenoma presence. Gut microorganisms such as Lactococcus, Bacteroides, and Eubacterium, key menaquinone producers, are influenced by diet and inflammation [56]. Beyond microbial metabolism, vitamin K₂ also serves as an essential cofactor in host cellular processes, including γ-carboxylation of proteins involved in cell growth regulation, apoptosis, and immune modulation. Experimental studies have shown that menaquinone can suppress colorectal cancer cell proliferation and promote apoptosis through modulation of mitochondrial electron transport and NF-κB/MAPK signaling pathways [57,58]. Therefore, reduced microbial menaquinone biosynthetic capacity may be consistent with altered epithelial redox balance and mucosal immune homeostasis; however, host-level measurements are needed.

Previous findings [24,56,59] similarly reported early microbiome functional changes in tubular adenomas, suggesting such shifts may act as biomarkers of early mucosal dysbiosis.

Adenoma patients showed reduced abundance of Stickland fermentation pathways- key for anaerobic amino acid metabolism and nitrogen cycling [60] – and decreased activity of PWY-5494 (pyruvate fermentation to propionate II), involved in SCFA synthesis. Since SCFAs like propionate and butyrate support epithelial integrity and immune balance [61,62], these reductions suggest loss of beneficial microbial functions. Overall, adenoma presence was linked to lower activity in menaquinone, Stickland, and SCFA pathways, reflecting altered metabolic homeostasis; however, these should be interpreted as associations, not causal mechanisms.

Reduced menaquinone biosynthetic activity may indicate fewer bacteria capable of vitamin K₂ synthesis, which supports epithelial stability and has anti-proliferative effects on CRC cells. However, this shift likely reflects association rather than causation. Likewise, reduced Stickland fermentation and SCFA biosynthesis – especially propionate production suggests altered amino acid and energy metabolism, with potential impacts on barrier integrity and inflammation regulation, but these patterns should be viewed as microbial imbalances rather than direct tumorigenic drivers.

These associations illustrate the complex ecological and metabolic remodeling of the gut microbiome accompanying colorectal adenomas. Our metagenomic data showing reduced menaquinone, Stickland, and SCFA pathways align with findings from other cohorts suggesting that early neoplasia involves loss of beneficial metabolic capacity

Similarly, Intarajak et al. [15] reported reduced SCFA producers and altered mevalonate and sulfur metabolism in Thai patients with polyps, supporting the view that such shifts reflect early dysbiosis rather than causation. Longitudinal and experimental studies are needed to determine whether these changes precede or follow adenoma formation.

Our findings support that colorectal adenoma development is accompanied by subtle but functionally relevant microbiome shifts, consistent with international studies [14]. Decreased activity of pathways for vitamin K₂, propionate, and amino acid fermentation suggests loss of commensal functions linked to barrier integrity and anti-inflammatory balance. Despite a modest sample size, our Eastern European metagenomic data add geographic diversity to current evidence. Future longitudinal studies integrating dietary data and probiotic or dietary interventions could clarify whether these shifts precede adenoma formation or represent adaptive responses.

Study limitations include a relatively young cohort, modest sample size, and lack of cross-population comparison. Detailed dietary data were unavailable, which may have influenced pathways related to menaquinone and SCFA (propionate) production. Despite adjusting MaAsLin2 models for major covariates (adenoma status, age, sex, BMI, smoking status, gastrointestinal comorbidities, and run ID), residual confounding by demographic and lifestyle factors such as education, residence, and physical activity cannot be fully excluded. Notably, the AD group exhibited higher physical activity and education levels, a finding that appears counterintuitive given their typically protective roles. This pattern likely reflects a selection bias inherent to screening-based recruitment, as individuals with higher education and health awareness are more likely to participate in preventive colonoscopy programs and report healthier lifestyles. Thus, these variables may not indicate causal associations but rather differences in health-conscious behavior and participation patterns

These variables are highly interrelated and may partially underlie the observed microbiota and functional differences, including the abundance of UBA7597 sp003448195 and altered metabolic pathways. Therefore, our findings should be interpreted as associations rather than causative effects. Future studies with larger, more homogeneous populations and harmonized dietary and lifestyle data are essential to disentangle these interdependent influences and confirm the biological relevance of the observed associations. Additionally, the cross sectional design of this study precludes conclusions about causality and does not allow determination of whether microbiota alterations precede or result from adenoma formation. Long-term dietary and lifestyle factors, such as fiber intake and alcohol consumption, were not quantitatively evaluated and could have influenced microbiome composition and function.

Furthermore, functional inferences were not validated at the metabolite level, limiting direct confirmation of the observed pathways’ physiological impact. Future research integrating host indicators such as serum vitamin K₂ levels, inflammatory markers, and targeted fecal metabolomics would enable validation of microbial functional shifts and provide a more complete understanding of the gut microbiome’s role in adenoma risk. Although adenoma characteristics such as size, Paris/NICE classification, en bloc resection status, and biopsy number were recorded, they were not included in statistical analysis due to the limited number of high-risk adenomas (n = 8). This small subgroup did not provide sufficient power for meaningful comparison with low-risk lesions (n = 48). Future studies with larger and histologically diverse adenoma cohorts should examine whether microbial and functional alterations display a gradient corresponding to adenoma size or dysplasia severity.

Conclusions

The identification of microbial taxa and functional pathways linked to adenoma presence highlights the potential for using microbiota-based markers and treatments to prevent and manage colorectal cancer. Future research should focus on establishing connections and clarifying how gut microbiota influences colorectal carcinogenesis.

Acknowledgments

We thank the Genome Database of the Latvian Population for their support in processing the biological samples and related data used in this study.

Data Availability

All metagenome sequencing files are available from the European Nucleotide Archive (accession number PRJEB79034) https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJEB79034.

Funding Statement

This work was funded by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), Measure 1.1.1.1 “Support for applied research” Project No.1.1.1.1/18/A/092 „Role of miRNAs in the host-gut microbiome communication during metformin treatment in the context of metabolic disorders”.

References

  • 1.Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68(6):394–424. doi: 10.3322/caac.21492 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Zhao J, Ji H, Li K, Yu G, Zhou S, Xiao Q, et al. Decoding the genetic and environmental forces in propelling the surge of early-onset colorectal cancer. Chin Med J (Engl). 2025;138(10):1163–74. doi: 10.1097/CM9.0000000000003601 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Lewandowska A, Rudzki G, Lewandowski T, Stryjkowska-Góra A, Rudzki S. Risk factors for the diagnosis of colorectal cancer. Cancer Control. 2022;29:10732748211056692. doi: 10.1177/10732748211056692 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Gagnière J, Raisch J, Veziant J, Barnich N, Bonnet R, Buc E, et al. Gut microbiota imbalance and colorectal cancer. World J Gastroenterol. 2016;22(2):501–18. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v22.i2.501 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Franzosa EA, McIver LJ, Rahnavard G, Thompson LR, Schirmer M, Weingart G, et al. Species-level functional profiling of metagenomes and metatranscriptomes. Nat Methods. 2018;15(11):962–8. doi: 10.1038/s41592-018-0176-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Kang Y, Pan W, Cai Y. Gut microbiota and colorectal cancer: insights into pathogenesis for novel therapeutic strategies. Z Gastroenterol. 2017;55(9):872–80. doi: 10.1055/s-0043-116387 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Koliarakis I, Psaroulaki A, Nikolouzakis TK, Kokkinakis M, Sgantzos M, Goulielmos G, et al. Intestinal microbiota and colorectal cancer: a new aspect of research. J BUON. 2018;23(5):1216–34. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Nguyen LH, Goel A, Chung DC. Pathways of colorectal carcinogenesis. Gastroenterology. 2020;158(2):291–302. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Nakanishi Y, Diaz-Meco MT, Moscat J. Serrated colorectal cancer: the road less travelled? Trends Cancer. 2019;5(11):742–54. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Singh G, Chaudhry Z, Boyadzhyan A, Sasaninia K, Rai V. Dysbiosis and colorectal cancer: conducive factors, biological and molecular role, and therapeutic prospectives. Explor Target Antitumor Ther. 2025;6:1002329. doi: 10.37349/etat.2025.1002329 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Zwezerijnen-Jiwa FH, Sivov H, Paizs P, Zafeiropoulou K, Kinross J. A systematic review of microbiome-derived biomarkers for early colorectal cancer detection. Neoplasia. 2023;36:100868. doi: 10.1016/j.neo.2022.100868 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Wang X, Chen H, Yang M, Huang M, Zhang D, Li M, et al. Influence of gut microbiota and immune markers in different stages of colorectal adenomas. Front Microbiol. 2025;16:1556056. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2025.1556056 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Herlo LF, et al. Gut microbiota signatures in colorectal cancer as a potential diagnostic biomarker in the future: a systematic review. Int J Mol Sci. 2024;25(14). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Lee JWJ, Plichta DR, Asher S, Delsignore M, Jeong T, McGoldrick J, et al. Association of distinct microbial signatures with premalignant colorectal adenomas. Cell Host Microbe. 2023;31(5):827–838.e3. doi: 10.1016/j.chom.2023.04.007 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Intarajak T, Udomchaiprasertkul W, Khoiri AN, Sutheeworapong S, Kusonmano K, Kittichotirat W, et al. Distinct gut microbiomes in Thai patients with colorectal polyps. World J Gastroenterol. 2024;30(27):3336–55. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v30.i27.3336 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Costea PI, Zeller G, Sunagawa S, Pelletier E, Alberti A, Levenez F, et al. Towards standards for human fecal sample processing in metagenomic studies. Nat Biotechnol. 2017;35(11):1069–76. doi: 10.1038/nbt.3960 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Vilkoite I, Tolmanis I, Meri HA, Polaka I, Mezmale L, Anarkulova L, et al. The role of an artificial intelligence method of improving the diagnosis of neoplasms by colonoscopy. Diagnostics (Basel). 2023;13(4):701. doi: 10.3390/diagnostics13040701 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.The Paris endoscopic classification of superficial neoplastic lesions: esophagus, stomach, and colon: November 30 to December 1, 2002. Gastrointest Endosc. 2003;58(6 Suppl):S3–43. doi: 10.1016/s0016-5107(03)02159-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Hewett DG, Kaltenbach T, Sano Y, Tanaka S, Saunders BP, Ponchon T, et al. Validation of a simple classification system for endoscopic diagnosis of small colorectal polyps using narrow-band imaging. Gastroenterology. 2012;143(3):599–607.e1. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2012.05.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Nagtegaal ID, Odze RD, Klimstra D, Paradis V, Rugge M, Schirmacher P, et al. The 2019 WHO classification of tumours of the digestive system. Histopathology. 2020;76(2):182–8. doi: 10.1111/his.13975 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Beghini F, et al. Integrating taxonomic, functional, and strain-level profiling of diverse microbial communities with bioBakery 3. Elife. 2021;10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.RC T. The R Project for Statistical Computing. 2023. [cited 2025]. Available from: https://www.r-project.org/ [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Mallick H, Rahnavard A, McIver LJ, Ma S, Zhang Y, Nguyen LH, et al. Multivariable association discovery in population-scale meta-omics studies. PLoS Comput Biol. 2021;17(11):e1009442. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009442 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Deng D, Zhao L, Song H, Wang H, Cao H, Cui H, et al. Microbiome analysis of gut microbiota in patients with colorectal polyps and healthy individuals. Sci Rep. 2025;15(1):7126. doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-91626-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Pasolli E, et al. Extensive unexplored human microbiome diversity revealed by over 150,000 genomes from metagenomes spanning age, geography, and lifestyle. Cell. 2019;176(3):649–662 e20. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Almeida A, Nayfach S, Boland M, Strozzi F, Beracochea M, Shi ZJ, et al. A unified catalog of 204,938 reference genomes from the human gut microbiome. Nat Biotechnol. 2021;39(1):105–14. doi: 10.1038/s41587-020-0603-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Ahn J, Sinha R, Pei Z, Dominianni C, Wu J, Shi J, et al. Human gut microbiome and risk for colorectal cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2013;105(24):1907–11. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djt300 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Welham Z, Li J, Tse B, Engel A, Molloy MP. Gut mucosal microbiome of patients with low-grade adenomatous bowel polyps. Gastro Hep Adv. 2025;4(8):100687. doi: 10.1016/j.gastha.2025.100687 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Zhang Y-K, Zhang Q, Wang Y-L, Zhang W-Y, Hu H-Q, Wu H-Y, et al. A comparison study of age and colorectal cancer-related gut bacteria. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2021;11:606490. doi: 10.3389/fcimb.2021.606490 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Biagi E, Candela M, Fairweather-Tait S, Franceschi C, Brigidi P. Aging of the human metaorganism: the microbial counterpart. Age (Dordr). 2012;34(1):247–67. doi: 10.1007/s11357-011-9217-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Claesson MJ, Cusack S, O’Sullivan O, Greene-Diniz R, de Weerd H, Flannery E, et al. Composition, variability, and temporal stability of the intestinal microbiota of the elderly. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011;108 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):4586–91. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1000097107 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.O’Toole PW, Jeffery IB. Gut microbiota and aging. Science. 2015;350(6265):1214–5. doi: 10.1126/science.aac8469 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Santos-Marcos JA, et al. Corrigendum to “Influence of gender and menopausal status on gut microbiota”. Maturitas. 2025;199:108641. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Fransen F, et al. The impact of gut microbiota on gender-specific differences in immunity. Front Immunol. 2017;8:754. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Koletic C, Mrad A, Martin A, Devkota S. Diet’s impact on gut microbial assemblage in health and disease. J Clin Invest. 2025;135(11). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Capurso G, Lahner E. The interaction between smoking, alcohol and the gut microbiome. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol. 2017;31(5):579–88. doi: 10.1016/j.bpg.2017.10.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Lee SH, Yun Y, Kim SJ, Lee E-J, Chang Y, Ryu S, et al. Association between cigarette smoking status and composition of gut microbiota: population-based cross-sectional study. J Clin Med. 2018;7(9):282. doi: 10.3390/jcm7090282 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Antinozzi M. Cigarette smoking and human gut microbiota in healthy adults: a systematic review. Biomedicines. 2022;10(2). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.M B. Composition and function of the gut microbiome. In: Haller D, editor. The gut microbiome in health and disease. Springer International Publishing; 2018. [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Tomasova L, Grman M, Ondrias K, Ufnal M. The impact of gut microbiota metabolites on cellular bioenergetics and cardiometabolic health. Nutr Metab (Lond). 2021;18(1):72. doi: 10.1186/s12986-021-00598-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Vacante M, Ciuni R, Basile F, Biondi A. Gut microbiota and colorectal cancer development: a closer look to the adenoma-carcinoma sequence. Biomedicines. 2020;8(11). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Larsen JM. The immune response to Prevotella bacteria in chronic inflammatory disease. Immunology. 2017;151(4):363–74. doi: 10.1111/imm.12760 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Jiang L, Shang M, Yu S, Liu Y, Zhang H, Zhou Y, et al. A high-fiber diet synergizes with Prevotella copri and exacerbates rheumatoid arthritis. Cell Mol Immunol. 2022;19(12):1414–24. doi: 10.1038/s41423-022-00934-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Randeni N, Bordiga M, Xu B. A comprehensive review of the triangular relationship among diet-gut microbiota-inflammation. Int J Mol Sci. 2024;25(17). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Zhang D, Jian Y-P, Zhang Y-N, Li Y, Gu L-T, Sun H-H, et al. Short-chain fatty acids in diseases. Cell Commun Signal. 2023;21(1):212. doi: 10.1186/s12964-023-01219-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Hajjar R, Richard C, Santos MM. The gut barrier as a gatekeeper in colorectal cancer treatment. Oncotarget. 2024;15:562–72. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.28634 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Li W, Chen H, Tang J. Interplay between bile acids and intestinal microbiota: regulatory mechanisms and therapeutic potential for infections. Pathogens. 2024;13(8):702. doi: 10.3390/pathogens13080702 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Thulasinathan B, Suvilesh KN, Maram S, Grossmann E, Ghouri Y, Teixeiro EP, et al. The impact of gut microbial short-chain fatty acids on colorectal cancer development and prevention. Gut Microbes. 2025;17(1):2483780. doi: 10.1080/19490976.2025.2483780 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Di Vincenzo F, Del Gaudio A, Petito V, Lopetuso LR, Scaldaferri F. Gut microbiota, intestinal permeability, and systemic inflammation: a narrative review. Intern Emerg Med. 2024;19(2):275–93. doi: 10.1007/s11739-023-03374-w [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Camelo-Castillo A, Rivera-Caravaca JM, Orenes-Piñero E, Ramírez-Macías I, Roldán V, Lip GYH, et al. Gut microbiota and the quality of oral anticoagulation in vitamin K antagonists users: a review of potential implications. J Clin Med. 2021;10(4):715. doi: 10.3390/jcm10040715 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Bentley R, Meganathan R. Biosynthesis of vitamin K (menaquinone) in bacteria. Microbiol Rev. 1982;46(3):241–80. doi: 10.1128/mr.46.3.241-280.1982 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Seto H, Jinnai Y, Hiratsuka T, Fukawa M, Furihata K, Itoh N, et al. Studies on a new biosynthetic pathway for menaquinone. J Am Chem Soc. 2008;130(17):5614–5. doi: 10.1021/ja710207s [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Morishita T, Tamura N, Makino T, Kudo S. Production of menaquinones by lactic acid bacteria. J Dairy Sci. 1999;82(9):1897–903. doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(99)75424-X [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Collins MD, Jones D. Distribution of isoprenoid quinone structural types in bacteria and their taxonomic implication. Microbiol Rev. 1981;45(2):316–54. doi: 10.1128/mr.45.2.316-354.1981 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Hiratsuka T, Furihata K, Ishikawa J, Yamashita H, Itoh N, Seto H, et al. An alternative menaquinone biosynthetic pathway operating in microorganisms. Science. 2008;321(5896):1670–3. doi: 10.1126/science.1160446 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Smajdor J, Jedlińska K, Porada R, Górska-Ratusznik A, Policht A, Śróttek M, et al. The impact of gut bacteria producing long chain homologs of vitamin K2 on colorectal carcinogenesis. Cancer Cell Int. 2023;23(1):268. doi: 10.1186/s12935-023-03114-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Otsuka I, Akiyama M, Shirakawa O, Okazaki S, Momozawa Y, Kamatani Y, et al. Genome-wide association studies identify polygenic effects for completed suicide in the Japanese population. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2019;44(12):2119–24. doi: 10.1038/s41386-019-0506-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Shearer JJ, et al. Serum concentrations of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances and risk of renal cell carcinoma. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2021;113(5):580–7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Zeller G, Tap J, Voigt AY, Sunagawa S, Kultima JR, Costea PI, et al. Potential of fecal microbiota for early-stage detection of colorectal cancer. Mol Syst Biol. 2014;10(11):766. doi: 10.15252/msb.20145645 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Reichardt N, Duncan SH, Young P, Belenguer A, McWilliam Leitch C, Scott KP, et al. Phylogenetic distribution of three pathways for propionate production within the human gut microbiota. ISME J. 2014;8(6):1323–35. doi: 10.1038/ismej.2014.14 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Duncan SH, Louis P, Flint HJ. Lactate-utilizing bacteria, isolated from human feces, that produce butyrate as a major fermentation product. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2004;70(10):5810–7. doi: 10.1128/AEM.70.10.5810-5817.2004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Hosseini E, Grootaert C, Verstraete W, Van de Wiele T. Propionate as a health-promoting microbial metabolite in the human gut. Nutr Rev. 2011;69(5):245–58. doi: 10.1111/j.1753-4887.2011.00388.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Jad El Masri

20 Jan 2026

Dear Dr. Vilkoite,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 06 2026 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

  • A letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Jad El Masri

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“This work was funded by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), Measure 1.1.1.1 “Support for applied research” Project No.1.1.1.1/18/A/092 “Role of miRNAs in the host-gut microbiome communication during metformin treatment in the context of metabolic disorders”.”

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. Please note that your Data Availability Statement is currently missing the DOI/accession number of each dataset OR a direct link to access each database. If your manuscript is accepted for publication, you will be asked to provide these details on a very short timeline. We therefore suggest that you provide this information now, though we will not hold up the peer review process if you are unable.

4. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

5. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: This paper analysis gut microbiome composition and function to colorectal adenoma using shotgun metagenomics. Cēbere et al. recruited 135 patients among patient receiving standard colonoscopy between April 1, 2021 and April 22, 2022 based on strict inclusion and exclusion criteria. Stool samples were collected before colonoscopy for metagenomic shotgun sequencing and were assessed for alpha diversity (taxa diversity within each sample) and beta diversity (taxa diversity between conditions). No significant Alpha diversity was observed between the samples but a Beta diversity was noted. Prevotella, Bacteroides, Collinsella and Holdemanella were more associated with the adenoma group while Faecalibacterium, Anaerostipes were associated with the control group. However, after adjusting for confounding variables only one statistically significant altered taxon- UBA7597 sp003448195 was identified.

Overall, the study was well conducted. The introduction set up well the research background and describe the research problem with the benefit that this work has. Study design was well appropriate with good inclusion and exclusion criteria. Statistical methods used are well suited to examine intra and inter samples differences and remove confounding variables. This paper should be considered for publication with just minor adjustments. In the abstract the authors have stated twice that beta diversity is significantly different (Line 39 and 42), instead they should avoid redundancy. Another issue I found was with the results when reporting the number of samples used. The authors stated that 136 patients were included and After QC, 123 samples retained for taxonomic analysis. But Later in Functional analysis the author stated again using 136 samples “Of the 136 participants included in the overall taxonomic analysis, one sample was excluded from the functional analysis (n = 135).” Sample numbers are confusing and must be fixed.

Reviewer #2: This manuscript titled “Colorectal adenoma presence is associated with decreased menaquinone pathway functions in the gut microbiome of patients undergoing routine colonoscopy is a prospective, case-control study using shotgun metagenomics sequencing.

Modifications:

-Abstract should clearly state the type of study design (cross-sectional case-control study) as in this case; this would make it easier for the readers to know what to expect.

-Redundancy: it was mentioned twice “Beta diversity analysis showed statistically significant differences” (lines 39-40 and lines 42-43).

-in the introduction: Line 86–90: “Although various studies have explored changes in gut microbiota composition in the context of colorectal adenomas, the results remain inconclusive…” It would be helpful to briefly specify in what way they are inconclusive.

- in the methods section, recommended to add the dietary and medication data; this might affect the results

- results section: There is a discrepancy between results and the way they are reported. In the Abstract, Bacteroides and Prevotella are mentioned to be increased but the in the results after proper adjustment and FDR correction Only UBA7597 sp003448195 is significant

Recommendation: Minor Revision

Reviewer #3: The question addressed by the authors is very important, and the manuscript presents valuable real-world data that contributes to our understanding of the gut microbiome composition in relation to colorectal adenoma. However, some minor edits are prompted:

1. Beta diversity contradiction: in the discussion the author states that there is no statistical beta diversity “While alpha and beta diversity did not differ significantly between groups…” (lines 390–391) however beta diversity was significant in the results: “Beta diversity analysis at the species level … showed statistically significant differences between AD and CO (p = 0.0002).”

2. In this sentence “Changes in gut microbiota appear to be linked to CRC by promoting chronic inflammation, immune dysfunction, and metabolic issues…” “Metabolic issues” is vague; try changing the term or giving a precise alteration.

3. The figures are presented with insufficient legends. Please add clear descriptions.

4. The conclusion in the abstract is very broad and does not tell me anything

5. The background in the abstract is weak and too general

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

PLoS One. 2026 Mar 11;21(3):e0344050. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0344050.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 1


3 Feb 2026

Dear Jad El Masri,

We sincerely thank you for the careful evaluation of our manuscript and for the opportunity to submit a revised version. We appreciate the thoughtful and constructive comments provided by the academic editor and reviewers, which were very helpful in improving the clarity and presentation of our work. Below, we respond to each of the editorial requirements in detail.

1. PLOS ONE style requirements

The manuscript has been revised to comply with PLOS ONE formatting and style guidelines. File naming and manuscript structure now follow the provided PLOS ONE templates.

2. Role of the funder

The following statement has been included in the cover letter and manuscript: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

3. Data Availability Statement (DOI / accession numbers)

We thank the editor for highlighting this requirement. The Data Availability Statement has been updated to include the repository name, accession number, and a direct access link. All metagenomic sequencing data generated in this study are publicly available in the European Nucleotide Archive (ENA) under accession number PRJEB79034 (https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJEB79034).

4. Reviewer-recommended citations

Reviewers did not recommend to add any other citation.

5. Reference list

The reference list has been reviewed for accuracy and completeness. No retracted articles are cited. Any updates to the references have been noted in the responses to the reviewers.

Further, we provide our response to the reviewers.

Response to Reviewer #1

We thank the reviewer for the positive evaluation of our study and for the thoughtful and constructive comments. We are pleased that the reviewer found the study design, statistical approach, and overall presentation appropriate, and we appreciate the helpful suggestions for improving clarity.

Regarding the sample numbers, we agree that the original wording may have caused confusion. The total number of enrolled participants was 136. After quality control, 123 samples were retained for taxonomic profiling, whereas functional pathway analysis was performed on 135 samples, as functional profiling has different quality and coverage requirements. We have revised the relevant sections of the Results to clearly distinguish between the number of enrolled participants and the number of samples included in each analysis, thereby improving clarity and consistency throughout the manuscript.

In addition, we have revised the Abstract to remove the redundant mention of statistically significant beta diversity differences, as suggested by the reviewer.

We thank the reviewer again for these valuable comments, which have helped us to improve the clarity of the manuscript.

Response to Reviewer #2

We thank the reviewer for the careful reading of our manuscript and for the constructive and helpful suggestions. We appreciate the opportunity to clarify and improve several aspects of the study. Our responses to each comment are provided below.

1. Study design in the Abstract

We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. The Abstract has been revised to explicitly state the study design as a cross-sectional case–control study, which we agree will help readers more clearly understand the study framework.

2. Redundancy in reporting beta diversity results

We thank the reviewer for pointing out this redundancy. The Abstract has been revised to remove the repeated statement regarding statistically significant beta diversity differences, improving clarity and conciseness.

3. Clarification of inconclusive findings in previous studies (Introduction, lines 86–90)

We thank the reviewer for this helpful comment. We have revised the Introduction to clarify in what way previous findings are inconclusive. Specifically, we now note that published studies differ in the reported direction and magnitude of microbial diversity changes, as well as in the identification of taxa associated with adenoma presence. In addition, methodological heterogeneity - such as differences in sequencing platforms, analytical pipelines, lesion characteristics, and population backgrounds - has contributed to inconsistent and sometimes conflicting results.

4. Dietary and medication data (Methods section)

We thank the reviewer for raising this important point. To minimize the impact of major dietary- and medication-related confounders on gut microbiome composition, patients who had used antibiotics or probiotic supplements within one month prior to inclusion were excluded from the study. In addition, none of the included participants reported adherence to a vegan or vegetarian diet at the time of enrolment. Although detailed dietary intake data were not systematically collected, these criteria were applied to reduce extreme dietary patterns and medication exposures known to influence gut microbial composition substantially. The Methods section has been revised accordingly to clarify these points.

5. Consistency between Abstract and Results regarding significant taxa

We thank the reviewer for highlighting this issue. The Abstract has been revised to clarify that the reported genus-level differences (e.g., Bacteroides and Prevotella) represent descriptive trends observed prior to multiple-testing correction. We now clearly distinguish these descriptive patterns from the species-level analysis, in which only UBA7597 sp003448195 remained statistically significant after multivariable adjustment and FDR correction. This revision ensures full consistency between the Abstract and the Results section.

We thank the reviewer again for the thoughtful and constructive feedback, which has helped us to improve the clarity of the manuscript.

Response to Reviewer #3

We thank the reviewer for the positive assessment of our manuscript and for recognizing the importance of the research question and the value of the real-world data presented. We also appreciate the constructive suggestions, which have helped us to improve the clarity and precision of the manuscript. Our detailed responses are provided below.

1. Contradiction regarding beta diversity

We thank the reviewer for identifying this inconsistency. The statement in the Discussion section has been corrected. While alpha diversity did not differ significantly between adenoma and control groups, beta diversity analysis demonstrated statistically significant differences in overall microbial community structure, as reported in the Results section (p = 0.0002). The revised Discussion text now accurately reflects these findings and is fully consistent with the Results.

2. Clarification of the term “metabolic issues”

We thank the reviewer for this helpful suggestion. The term “metabolic issues” was indeed too vague and has been revised. We now specify that changes in gut microbiota may contribute to colorectal cancer through altered microbial metabolic functions, in addition to chronic inflammation and immune dysfunction. This revised wording more precisely reflects the mechanisms discussed and aligns with the functional results of our study.

3. Insufficient figure legends

We thank the reviewer for highlighting this issue. All figure legends have been revised and expanded to provide clear, self-contained descriptions. The updated legends now specify the analysis performed, sample groups and sizes, statistical approaches, and key observations for each figure, thereby improving interpretability and readability.

4. Broad conclusion in the Abstract

We thank the reviewer for this comment. The Conclusions section of the Abstract has been revised to provide a more specific and data-driven summary of the main findings, highlighting the observed functional differences in microbial metabolic pathways associated with colorectal adenomas.

5. Weak and overly general background in the Abstract

We appreciate this suggestion. The Background section of the Abstract has been strengthened to better emphasize the clinical relevance of colorectal adenomas as early neoplastic lesions and to clearly outline the existing knowledge gap regarding microbiome functional alterations at the adenoma stage, which this study aims to address.

We thank the reviewer again for the insightful ad constructive feedback, which has significantly improved the clarity, consistency, and overall quality of the manuscript.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

pone.0344050.s002.docx (16.8KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Jad El Masri

16 Feb 2026

Colorectal adenoma presence is associated with decreased menaquinone pathway functions in the gut microbiome of patients undergoing routine colonoscopy

PONE-D-25-58757R1

Dear Dr. Vilkoite,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager®  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support .

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Jad El Masri

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: The authors have implemented all the comments given by the reviewers, and the manuscript has a much better flow.

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

Acceptance letter

Jad El Masri

PONE-D-25-58757R1

PLOS One

Dear Dr. Vilkoite,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS One. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Jad El Masri

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    pone.0344050.s002.docx (16.8KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    All metagenome sequencing files are available from the European Nucleotide Archive (accession number PRJEB79034) https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJEB79034.


    Articles from PLOS One are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES