Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2020 Oct 30;15(10):e0241691. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0241691

Succinivibrionaceae is dominant family in fecal microbiota of Behçet’s Syndrome patients with uveitis

Duygu Tecer 1,#, Feride Gogus 1,#, Ayse Kalkanci 2,*,#, Merve Erdogan 2,#, Murat Hasanreisoglu 3,, Çagri Ergin 4,, Tarkan Karakan 5,, Ramazan Kozan 6,, Seda Coban 7,, Kadir Serdar Diker 8,#
Editor: Noboru Suzuki9
PMCID: PMC7598488  PMID: 33125440

Abstract

Behçet’s Syndrome (BS) is a multisystem vasculitis with various clinical manifestations. Pathogenesis is unclear, but studies have shown genetic factors, innate immunity and autoinflammation to have an important role in the disease course. Diversity in the microbial community of gut microbiota may significantly contribute to the activation of the innate immune system. The clinical features of BS present themselves in clusters and each cluster may be a consequence of different disease mechanisms. For this reason we aimed to investigate the gut microbiota of BS patients with uveitis. In addition to healthy controls, we have aimed to compare the gut microbiota of BS with that of Familial Mediterranean Fever (FMF) and Crohn’s Disease (CD) as both diseases have innate and autoinflammatory features in their pathogenesis. Seven patients with BS, 12 patients with FMF, 9 patients with CD and 16 healthy controls (HC) were included in the study. Total genomic DNAs were isolated from fecal samples of the patients. Partial 16S rRNA gene was sequenced using the PGM Ion Torrent (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA) for microbiota analysis. Statistical analysis showed that significant differences were detected on the microbial community of four groups. Succinivibrionaceae is dominant and the signature family, whereas Bacteroides was absent in BS patients.

Introduction

Behçet’s Syndrome (BS) is a chronic, multisystemic, inflammatory disease of unknown origin. Clinical and immunological characteristics of BS may suggest the possibility of more than one mechanism in the pathogenesis and, some clinical features of BS show distinctive clusters [1]. Furthermore, although carrying HLA-B51 increases the risk of developing BS, it does not seem to have an effect on the prognosis except for ocular involvement [24].

The recurrent, self-limited clinical features resemble the autoinflammatory syndromes, like Familial Mediterranean Fever (FMF) [1]. Although BS cannot be definitely classified as an autoinflammatory disease, it shares some clinical and pathophysiologic features with autoinflammatory diseases like a relapsing-remitting disease course, neutrophil hyperactivity, enhanced inflammatory response with the overexpression of pro-inflammatory cytokines such as IL-1, absence of specific autoantibodies and antigen-specific T cells [57]. FMF, a prototype autoinflammatory disorder was chosen as one positive control. Most of the BS’s disease manifestations can be seen in patients with FMF and both diseases are more prevalent in the Mediterranean basin and the Middle East [1]. Moreover, compared to healthy individuals MEFV gene mutations are common in patients with BS which may have a role in the pathogenesis of BS [8, 9].

The other diseased control group was Crohn’s disease (CD) which is a type of inflammatory bowel disease that may affect any part of the gastrointestinal tract. BS shares many characteristics with CD including genetic background, clinical manifestations, endoscopic and histologic feature and also therapeutic strategies [10]. IL-10 and IL23R variants were observed in both diseases, which suggest that these two diseases may have similar genetic backgrounds and pathogenesis [1113]. Recently genome-wide association studies (GWAS) identified newly susceptibility loci shared between BS and CD, which include FUT2, ADO-EGR2, RIPK2, LACC1, and IRF8 [14]. Innate and adaptive immunity are involved in the pathogenesis of both diseases. Many of the extra-intestinal manifestations of CD, such as uveitis, arthritis, pyoderma gangrenosum, erythema nodosum, oral ulcers, overlap with the manifestations of BS [10].

Previous studies of BS have shown an increase in the innate immune response which may suggest the possibility of an infectious trigger [1518]. Isolation of Prevotella and Staphylococcus from pustular lesions and an increased colonisation of the saliva with Streptococcus mutans further enhance this possibility [19, 20]. The several species of cross-reactive Streptococci antigens, Haemophilus influenzae, herpes simplex virus-1 and various fungal species have been investigated as potential etiological triggers.

The gut microbiota is an active component of the immune system. It plays an important role in the formation of the immune system in early life and in the continuation of immunohomeostasis throughout life. Dysbiosis, the imbalance in the gut microbiota, may lead to many serious metabolic and inflammatory pathologies [21].

The immunopathogenesis of BS involves a possible altered peptide presentation triggered by an altered microbiome by human leucocyte antigen (HLA)-B51 of antigen presenting cells (APCs) [4]. Hence, the microbiota analysis of the BS patients is worthier to investigate. BS can involve the skin, mucosa, joints, eyes, vessel, nervous and gastrointestinal system. The clinical course seems to follow four major clusters: 1) oral and genital ulcers, erythema nodosum 2) superficial and deep vein thrombosis 3) uveitis 4) papulopustuler skin lesions and joint involvement [2]. Due to this heterogeneous spectrum, BS can hardly be considered as a uniform disease, moreover different pathogenic mechanisms may be present in each cluster [22, 23].

The present study aims to investigate the gut microbiota of patients with BS. As uveitis is a clinical cluster on its own and HLA-B51 has an effect on its prognosis, we have selected a subgroup of BS patients with the uveitis involvement only. In addition to the healthy controls, we have aimed to compare the gut microbiota of BS with that of FMF and CD as positive control groups where like BS, the innate immune response has a major role [24].

Materials and methods

Patients

Participants were recruited from Gazi University Faculty of Medicine, Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Division of Rheumatology, Ankara, Turkey between March 2016-March 2017. A total of 44 participants (7 patients with BS with uveitis, 12 patients with FMF, 9 patients with CD and 16 healthy controls (HC) were included in this case-control study. Informed written consent was obtained from each participant, according to the principles of Helsinki Declaration. Approval for the study was obtained from the Committee on Human Research Ethics of Zekai Tahir Burak Women’s Health Education and Research Hospital (dated: 23/02/2016, decision number: 11/2016). The diagnosis of BS was based on the diagnostic criteria of the International Study Group of Behcet’s disease [25]. The Tel-Hashomer criteria were used to make the diagnosis of FMF [26]. The diagnosis of CD was based on the clinical evaluation including a detailed history, physical examination, and combination of endoscopic findings, histology, radiologic findings and laboratory investigations. Exclusion criteria applied to the participants were as follows: recent (<6 months prior to the sample collection) treatment with probiotics and antibiotics; history of concomitant diseases, such as autoimmune disease, infections, malignancies, gout, obesity and diabetes, history of gastrointestinal surgery such as gastrectomy, bariatric surgery or colectomy. A written informed consent was obtained from all participants according to the principles of the Helsinki Declaration. Demographic and clinical characteristics were recorded. Healthy controls; 6 males (39-50y) and 10 females (24-52y) were matched for age and sex. Demographical and clinical characteristics of participants at the time of fecal sample collection were listed in Table 1.

Table 1. Demographical and clinical characteristics of participants at the time of fecal sample collection.

Behçet’s Syndrome (n:7) Crohn’s disease (n:9) Familial Mediterranean Fever (n:12) Healthy Controls (n:16)
Age, years 35.57±6.60 35.00±5.27 32.17 ± 8.64 39.38±7.69
Men/women 5/2 3/6 6/6 6/10
Disease characteristics
Oral aphthosis, n (%) 5 (71.43%) 1 (11.11%) 0 0
Genital ulcers, n (%) 1 (14.29%) 0 0 0
Skin lessions, n (%) 3 (42.86%) 1 (11.11%) 0 0
Uveitis, n (%) 7 (100%) 0 0 0
Gastrointestinal system involvement, n (%) 0 9 (100%) 0 0
Central nervous system involvement, n (%) 1 (14.29%) 0 0 0
Vascular involvement, n (%) 0 0 0 0
Arthritis, % 0 2 (22.22%) 2 (16.67) 0
Pathergy positivity 2 (28.57%) NA NA NA
HLA-51 4 (57.14%) NA NA NA
Medications
Colchicine, n (%) 6 0 12 (100%) 0
Steroid, n (%) 0 0 0 0
5-ASA/sulfasalazine, n (%) 0 0 0 0
Cyclosporine, n (%) 1 0 0 0
Azathioprine, n (%) 4 9 0 0
Methotrexate, n (%) 0 0 0 0
Infliximab, n (%) 0 0 0 0

NA, not applicable

Stool samples and genomic DNA extraction

The fecal samples of patients with BS were obtained during an active uveitis attack. The fresh stool samples were transported to the Gazi University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Medical Microbiology Laboratory immediately for analysis. Stool samples were preserved in -80°C for molecular analysis. Genomic DNA was extracted using the QIAamp® DNA Stool Kit (QIAGEN Inc., CA, USA) from each fecal sample. Minor revision at the elution step was performed by using a 30 μl elution buffer. The extracted DNA was quantified using spectrophotometer at wavelengths of 260 nm and stored at -20°C until PCR amplification.

16S rRNA gene amplification

DNA samples were quantified and equalized using the Qubit 2.0 System. Partial 16S rRNA gene sequences were amplified from extracted DNA using the 16S Metagenomics Kit (Life Technologies, Italy). Hypervariable V2-4-8 regions and V3-6, 7–9 regions were amplified by two primer sets. A total of 1,5–3 ng/μl DNA was subjected in this PCR step. PCR conditions were as follows: 95°C for 10 min, 25 cycles of 95°C per 30s denaturation; 58°C per 30s annealing; and 72°C 20s extention; followed by 72°C per 7 min. Amplicons were checked by electrophoresis. Further steps were followed after the visualization of PCR products on 2% agarose gel.

Next generation sequencing

Partial 16S rRNA gene sequenced using the PGM Ion Torrent (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA). AMPure XP DNA purification beads and Invitrogen DynaMaq magnet apparatus were used for the purification of amplicons. DNA concentration of the PCR product was equalized as 40 ng/μl through the Qubit 2.0 System (Qubit ds DNA HS Assay kit). Finally, the reactions were combined in equimolar concentrations to create a mixture composed by 16S rRNA gene amplified fragments of each sample. This composite sample was used for library preparation. The libraries were created by using the Ion Plus Fragment Library Kit (Life Technologies). Barcodes were also adapted to each sample using the Ion Express Barcode Adapters 1–16 kit (Life Technologies). Agencourt AMPure XP Reagent and DynaMaq was used for the purification of barcoded products. Emulsion PCR was carried out using the Ion OneTouch 2 System with the Ion PGM Template OT2 400 Kit Template (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA). The sequencing was performed using Ion PGM Sequencing 400 on Ion PGM System using Ion 318 Chip v2 with a maximum of 30 samples per microchip. Ion Torrent Personal Genome Machine System and Ion PGM Hi-Q kit were used according to supplier’s instructions. Sequences were analyzed by Ion Reporter Software (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA). Software identified the microorganisms at phylum, class, order, family, genus and species level.

Sequence processing and statistical analysis

Obtained sequences were transferred into Operational Taxonomic Units (OTUs). A similarity of 99% was accepted as the same phylotype. Relative abundance data were individually weighted for each taxon level. Observations with a weighted average relative abundance of less than 0.05% at phylum and rank, 0.05% at family rank, and 0.01% at genus rank were grouped to reducing variance.

Statistical analysis was performed using R (Ver 3.6.0, GPL-3 license). The relative abundances (expressed as parts per unit), calculated with ade4 packet in R, were directly compared in each taxonomic level (for different phylum, genus, species). The vegan package was used for alpha biodiversity. Alpha diversity is defined as the diversity within a community and is mainly measured by Chao 1 diversity indexes. Chao 1 index estimates richness in numbers of taxa frequencies. Within-sample microbial diversity was calculated as the Shannon diversity index based on the resulting profiles. All diversity and taxa graphs are presented by ggplot2 R-package.

Based on relative abundance features, R packages FactoMineR and factoextra were used for dendrogram (Bray-Curtis similarity) and taxa distribution visualizations with groups while ggfortify and ggplot2 were used for Principle Component Analysis (PCA).

To investigate the bacterial constitution in the gastrointestinal microbial communities from each group at each taxonomic level, taxa above the level of species were selected for following analysis based on the Kruskal-Wallis test results (by dplyr R-package). The topmost abundant taxa are presented in the form of heatmap (by pheatmap R-package). Pie graphs were presented by plotly R-package.

Results

Results were analyzed by Curated MicroSEQ (R) 16S Reference Library v2013.1; Curated Greengenes v13.5 database. A total of 732959 raw reads were obtained from sequencing. After quality control steps, 150802 reads were ignored due to low number of copies (<10) and 384094 valid reads were obtained. The mapped reads in the sample was 230716. 16S rRNA community profiling of the samples yielded high sequencing depth, an average of 4,031 sequences/sample. Good’s coverage was between 88% and 100% sequencing coverage at 99% similarity cutoff, indicating that the numbers of sequences were sufficient for the communities measured in all libraries. Nucleotide sequences of 1797 taxa were deposited in NCBI GenBank with accession numbers MT573971 to MT575767 (file SUB7562864).

Gut microbiota (GM) structure from 7 BS patients, 9 CD patients, 12 FMF patients and 16 HCs were characterized by the mean of sequencing of 16S rRNA gene. Groups were of similar age (p = 0.098). We first compared microbial diversity among the four study groups. Alpha diversity estimated statistically significant biodiversity differences between groups in terms of phylum, class, order, family and genus diversity (p<0.001). PCA analysis confirmed and showed that there were significant differences between the four groups as shown in Fig 1. Alpha diversity as defined by Chao 1 and Shannon diversity indexes are shown in Fig 2.

Fig 1. The PCoA model was established, corresponding to the four groups (Healthy Controls, “HC” blue; Behçet’s Syndrome, “BS” orange; Crohn’s Disease, “CD” red and Familial Mediterranean Fever, “FMF” green) and hierarchical cluster analysis by Bray-Curtis dissimilarity distance.

Fig 1

Fig 2. Chao-1 richness and Shannon diversity indexes comparisons of Behçet’s syndrome and other groups.

Fig 2

Fecal bacterial flora of BS consisted of Firmicutes (45%), Proteobacteria (23%) such as Enterobacteriaceae and Prevotellaceae. Fecal microbiota contained predominantly Bacteroidetes (53.2%) including Bacteroides and Prevotella generas in HC. Firmicutes such as Bacillia, Clostridia, followed consisting 31.2% of the bacterial community. FMF cases were found to be predominantly colonized by Firmicutes (39.3%), Bacteroidetes (32.2%) and Proteobacteria (13.6%). CD cases were colonized by Enterobacteriacea (43%), and other Proteobacteria groups, followed by Bacteroidetes (15.4%) and Firmicutes (8.8%).

Dominant classes were Clostridia, Gammaproteobacteria, Gammaproteobacteria, Negativicutes while dominant orders were Clostridiales, Bacteroidales, Selenomonadales, Aeromonadales in BS group.

The top five families in BS group were; Succinivibrionaceae, Veillonellaceae, Prevotellaceae, Lachnospiraeae and Ruminococcaceae while families in HC were; Bacteroidaceae, Prevotellaceae, Ruminococcaceae, Lachnospiraceae, and Porphyromonadaceae (Fig 3). Bacteroidaceae was at minor levels in CD and FMF groups while there was none in BS. Enterobacteriaceae seem to replace the flora in CD patients, followed by Veionellaceae. The top five families for each group were heat mapped in Fig 4. Other families were at minimum levels such as; Bacteroidaceae, Prevotellaceae and Lachnospiraceae. FMF patient’s microbiota consisted of Prevotellaceae in dominancy, followed by Ruminococcaceae, Lachnospiraceae and Enterobacteriaceae, Veionellaceae.

Fig 3. The most abundant taxa at the family level, Veillonellaceae (light orange) and Succinivibrionaceae (light gray) were more abundant in the fecal microbiota of the Behçet’s Syndrome group compared with that of the healthy control group, while Bacteroidaceae was consistently less abundant (p<0.001).

Fig 3

Compared with the healthy group, the FMF and Crohn’s group had a significantly higher abundance of Enterobacteriaceae (p<0.001). Crohn’s group significantly reduced abundance of Ruminococcaceae compared with the healthy group (p<0.001).

Fig 4.

Fig 4

The comparison (* = p<0.001) of nine of the most abundant [(a) higher to (i) lower] taxa for presenting a relationship with healthy controls. Only (g) Succinivibrionaceae abundance in Behçet’s Sydrome patients’ gut microbiota is the higher than other groups. Also, (f) Veillonellaceae family in Behçet’s Syndrome patients’ gut microbiota is higher than other groups, it is lower compared to (g) Succinivibrionaceae. The FMF and Crohn’s patients had a significantly higher abundance of (c) Enterobacteriaceae than other groups. Crohn’s group significantly reduced abundances of (a) Prevotellaceae and (d) Ruminococcaceae families compared with the healthy group. (b) Bacterioidaceae family is higher in the healthy group than others. (e) Lachnospiraceae, (h) Porphyromonadaceae and (i) Clostridiaceae families have no statistically different among groups.

We considered that predominant families were Veillonellaceae, Succinivibrionaceae in BS group while Bacteroidaceae was nearly absent in BS cases. Contrary to which, Bacteroidaceae was dominant in the healthy group while Veillonellaceae, Succinivibrionaceae were in limited numbers. Fig 5 shows the heatmap of samples while Fig 6 shows predominant families appeared to be significant for BS.

Fig 5. Heatmap of samples (the most abundant taxa with their relative abundance) based on information at the genus level.

Fig 5

Columns present the grouped cases (with hierarchical cluster tree according to Bray-Curtis distance), and rows represent the taxa. The values (color key) in the heatmap represent the relative abundance.

Fig 6. Predominant families appeared to be significant for BS.

Fig 6

At the genus level most abundant genera in BS group were; Succinivibrio, Prevotella, Mitsuokella, Anaerostipes, Catonella, Fusicatenibacter, Lachnoanaerobaculum, Marvinbryantia, Moryella, Robinsoniella, Tyzzerella and Faecalibacterium. The top five genera in HC group were; Bacteroides, Prevotella, Faecalibacterium, Parabacteroides, Phascolarctobacterium. Top five genera in CD group were; Dialister, Bacteroides, Prevotella, Barnesiella and Faecalibacterium. The top five genera in FMF group were; Prevotella, Faecalibacterium, Bacteroides, Roseburia, Catenibacterium. Prevotella and Faecalibacterium genera considered as common genera since they were found in all study groups presenting different colonisation levels. Succinivibrio and Mitsuokella were evaluated as “BS specific genera” because, they were isolated predominantly in BS group while they were not isolated from other study groups.

The top 5 species in all groups were as follows; Prevotella copri, Faecalibacterium prausnitzii, Succinivibrio dextrinosolvens, Mitsuokella jalaludinii, Dialister invisus in BS group, Bacteroides eggerthii, Bacteroides vulgatus, Prevotella copri, Faecalibacterium prausnitzii, Phascolarctobacterium faecium in HC group, Bacteroides vulgatus, Prevotella copri, Prevotella stercorea, Faecalibacterium prausnitzii, Gemmiger formicilis in FMF group, Bacteroides thetaiotaomicron, Barnesiella intestinihominis, Faecalibacterium prausnitzii, Prevotella stercorea, Dialister invisus in CD group. We could not consider a “BS specific” or predominant species since relative abundance were similar in all groups on species level. The dominant composition of gut microbiota of BS patients was listed in Table 2.

Table 2. Dominant microbial communities in BS patients with uveitis.

Dominant microbial communities in BS patients with uveitis
Pyhlum Firmicutes, Proteobacteria
Class Clostridia, Gammaproteobacteria, Gammaproteobacteria, Negativicutes
Order Clostridiales, Bacteroidales, Selenomonadales, Aeromonadales
Family Veillonellaceae, Succinivibrionaceae, Prevotellaceae, Lachnospiraeae
Genus Succinivibrio, Mitsuokella, Prevotella
Species Prevotella copri

Discussion

In our study, we examined the fecal microbial flora of 7 BS patients with uveitis. We identified dominant microbial communities on phylum, class, order, family, genus and species levels. In BS patients, the fecal microbiota consisted mainly of Firmicutes as a phylum, Clostridia as a class, Clostridiales as an order and Prevotella copri as a species.

Veionellaceae, Succinivibrionaceae families and Succinivibrio, Mitsuokella genera were found to be dominant in the gut microbiota of BS patients who were fed by different diet and had different genetical factors. Technically, relative abundances were similar in each 7 BS case, the range is narrow and the variance is low. Relative abundances of members of study groups were technically homogeneous. Therefore, we think Veionellaceae, Succinivibrionaceae families and Succinivibrio, Mitsuokella genera as dominant taxa in the gut microbiota of BS cases. The role of microbiota in the pathogenesis of BS is not clearly defined. There are limited number of studies focused on oral and salivary microbial community in BS patients [2729]. Molecular mimicry based on sequence homology between microbial and human heat-shock protein (HSP) peptides trigger autoimmune responses in patients with BS patients. Several autoantigens have been observed, including the HSP60 kDa and HSP70 kDa proteins, S antigen, interphotoreceptor retinoid-binding protein (IRBP), α-tropomyosin, and αβ-crystallin [30]. Therefore, a greater understanding the role of the microbial community in the pathogenesis of BS will probably lead to improved development of therapeutic strategies [31].

Consolandi et al, [32] presented 22 BS patients who exhibited a specific microbiome signature in their fecal microbiota. However in that study, just one hypervariable region (V4) was sequenced using Roche 454 technology. They found that BS patients were characterized by a low biodiversity and by a depletion of key butyrate-producing bacteria in their gut microbiota. Butyrate was evaluated as an impaired microbial metabolite in that group of BS patients. Butyrate impairment could be the reason of reduced T-regulator cell mediated control, and promotes powerful immunopathological T cell responses [32]. Healthy gut microbiota is dominated by microorganisms belonging to Bacteroidetes phylum [11]. Bacteroidetes phylum was dominant in our HC group, too. This group of bacteria produces short-chain fatty acids, such as butyrate, which has anti-inflammatory effects.

In our study, we found Firmicutes and Proteobacteria were dominant phyla in BS patients presenting inflammatory effects in the gastrointestinal system. Shin et al. reviewed that an increased prevalence of the bacterial phylum Proteobacteria is a marker for an unstable microbial community (dysbiosis) and a potential diagnostic criterion for inflammatory disorders [33]. Sheridan et al. noted that Firmicutes possess large genomes with extremely high numbers of predicted carbohydrate-active enzymes (CAZymes). These CAZyme genes are located in the genome adjacent to genes encoding regulators and carbohydrate transport functions, forming multiple polysaccharide utilization loci (PULs) predicting inflammation [34].

Ye et al, recently reported that Bacteroidales, Firmicutes and Proteobacteria were dominant phyla in BD. Their results showed that sulfate-reducing bacteria (SRB) were significantly enriched in BD, whereas methanogens and butyrate-producing bacteria were negatively associated with the BD patients [29].

As for diversity and dysbiosis in FMF and CD; In patients with FMF, similar to BS, Firmicutes was the dominant phyla, while Proteobacteria was dominant in CD group. Bacteroidetes spp. was the dominant genera for both CD and FMF patients, which was followed by Alistipes spp. Alistipes species have been shown to cause colitis and site specific tumors in animal studies [35]. We also found Enterobacteriaceae colonization predominantly in CD patients. This family is considered as a pathogenic species, rather than a commensal one with harmful effects on human metabolism.

Shimizu J et al, have found that there was a significant difference in 11 bacterial taxa between BS patients and normal individuals. At genus level they have found Bifidobacterium and Eggerthella increased significantly and Provetella decreased in BS patients compared with normal individuals in Japanese population [36]. However, at genus level we found Succinivibrio and Mitsuokella dominancy in gut microbiota in our Turkish BS patients.

The dominant species was Prevotella copri in our BS study group. The association of Prevotella with BS is still controversial. The pustular lesions of BS patients were found to be infected by Prevotella spp. [19]. In another study, Prevotella intermedia was isolated from subgingival plaque samples of BS patients [37]. On the contrary, Prevotella was significantly lower in the oral microbiota of patients with BS than in controls [38]. Prevotella copri is an inflammatory bacteria which was found to be in concordance with arthritis [39]. Inflammation of the gut mucosa, mediated by Prevotella spp, promotes systemic dissemination of inflammatory mediators, increased intestinal permeability and translocation of bacterial products, which amplify and promote systemic inflammation [40]. MaedaY et al, found that fecal microbiota of patients with early rheumotoid arthritis (RA) was dominated by Prevotella copri leading to dysbiosis and autoreactive T cell activation [41, 42]. Pianta et al, have identified an HLA-DR presented peptide from Prevotella copri which stimulates Th1 responses in 42% of new-onset RA patients [43]. Wen et al, have reported that ankylosing spondylitis patients demonstrated increased levels of Prevotella melaninogenica, Prevotella copri and other Prevotella spp. in their gut microbiota [44]. In a recent study of Shimizu J et al, has shown a relative abundance of Eggerthella lenta, Acidaminococcus species, Lactobacillus mucosae, Bifidobacterium bifidum, Lactobacillus iners, Streptococcus species, and Lactobacillus salivarius in patients with BS [45].

During the course of the disease, BS can involve the mucosa, skin, or eyes, vessels, nervous and gastrointestinal system [22, 23, 46]. Several cluster and association studies reported clusters of common overlapping involvements. In a retrospective observational study on 295 BS patients, Bitik et al reported that BS patients with posterior uveitis had a significantly higher risk of having neurological involvement compared to those without posterior uveitis [47]. Similarly, Yan et all reported that ocular involvement was more prevalent in parenchymal neuro-BS compared with age and sex matched BS [48]. Although ocular involvement is a “warning sign” for predisposition to neurological involvement in BS, the pathogenetic mechanisms of the concomitant occurrence of these manifestations have not been described. On the other hand, Suwa et al found a negative association of eye involvement with genital ulceration and gastrointestinal involvement at the early stage of disease [49]. Similarly, Hussein et al reported that genital ulcers and systemic vasculitis were protective factors for the development of vision threatening eye disease [50]. We focused on BS patients with eye involvement since, each involvement has its own demographic and clinical characteristics, and also medical treatment and prognosis of each manifestation differs greatly [46]. Oezguen N et al. have subjected neuro-Behçet’s disease for the analysis of gut microbiota. They concluded that microbiota stratification identifies disease specific alterations. They identified Prevotella and Bacteroides dominated subsample clusters in neuro-Behçet’s disease cohorts [51].

One of the limitations of our study is the lack of mycobiome and virome analysis of the fecal samples. Mycobial and viral agents have significant effects on the innate immune system as well. In this study we could only investigate the bacterial diversity. Another limitation is that 5 patients in BS group were on immunosuppressive treatment. However, despite being on immunosuppressive therapy these patients had still active uveitis attacks at the time of fecal sample collection. Moreover, their fecal microbiome showed technically homogeneous OTUs values; for this reason, we do not think that immunosuppressive therapy had an important impact on our results. It would be crucial that future studies investigate the polymicrobial interactions in the BS setting. Focusing on the bacterial community alone, limits the possibility of discerning possible associations between the fecal microbiota. The majority of the studies have focused primarily on the bacterial community of the microbiome such as we performed in the present study. However, the fungal portion of the microbiome (mycobiome) should be included into analyses. Concerted efforts should be directed to the systems biology approach that links the microbiota, their metabolites and BS pathogenesis. There is a need to conduct studies in the BS patients that use a comprehensive systems biology approach to identify the link between the mycobiome, bacteriome, virome and their metabolites. There is limited data about the fungal community of the gut microbiome in BS [29]. Ye at al. found that Atkinsonella texensis, Trichoderma parareesei, Colletotrichum orbiculare, Exophiala mesophila, Candida parapsilosis, Claviceps paspali, Drechslerella stenobrocha, Shiraia spp. are dominant fungal species in the fecal microbiome of BS patients.

With the recent advances in next-generation sequencing analysis and identification of the multitude of microorganisms comprising the human microbiome has become one of the most intensely studied areas in both health and disease. The altered microbial community in the gut microbiota of BS patients warrants further research in this area. Dysbiosis leads to the release of microbial peptides, other molecules that amplify a state of chronic inflammation. Environmental factors also contribute to triggering inflammation such as smoking, diet, infectious pathogens and medications, stress, lack of sleep and exercise [52].

Questions about the primitive district in which dysbiosis will occur remain. The real impact of dysbiosis on the course of BS and to conceive therapeutic strategies to counteract microbiome- driven inflammation should be clearly defined.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank to Msc. Bio. Yoruk Divanoglu for his technical assistance into next generation sequencing.

Data Availability

Nucleotide sequences of 1797 taxa were deposited in NCBI GenBank with accession numbers MT573971 to MT575767 (file SUB7562864).

Funding Statement

This project was supported and funded with a grant of Turkish League Against Rheumatism. The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Gül A. Pathogenesis of Behçet’s disease: autoinflammatory features and beyond. Semin Immunopathol. 2015; 37 (4): 413–418. 10.1007/s00281-015-0502-8 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Tunc R, Keyman E, Melikoglu M, Fresko I, Yazıcı H. Target organ associations in Turkish patients with Behçet’s disease: a cross sectional study by exploratory factor analysis. J Rheumatol. 2002; 29 (11): 2393–2396. . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Soylu M, Ersoz TR, Erken E. The association between HLA B5 and ocular involvement in Behcet’s disease in southern Turkey. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh). 1992; 70: 786–789. 10.1111/j.1755-3768.1992.tb04888.x . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Giza M, Koftori D, Chen I, Bowness P. Is Behçet’s disease a “class 1 opathy”? The role of HLA-B*51 in the pathogenesis of Behçet’s disease. Clin Exper Immunol. 2017; 191: 11–18. 10.1111/cei.13049 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Akkoc N. Update on the epidemiology, risk factors and disease outcomes of Behcet’s disease. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2018; 32 (2): 261–270. 10.1016/j.berh.2018.08.010 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Hedayatfar A. Behcet’s Disease: Autoimmune or Autoinflammatory? J Ophthalmic Vis Res. 2013; 8 (3): 291–293. . [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Direskeneli H. Autoimmunity vs autoinflammation in Behcet’s disease: do we oversimplify a complex disorder? Rheumatology (Oxford). 2006; 45 (12): 1461–1465. 10.1093/rheumatology/kel329 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Imirzalioglu N, Dursun A, Tastan B, Soysal Y, Yakicier MC. MEFV gene is a probable susceptibility gene for Behcet’s disease. Scand J Rheumatol. 2005; 34 (1): 56–58. 10.1080/03009740510017931 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Tasliyurt T, Yigit S, Rustemoglu A, Gul U, Ates O. Common MEFV gene mutations in Turkish patients with Behcet’s disease. Gene. 2013; 530 (1): 100–103. 10.1016/j.gene.2013.08.026 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Valenti S, Gallizzi R, De Vivo D, Romano C. Intestinal Behcet and Crohn’s disease: two sides of the same coin. Pediatr Rheumatol Online J. 2017; 15 (1): 33 10.1186/s12969-017-0162-4 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Mizuki N, Meguro A, Ota M, Ohno S, Shiota T, Kawagoe T et al. Genome-wide association studies identify IL23R-IL12RB2 and IL10 as Behçet’s disease susceptibility loci. Nat Genet. 2010; 42 (8): 703–706. 10.1038/ng.624 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Naser SA, Arce M, Khaja A, Fernandez M, Naser N, Elwasila S et al. Role of ATG16L, NOD2 and IL23R in Crohn’s disease pathogenesis. World J Gastroenterol. 2012; 18 (5): 412–424. 10.3748/wjg.v18.i5.412 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Franke A, McGovern DP, Barrett JC, Wang K, Radford-Smith GL, Ahmad T et al. Genome-wide meta-analysis increases to 71 the number of confirmed Crohn’s disease susceptibility loci. Nat Genet. 2010; 42 (12): 1118–1125. 10.1038/ng.717 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Takeuchi M, Mizuki N, Meguro A, Ombrello MJ, Kirino Y, Satorius C et al. Dense genotyping of immune-related loci implicates host responses to microbial exposure in Behcet’s disease susceptibility. Nat Genet. 2017; 49 (3): 438–443. 10.1038/ng.3786 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Mege JL, Dilsen N, Sanguedolce V, Gul A, Bongrand P, Roux H et al. Overproduction of monocyte derived tumor necrosis factor alpha, interleukin (IL) 6, IL-8 and increased neutrophil superoxide generation in Behçet’s disease: a comparative study with familial Mediterranean fever and healthy subjects. J Rheumatol. 1993; 20 (9): 1544–1549. . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Gogus F, Fresko I, Elbir Y, Eksioglu-Demiralp E, Direskeneli H. Oxidative burst response to monosodium urate crystals in patients with Behçet’s syndrome. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2005; 23 (4 Suppl 38): S81–85. . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Freysdottir J, Hussain L, Farmer I, Lau S-H, Fortune F. Diversity of gammadelta T cells in patients with Behçet’s disease is indicative of polyclonal activation. Oral Dis. 2006; 12 (3): 271–277. 10.1111/j.1601-0825.2005.01185.x . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Inanc N, Mumcu G, Birtas E, Elbir Y, Yavuz S, Ergun T, et al. Serum mannose-binding lectin levels are decreased in Behcet’s disease and associated with disease severity. J Rheumatol. 2005; 32 (2): 287 . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Hatemi G, Bahar H, Uysal S, Mat C, Gogus F, Masatlioglu S, et al. The pustular skin lesions in Behçet’s syndrome are not sterile. Ann Rheum Dis. 2004; 63: 1450–1452. 10.1136/ard.2003.017467 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Mumcu G, Inanc N, Aydin SZ, Ergun T, Direskeneli H. Association of salivary Streptococcus mutans colonisation and mannose-binding lectin deficiency with gender in Behçet’s disease. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2009; 27 (2 Suppl 53): S32 . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Blum HE. The human microbiome. Adv Med Sci. 2017; 62: 414–420. 10.1016/j.advms.2017.04.005 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Seyahi E. Phenotypes in Behcet’s syndrome. Intern Emerg Med. 2019; 14 (5): 677–689. 10.1007/s11739-019-02046-y . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Bettiol A, Prisco D, Emmi G. Behcet: the syndrome. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2020; 59 (Supplement-3): iii101–iii107. 10.1093/rheumatology/kez626 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Valenti S, Gallizzi R, De Vivo D, Romano C. Intestinal Behçet and Crohn’s disease: two sides of the same coin. Ped Rheumatol. 2017; 15: 33 10.1186/s12969-017-0162-4 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.No authors listed. Criteria for diagnosis of Behcet’s disease. International Study Group for Behcet’s Disease. Lancet. 1990; 335 (8697): 1078–1080. . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Livneh A, Langevitz P, Zemer D, Zaks N, Kees S, Lidar T et al. Criteria for the diagnosis of Familial Mediterranean Fever. Arthritis Rheum. 1997; 40 (10): 1879–1885. 10.1002/art.1780401023 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Seoudi N, Bergmeier LA, Drobniewski F, Paster B, Fortune F. The oral mucosal and salivary microbial community of Behcet’s syndrome and recurrent aphthous stomatitis. J Oral Microbiol. 2015; 7: 27150 10.3402/jom.v7.27150 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Coit P, Mumcu G, Ture-Ozdemir F, Unal AU, Alpar U, Bostanci N, et al. Sequencing of 16S rRNA reveals a distinct salivary microbiome signature in Behcet’s disease. Clin Immunol. 2016; 169: 28–35. 10.1016/j.clim.2016.06.002 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Ye Z, Zhang N, Wu C, Zhang X, Wang Q, Huang X, et al. A metagenomic study of the gut microbiome in Behçet’s disease. Microbiome. 2018; 6 (1): 135 10.1186/s40168-018-0520-6 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Tong B, Liu X, Xiao J, Su G. Immunopathogenesis of Behçet’s disease. Front Immunol. 2019; 10: article665. 10.3389/fimmu.2019.00665 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Hedayatfar A. Behçet’s Disease: Autoimmune or Autoinflammatory?. J Ophthalmic Vis Res. 2013; 8 (3): 291–293. . [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Consolandi C, Turroni S, Emmi G, Severgnini M, Fiori J, Peano C, et al. Behçet’s syndrome patients exibit specific microbiome signature. Autoimmun Rev. 2015; 14 (4): 269–276. 10.1016/j.autrev.2014.11.009 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Shin NR, Whon TW, Bae JW. Proteobacteria: microbial signature of dysbiosis in gut microbiota. Trends Biotechnol. 2015; 33 (9): 496–503. 10.1016/j.tibtech.2015.06.011 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Sheridan PO, Martin JC, Lawley TD, Browne HP, Harris HMB, Bernalier-Donadille A, et al. Polysaccharide utilization loci and nutritional specialization in a dominant group of butyrate-producing human colonic Firmicutes. Microb Genom. 2016; 2 (2): e000043 10.1099/mgen.0.000043 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Yacoub R, Nugent M, Cai W, Nadkami GN, Chaves LD, Abyad S, et al. Advanced glycation end products dietary restriction effects on bacterial gut microbiota in peritoneal dialysis patients: a randomized open label controlled trial. PLOS One. 2017; 12 (9): e0184789 10.1371/journal.pone.0184789 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Shimizu J, Kubota T, Takada E, Takai K, Fujiwara N, Arimitsu N, et al. Bifidobacteria abundance-featured gut microbiota compositional change in patients with Behcet’s Disease. PLOS One. 2016; 11 (4): e0153746 10.1371/journal.pone.0153746 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Miura T, Ishihara K, Kato T, Kimizuka R, Miyabe H, Ando T, et al. Detection of heat shock proteins but not superantigen by isolated oral bacteria from patients with Behcet’s disease. Oral Microbiol Immunol. 2005; 20 (3): 167–171. 10.1111/j.1399-302X.2005.00207.x . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Celengil-Nazliel H, Kansu E, Ebersole JL. Periodontal findings and systemic antibody responses to oral microorganisms in Behcet’s disease. J Periodontol. 1999; 70 (12): 1449–1456. 10.1902/jop.1999.70.12.1449 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Bag S, Ghosh TS, Das B. Draft genome sequence of Prevotella copri isolated from the gut of healthy Indian adult. Genome Announc. 2017; 5 (37): e00834–17. 10.1128/genomeA.00834-17 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Leite AZ, Rodrigues NdC, Gonzaga MI, Paiolo JCC, de Souza CA, Stefanutto NAV, et al. Detection of increased plasma interleukin-6 levels and prevalence of Prevotella copri and Bacteroides vulgatus in the feces of type 2 diabetes patients. Front Immunol. 2017; 8: 1107 10.3389/fimmu.2017.01107 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Maeda Y, Kurakawa T, Umemoto E, Motooka D, Ito Y, Gotoh K, et al. Dysbiosis contributes to arthtitis development via activation of autoreactive T cells in the intestine. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2016; 68 (11): 2646–2661. 10.1002/art.39783 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Maeda Y, Takeda K. Role of gut microbiota in rheumatoid arthritis. J Clin Med. 2017; 6 (6): pii: E60 10.3390/jcm6060060 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Pianta A, Arvikar S, Strle K, Drouin EE, Wang Q, Costello CE, et al. Evidence of the immune relevance of Prevotella copri, a gut microbe, in patients with romatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2017; 69 (5): 964–975. 10.1002/art.40003 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Wen C, Zheng Z, Shao T, Liu L, Xie Z, Le Chatelier E, et al. Quantitative metagenomics reveals unique gut microbiome biomarkers in ankylosing spondylitis. Genome Biol. 2017; 18 (1): 142 10.1186/s13059-017-1271-6 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Shimizu J, Kubota T, Takada E, Takai K, Fujiwara N, Arimitsu N et al. Relative abundance of Megamonas hypermegale and Butyrivibrio species decreased in the intestine and its possible association with the T cell aberration by metabolite alteration in patients with Behcet’s disease (210 characters). Clin Rheumatol. 2019; 38 (5): 1437–1445. 10.1007/s10067-018-04419-8 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Bettiol A, Hatemi G, Vannozzi L, Barilaro A, Prisco D, Emmi G. Treating the different phenotypes of Behcet’s Syndrome. Front Immunol. 2019; 10: 2830 10.3389/fimmu.2019.02830 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Bitik B, Tufan A, Sahin K, Sucullu Karadag Y, Can Sandikci S, Mercan R et al. The association between the parenchymal neurological involvement and posterior uveitis in Behcet’s syndrome. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2016; 34 (6 Suppl 102): 82–85. . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Yan D, Liu J, Zhang Y, Yuan W, Xu Y, Shi J et al. The clinical features and risk factors of parenchymal Neuro-Behcet’s Disease. J Immunol Res. 2019; 2019: 7371458 10.1155/2019/7371458 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Suwa A, Horita N, Ishido T, Takeuchi M, Kawagoe T, Shibuya E et al. The ocular involvement did not accompany with the genital ulcer or the gastrointestinal symptoms at the early stage of Behcet’s disease. Mod Rheumatol. 2019; 29 (2): 357–362. 10.1080/14397595.2018.1457424 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Hussein MA, Eissa IM, Dahab AA. Vision-Threatening Behcet’s Disease: Severity of ocular involvement predictors. J Ophthalmol. 2018; 2018: 9518065 10.1155/2018/9518065 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Oezguen N, Yalcinkaya N, Kücükali CI, Dahdouli M, Hollister EB, Luna RA et al. Microbiota stratification identifies disease-specific alterations in neuro-Behçet’s disease and multiple sclerosis. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2019; 37: Suppl 121 (6): 58–66. . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Talotta R, Atzeni F, Ditto MC, Gerardi MC, Sarzi-Puttini P. The microbiome in connective tissue diseases and vasculitides: An updated narrative review. J Immunol Res. 2017; 2017: 6836498 10.1155/2017/6836498 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Miquel Vall-llosera Camps

13 May 2020

PONE-D-19-35822

Succinivibrio and Mitsuokella are Dominant Generas in Fecal Microbiota of Behçet’s Syndrome Patients with Mucocutanous and Uveitis Involvement

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr Kalkanci,

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.

I would like to sincerely apologise for the delay you have incurred with your submission. We have now received two completed reviews; their comments are available below.

Both reviewers have raised several concerns about the selection of patients and the methodology of this study that need to be addressed in a revision. Please revise the manuscript to address all the reviewer's comments in a point-by-point response in order to ensure it is meeting the journal's publication criteria. Please note that the revised manuscript will need to undergo further review, we thus cannot at this point anticipate the outcome of the evaluation process.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Jun 26 2020 11:59PM. When you are 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.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Miquel Vall-llosera Camps

Associate 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 http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In your Methods section, please state where the participants were recruited for your study.

3. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

4. We note that you are reporting an analysis of a microarray, next-generation sequencing, or deep sequencing data set. PLOS requires that authors comply with field-specific standards for preparation, recording, and deposition of data in repositories appropriate to their field. Please upload these data to a stable, public repository (such as ArrayExpress, Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO), DNA Data Bank of Japan (DDBJ), NCBI GenBank, NCBI Sequence Read Archive, or EMBL Nucleotide Sequence Database (ENA)). In your revised cover letter, please provide the relevant accession numbers that may be used to access these data. For a full list of recommended repositories, see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-omics or http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-sequencing.

5. Please include your tables as part of your main manuscript and remove the individual files. Please note that supplementary tables (should remain/ be uploaded) as separate "supporting information" files.

6. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

7. Please upload a copy of Figure 6, to which you refer in your text on page 7. If the figure is no longer to be included as part of the submission please remove all reference to it within the text.

8. Please upload a new copy of Figure 2 as the detail is not clear. Please follow the link for more information: https://blogs.plos.org/plos/2019/06/looking-good-tips-for-creating-your-plos-figures-graphics/

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

Comments to the Author

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

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors conducted a metagenomic analysis in patients with BD and mined the species Prevotella copri from the data as a BD characteristic microbe. BD is rare and often difficult to treat even now and the finding may become very important data for the patients and treating physicians in the near future.

Major:

1. In the introduction section, the authors should describe detailed information of the differences in the “immunological pathologies” between BD patients with and without uveitis. We did not understand why the authors selected BD patients with uveitis for this study. If the authors need to use the data of FMF and CD as controls in this study, commonalities and differences in the “immunological pathologies” between BD and FMF, and between BD and CD would be helpful for us to understand more accurately. Discussion of the relationships between previous data of the immunological pathologies in patients with BD and metagenomic data of this study would be also important for the precise understanding.

2. The authors described their metagenomic data using OTU numbers in their figures and tables. Nonetheless, in their statistical analyses, the authors compared the metagenomic data using the taxonomic abundance. In the materials and methods section, the authors described that they used Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test to find significant differences in taxonomic abundance between patients and normal individuals (page 5). In the discussion section, the authors described that OTUs of this study groups were technically homogeneous (page 9). These descriptions were very confusing for us. If we understand it right, the authors used taxonomic abundance data for all statistical analyses of this study. We suggest that the authors utilize relative abundance titers of the metagenomic data for the comparison in the figures and tables with the statistical data. At least the figures and tables need the data of statistical analyses.

3. The authors should provide us with BD patient demographical and clinical data with the statistical analyses. Gender (Front Immunol 2017; 8: 754.), aging (Cell Mol Life Sci 2018; 75: 129-148.), and medications (nonantibiotics, Nature 2018; 555: 623-8.) were reported to associate with gut microbe alteration. If the authors need to use the data of FMF and CD as controls in this study, the authors should provide us with the patients' data.

4. High titers of alpha diversity in gut microbe composition were considered as a healthy state (Hepatology 2017; 65: 451-64.). The authors should describe the alpha diversity index titers of the 4 subgroups in this study with the detailed statistical analyses.

5. We need several references in the next two sentences for the precise understanding.

(1) Page 9: The molecular mimicry based on sequence homology between microbial and human peptides triggers autoimmune responses in BS patients.

(2) Page 10: We found Firmicutes and Proteobacteria were dominant phyla in BS patients presenting inflammatory effects in the gastrointestinal system.

6. The authors should send the manuscript to the natives for revising the English.

Minor:

1. We were wondering if the authors could provide us with the information of their minor revisions of the elusion steps in DNA extractions (Page 4).

2. The authors should spell out the term of Treg in Page 9. Several references in the sentence would be helpful for us.

Reviewer #2: The aim of this study was to investigate the gut microbiota of Behçet’s Syndrome patients with uveitis involvement and compare the gut microbiota of BS with that of Familial Mediterranean Fever and Crohn’s Disease. However, the following issues should be addressed.

1. The disease profiles of BS patients included in this study are unclear. Authors need to prepare the “Table” of patient’s data, such as the patients with BS (oral ulcer, skin lesion, genital ulcer, and so on).

2. Authors should also mention whether the patients were with active or inactive BS. When was the fecal sample obtained relative to the onset of an attack?

3. Did the patients included in this study receive medication before the fecal sample obtained? Immunomodulatory drugs and steroids would impact on the gut microbiota composition.

4. The detailed information of control was also unclear. The human gut microbiota composition will differ from the age, sex, life style, diet and inflammatory status of donors (see PMID: 24705962 and 20498852). Thus, author should provide more profiles of patients and healthy controls, such as their age and sex. And author should mention whether the healthy control were with diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, systemic disease and other inflammatory diseases.

5. The data regarding the abundant taxa at the family level in four groups suggested Succinivibrio and Mitsuokella were dominant and signature families, whereas Bacteroides was absent in BS patients. However, the statistical analysis were without correction. The statistical analysis in the genera and species levels also required correction.

6. The authors are aware of the limitations of this study. However, mono-colonization of dominant species or fecal transplantation from BS patients in germ-free mice would also be informative.

7. The OTU clustering methods need to be clarified. The version of the software and algorithms used also need to be indicated. It is also unclear how the authors performed taxonomic assignment or what database they used.

8. Minor issue, see Page 3, lines 17, "Behçet's syndrome" should be used as abbreviation "BS"

9. Minor issue, see Page 11, lines 1, "Prevotella" should be used in italic.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (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

[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 be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2020 Oct 30;15(10):e0241691. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0241691.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


18 Jun 2020

PONE-D-19-35822

Succinivibrio and Mitsuokella are Dominant Generas in Fecal Microbiota of Behçet’s Syndrome Patients with Uveitis

PLOS ONE

Dear editor,

We revised the manuscript to address all the reviewer's comments in a point-by-point response. This rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewers.

Ayse Kalkanci

Corresponding author

Editor’s comments:

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 http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

Style requirements were completed. DOI numbers were added if exists.

2. In your Methods section, please state where the participants were recruited for your study.

It was stated in methods section “Participants were recruited to our study at Gazi University Medical Faculty, Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Department, Division of Rheumatology, Ankara, Turkey”.

3. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

Informed written consent was obtained from each participant included in this study, according to the declaration of Helsinki.

4. We note that you are reporting an analysis of a microarray, next-generation sequencing, or deep sequencing data set. PLOS requires that authors comply with field-specific standards for preparation, recording, and deposition of data in repositories appropriate to their field. Please upload these data to a stable, public repository (such as ArrayExpress, Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO), DNA Data Bank of Japan (DDBJ), NCBI GenBank, NCBI Sequence Read Archive, or EMBL Nucleotide Sequence Database (ENA)). In your revised cover letter, please provide the relevant accession numbers that may be used to access these data. For a full list of recommended repositories, see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-omics or http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-sequencing.

Nucleotide suquences of 1797 taxa were deposited in NCBI GenBank with accession numbers MT573971 to MT575767 (file SUB7562864).

5. Please include your tables as part of your main manuscript and remove the individual files. Please note that supplementary tables (should remain/ be uploaded) as separate "supporting information" files.

Tables were included as a part of our manuscript.

6. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

ORCID iD for the corresponding author 0000-0003-0961-7325

7. Please upload a copy of Figure 6, to which you refer in your text on page 7. If the figure is no longer to be included as part of the submission please remove all reference to it within the text.

Reference of “Figure 6” was removed on page 7 and within the text.

8. Please upload a new copy of Figure 2 as the detail is not clear. Please follow the link for more information: https://blogs.plos.org/plos/2019/06/looking-good-tips-for-creating-your-plos-figures-graphics/

Figure 2 was revised and uploaded.

Reviewer 1’s comments;

Reviewer #1: The authors conducted a metagenomic analysis in patients with BD and mined the species Prevotella copri from the data as a BD characteristic microbe. BD is rare and often difficult to treat even now and the finding may become very important data for the patients and treating physicians in the near future.

Major:

1. In the introduction section, the authors should describe detailed information of the differences in the “immunological pathologies” between BD patients with and without uveitis. We did not understand why the authors selected BD patients with uveitis for this study. If the authors need to use the data of FMF and CD as controls in this study, commonalities and differences in the “immunological pathologies” between BD and FMF, and between BD and CD would be helpful for us to understand more accurately. Discussion of the relationships between previous data of the immunological pathologies in patients with BD and metagenomic data of this study would be also important for the precise understanding.

Introduction and discussion were both re-written including new comparative data BD&CD and BD&FMF. New references were added.

2. The authors described their metagenomic data using OTU numbers in their figures and tables. Nonetheless, in their statistical analyses, the authors compared the metagenomic data using the taxonomic abundance. In the materials and methods section, the authors described that they used Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test to find significant differences in taxonomic abundance between patients and normal individuals (page 5). In the discussion section, the authors described that OTUs of this study groups were technically homogeneous (page 9). These descriptions were very confusing for us. If we understand it right, the authors used taxonomic abundance data for all statistical analyses of this study. We suggest that the authors utilize relative abundance titers of the metagenomic data for the comparison in the figures and tables with the statistical data. At least the figures and tables need the data of statistical analyses.

We used relative abundance titers of the metagenomic data for the comparison in the figures and tables with the statistical data. Statistical analyses were added into the figures and tables. Materials and methods section was re-written for statistical analysis.

3. The authors should provide us with BD patient demographical and clinical data with the statistical analyses. Gender (Front Immunol 2017; 8: 754.), aging (Cell Mol Life Sci 2018; 75: 129-148.), and medications (nonantibiotics, Nature 2018; 555: 623-8.) were reported to associate with gut microbe alteration. If the authors need to use the data of FMF and CD as controls in this study, the authors should provide us with the patients' data.

Demographical and clinical characteristics of participants at the time of fecal sample collection were summaized at table 1

4. High titers of alpha diversity in gut microbe composition were considered as a healthy state (Hepatology 2017; 65: 451-64.). The authors should describe the alpha diversity index titers of the 4 subgroups in this study with the detailed statistical analyses.

Described.

5. We need several references in the next two sentences for the precise understanding.

(1) Page 9: The molecular mimicry based on sequence homology between microbial and human peptides triggers autoimmune responses in BS patients.

A new reference numbered by 16 was added “Hedayatfar A. Behçet's Disease: Autoimmune or Autoinflammatory?. J Ophthalmic Vis Res 2013; 8 (3): 291‐293”.

(2) Page 10: We found Firmicutes and Proteobacteria were dominant phyla in BS patients presenting inflammatory effects in the gastrointestinal system.

Two new references numbered by 18 and 19 were added “18. Shin NR, Whon TW, Bae JW. Proteobacteria: microbial signature of dysbiosis in gut microbiota. Trends Biotechnol 2015; 33 (9): 496-503” and “19. O Sheridan P, Martin JC, Lawley TD, et al. Polysaccharide utilization loci and nutritional specialization in a dominant group of butyrate-producing human colonic Firmicutes. Microb Genom 2016; 2 (2): e000043”.

6. The authors should send the manuscript to the natives for revising the English.

Revised.

Minor:

1. We were wondering if the authors could provide us with the information of their minor revisions of the elusion steps in DNA extractions (Page 4).

Minor revision at the elution step was performed by using 30 µl elution buffer.

2. The authors should spell out the term of Treg in Page 9.

“T regulator cell= Treg"

Reviewer #2: The aim of this study was to investigate the gut microbiota of Behçet’s Syndrome patients with uveitis involvement and compare the gut microbiota of BS with that of Familial Mediterranean Fever and Crohn’s Disease. However, the following issues should be addressed.

1. The disease profiles of BS patients included in this study are unclear. Authors need to prepare the “Table” of patient’s data, such as the patients with BS (oral ulcer, skin lesion, genital ulcer, and so on).

Demographical and clinical characteristics of participants at the time of fecal sample collection were summarized at table 1. Age were similar between groups (p: 0.098).

Table 1. Demographical and clinical characteristics of participants at the time of fecal sample collection

Behçet’s Syndrome

(n:7) Crohn’s disease

(n:9) Familial Mediterranean Fever (n:12) Healthy Controls

(n:16)

Age, years 35.57 ± 6.60 35.00 ± 5.27 32.17 ± 8.64 39.38 ± 7.69

Men/women 5/2 3/6 6/6 6/10

Disease characteristics

Oral aphthosis, n (%) 5 (71.43%) 1 (11.11%) 0 0

Genital ulcers, n (%) 1 (14.29%) 0 0 0

Skin lessions, n (%) 3 (42.86%) 1 (11.11%) 0 0

Uveitis, n (%) 7 (100%) 0 0 0

Gastrointestinal system involvement, n (%) 0 9 (100%) 0 0

Central nervous system involvement, n (%) 1 (14.29%) 0 0 0

Vascular involvement, n (%) 0 0 0 0

Arthritis, % 0 2 (22.22%) 2 (16.67) 0

Pathergy positivity 2 (28.57%) NA NA NA

HLA-51 4 (57.14%) NA NA NA

Medications

Colchicine, n (%) 6 0 12 (100%) 0

Steroid, n (%) 0 0 0 0

5-ASA/sulfasalazine, n (%) 0 0 0 0

Cyclosporine, n (%) 1 0 0 0

Azathioprine, n (%) 4 9 0 0

Methotrexate, n (%) 0 0 0 0

Infliximab, n (%) 0 0 0 0

NA, not applicable

2. Authors should also mention whether the patients were with active or inactive BS. When was the fecal sample obtained relative to the onset of an attack?

The fecal samples of patients with BS were obtained at the active uveitis attack.

3. Did the patients included in this study receive medication before the fecal sample obtained? Immunomodulatory drugs and steroids would impact on the gut microbiota composition.

Informations about medication at the time of sample collection were summarized at table 1.

4. The detailed information of control was also unclear. The human gut microbiota composition will differ from the age, sex, life style, diet and inflammatory status of donors (see PMID: 24705962 and 20498852). Thus, author should provide more profiles of patients and healthy controls, such as their age and sex. And author should mention whether the healthy control were with diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, systemic disease and other inflammatory diseases.

16 healthy controls; 6 male (39-50y) and 10 female (24-52y) matched for age and sex. Patients were excluded from the study if they had any of the following: patient suspected to have BD clinically but did not fulfil the inclusion criteria; pregnancy, chronic diseases, psychiatric disorders, cancer, diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, systemic disease and other inflammatory diseases, dependence on alcohol or other substances. Dietary behaviors were similar in BS, FMF, CD and HC groups.

Demographical characteristics including age and sex of all participants were summarized at table 1. Individuals without systemic disease and inflammatory disease were included as healthy controls.

5. The data regarding the abundant taxa at the family level in four groups suggested Succinivibrio and Mitsuokella were dominant and signature families, whereas Bacteroides was absent in BS patients. However, the statistical analysis were without correction. The statistical analysis in the genera and species levels also required correction.

All data was corrected and marked.

6. The authors are aware of the limitations of this study. However, mono-colonization of dominant species or fecal transplantation from BS patients in germ-free mice would also be informative.

Information about the dominant fungal species obtained from BS patients was added into discussion. (Ye Z, Zhang N, Wu C, Zhang X, Wang Q, Huang X, Du L, Cao Q, Tang J, Zhou C, Hou S, He Y, Xu Q, Xiong X, Kijlstra A, Qin N, Yang P. A metagenomic study of the gut microbiome in Behcet's disease. Microbiome 2018; 6 (1): 135.

7. The OTU clustering methods need to be clarified. The version of the software and algorithms used also need to be indicated. It is also unclear how the authors performed taxonomic assignment or what database they used.

Obtained sequences were transferred into Operational Taxonomic Units (OTUs). Similarity of 99% was accepted as same phylotype. Each value was expressed as mean ± SD and a p value less than 0.05 was considered significant.

Statistical analysis was performed using R (Ver 3.6.0,, GPL-3 license). The relative abundances (expressed as parts per unit, calculated with ade4 packet in R, were directly compared in each taxonomic (for different phylum, genus, species) levels. vegan package was used for alpha biodiversity. Alpha diversity is defined as the diversity within a community and is mainly measured by Chao 1 diversity indexes. Chao 1 index estimates richness in numbers of taxa frequencies. The microbial diversities data were tested by using Wilcoxon rank sum test in Past 3.20 (Øyvind Hammer, 2018). Based on relative abundance features, R packages FactoMineR and factoextra were used for dendrogram (Bray-Curtis similarity) and taxa distribution visualizations with groups while ggfortify and ggplot2 were used for PCA.

8. Minor issue, see Page 3, lines 17, "Behçet's syndrome" should be used as abbreviation "BS"

Corrected

9. Minor issue, see Page 11, lines 1, "Prevotella" should be used in italic.

Corrected

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Noboru Suzuki

15 Jul 2020

PONE-D-19-35822R1

Succinivibrio and Mitsuokella are Dominant Generas in Fecal Microbiota of Behçet’s Syndrome Patients with Uveitis

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Ayse Kalkanci,

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 see below for the reviwer`s comments.

Please submit your revised manuscript by 30 days. 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.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal 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 you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

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: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Noboru Suzuki

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Major:

1. The authors described that they found significant differences in the bacterial relative abundance of family level with the p values (Fig 3) between diseases and healthy controls.

We did not obtain p values in the data of genus (and species) level.

For the statistical analyses, the authors might utilize value zero (0) for the not detected elements. After the calculation, if the authors cannot obtain significant data, they should describe clearly the findings in the results section of the manuscript and alter the manuscript title.

The manuscript needs detailed description of statistical analysis in the result section.

We think that the data are very precise for the future research of BS.

2. The authors seemed to consider that the laboratory findings of next two sentences were scientifically sound.

The authors should provide direct evidence on the pro-inflammatory effects of the “bacterial and human peptides” and the “microbes of the phyla Firmicutes/Proteobacteia” in the sentences with the findings of their cited reference articles.

1) P12: The molecular mimicry based on sequence homology between microbial and human peptides triggers autoimmune responses in BS patients.

2) P12: we found Firmicutes and Proteobacteria were dominant phyla in BS patients presenting inflammatory effects in the gastrointestinal system.

Minor

1. We found several typographical errors in the manuscript.

Example

P3: Last paragraph needs the name of the disease. In the paragraph, we may recognize double space after the word “enhances”.

P8 in the next generation paragraph: Sequences wereanalyzed by ---- needs space.

P9 in the second paragraph: Groups were of similar age(p = 0.098)-----needs space.

P10 in figure legends of Fig 4: The term “genera” should be corrected.

P11 in the second paragraph: The word “fallows” should be corrected.

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

[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.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2020 Oct 30;15(10):e0241691. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0241691.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


31 Aug 2020

PONE-D-19-35822

Succinivibrionaceae is Dominant Family in Fecal Microbiota of Behçet’s Syndrome Patients with Uveitis

PLOS ONE

Dear editor,

We revised the manuscript to address all the reviewer's comments in a point-by-point response. This rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the reviewers.

Ayse Kalkanci

Corresponding author

1) Please ensure that you refer to Figure 6 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure.

Figure 6 was referred in the text.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers for R4.docx

Decision Letter 2

Noboru Suzuki

16 Sep 2020

PONE-D-19-35822R2

Succinivibrionaceae is Dominant Family in Fecal Microbiota of Behçet’s Syndrome Patients with Uveitis

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Kalkanci,

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 Oct 31 2020 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.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal 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 you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

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: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Noboru Suzuki

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

We found several typographical errors in the manuscript of 2nd revision.

We strongly suggest you to consult with a Native English speaker for the correction of their English.

ie. Top 5 species in all groups were as fallow;

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

[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.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2020 Oct 30;15(10):e0241691. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0241691.r006

Author response to Decision Letter 2


13 Oct 2020

Response to the reviewers

"Succinivibrionaceae is Dominant Family in Fecal Microbiota of Behçet’s Syndrome Patients with Uveitis"

1) Please amend your Response to Reviewers letter to include a point by point response to each of the points made by the Editor and / or Reviewers. Please follow this link for more information: http://blogs.PLOS.org/everyone/2011/05/10/how-to-submit-your-revised-manuscript/

Answer: Yes . “Response to reviewers-7” letter was added into submission.

2) Thank you for providing your revised Funding statement. We've made some updates to conform to journal requirements. Can you please confirm in your Cover Letter whether the following proposed statement is accurate and suitable to appear alongside your manuscript?

"This project was supported and funded with a grant of Turkish Society of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

If there are any errors or omissions in this statement please let us know. Otherwise, please include the above statement in your Cover Letter upon re-submission, and we will update the statement in the submission form on your behalf.

Answer: "This project was supported and funded with a grant of Turkish League Against Rheumatism. The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." This statement included in my Cover Letter.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers for R7.docx

Decision Letter 3

Noboru Suzuki

20 Oct 2020

Succinivibrionaceae is Dominant Family in Fecal Microbiota of Behçet’s Syndrome Patients with Uveitis

PONE-D-19-35822R3

Dear Dr. Kalkanci,

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 for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

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,

Noboru Suzuki

Guest Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Noboru Suzuki

22 Oct 2020

PONE-D-19-35822R3

Succinivibrionaceae is Dominant Family in Fecal Microbiota of Behçet’s Syndrome Patients with Uveitis

Dear Dr. Kalkanci:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

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.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@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. Noboru Suzuki

Guest 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

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers for R4.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers for R7.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    Nucleotide sequences of 1797 taxa were deposited in NCBI GenBank with accession numbers MT573971 to MT575767 (file SUB7562864).


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES