Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Mar 9;16(3):e0247798. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0247798

Characterization of biliary microbiota dysbiosis in extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma

Massa Saab 1,*, Denis Mestivier 1,2, Masoudreza Sohrabi 3, Christophe Rodriguez 2,3,4, Mahmood Reza Khonsari 3, Amirhossein Faraji 3, Iradj Sobhani 1,2,3,4,5,*
Editor: Pradeep Dudeja6
PMCID: PMC7943025  PMID: 33690612

Abstract

Extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) accounts for 3% of digestive cancers. The role of biliary microbiota as an environment-related modulator has been scarcely investigated in CCA, and the putative impact of associated diseases has not been yet assessed. We characterized the biliary microbiota in CCA patients in order to identify a specific CCA-related dysbiosis. The biliary effluents were collected through an endoscopic retrograde pancreatic cholangiography (ERCP) examination involving 28 CCA and 47 patients with gallstones, herein considered as controls. The biliary effluents were submitted to bacterial DNA extraction and 16S rRNA sequencing, using Illumina technology. Overall, 32% of CCA and 22% of controls displayed another associated disease, such as diabetes, pancreatitis, inflammatory bowel disease, or primary sclerosing cholangitis. Such associated diseases were considered in the comparisons that were made. Principal coordinate analysis (PCoA) detected a significant disparity of biliary microbiota composition between CCA patients and controls without an associated disease. Amongst the most abundant phyla, Proteobacteria did not significantly differ between CCA patients and controls, whereas Firmicutes levels were lower and Bacteroidetes higher in CCAs’ biliary microbiota than in the controls’ microbiota. The most abundant genera were Enterococcus, Streptococcus, Bacteroides, Klebsiella, and Pyramidobacter in CCA’s biliary microbiota. Additionally, levels of Bacteroides, Geobacillus, Meiothermus, and Anoxybacillus genera were significantly higher in CCA patients’ biliary microbiota, without an associated disease, in comparison with controls. A specific CCA-related dysbiosis was identified as compared to controls independently from associated diseases. This suggests that a microorganism community may be involved in CCA pathogenesis.

Introduction

Cholangiocarcinomas (CCA) are relatively rare malignant tumors of the bile ducts, representing around 3% of digestive cancers [1]. CCA are either intrahepatic (CCAi) or located only in the extrahepatic biliary tracts (CCAe). CCAi constitutes the second-most common malignant liver tumor, representing 10–20% of primary liver cancers, following hepatocarcinomas that are the most common. In France, about 2,000 new cases are registered per year, resulting in CCA being the sixth-most-common malignant tumor of the gastrointestinal tract, whose incidence is increasing. In several Asian countries including the middle east, the incidence of CCA is still higher than in Western countries [2].

The circumstances of discovering a CCA differ according to the location. The diagnosis is often delayed, thus only made at an advanced disease stage [3, 4]. The endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) of pancreato-biliary tracts is an invasive technique, which is nonetheless necessary for both CCA diagnosis and therapy. This investigation enables the collection of biological effluents like the bile on which the cytology analysis is conducted. This analysis is designed to confirm CCA diagnosis. The prognosis of biliary tumors is poor, with a 5-year survival rate estimated at 5%. The surgery is currently considered the standard of curative therapy [5]. To improve prognosis of CCA, its pathogenesis needs deeper investigation. This is challenging, given that CCA is a heterogeneous disorder that is likely influenced by environmental factors [6]. Thus, one could assume that, like for many digestive cancers whose incidence has increased during recent decades due to environmental factors, the CCA incidence would continue to rise.

Ulcerative colitis and primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) are two benign diseases that both enhance the risk of developing CCA in the Western world [7]. These diseases induce a chronic inflammation within the bile ducts that favors carcinogenesis. Intrahepatic biliary lithiasis, a common disease in Asia, is another inflammatory disease that enhances the risk of CCA. In Southeast Asia, CCA is associated with parasitic infections like Opistorchis viverrini and, albeit less well-established, with Clonorchis Sinensis infections [8].

Although exhaustive analysis of environment factors is challenging, this has been facilitated by studying the microbiota [912]. Indeed, changes within the human microbiota, which are roughly designed as dysbiosis, have been associated with the development of colon, oral, and lung cancers [1012]. Microbiota is thought to generate physiological function alterations, which are likely to promote different diseases, including various cancers [13].

To illustrate, an increase in short-chain fatty acid producers, through changes in the numbers of Fusobacterium, Prevotella, and Campylobacter, has been observed in colorectal cancer patients [14]. Notably, Fusobacterium, Prevotella, and Campylobacter were all three found to be significantly more abundant in CCA, further suggesting they may play a role in gastrointestinal cancers, possibly through unregulated inflammatory response [15]. However, the distinct features of gut microbiota in patients with CCA and the interactions of CCA with gut microbiota have not yet been clarified. Xiaodong et al. were the first to characterize intestinal microbiota, bile acids, and cytokines in patients with CCA. These authors proposed some diagnostic markers, including short chain acids of biliary acid metabolites and two bacteria genera (Lactobacillus and Alloscardovia) for identifying CCAi [16].

Interestingly, microorganisms may also be detected in organs (e.g., human female reproductive tract and human urinary system) whose effluents are assumed to be sterile [17, 18].

The bile, whose main components include bile acids, cholesterol, and phospholipids, functions as a biological detergent that emulsifies and solubilizes lipids, thus conferring them antimicrobial activity [19]. For this reason, the healthy biliary tract is generally considered a sterile environment [20]. However, based on metagenomics sequences, recent human [21] and animal studies [22] have indicated that the gallbladder may also harbor a complex of non-cultivable bacteria under non-pathological conditions [20].

Furthermore, sequencing of 16S ribosomal ribonucleic acid (RNA) has rendered it possible to estimate taxonomic profiling according to phylum, class, order, family, or genus. Moreover, assignment into species and sub-species generally requires whole metagenomic sequencing [23]. However, up to now, biliary microbiota characterization remains fragmentary. We have thus planned to investigate, in an Asian medical center within a high CCA incidence area, a series of 30 extrahepatic CCA patients who underwent ERCP, in an effort to identify the biliary microbiota signature.

Accordingly, consecutive patients being referred for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and exhibiting stigmata of CCAe were considered for analysis, under the condition that CCAe was proven using cytological or histological exams. Results were compared to those of a series of patients affected with benign biliary diseases (PBBs), who were referred to the same endoscopic unit for ERCP during the same period. These patients were considered as controls. Overall, 16S RNA sequencing demonstrated significant differences in the biliary microbiota composition between the two populations, which could implicate CCA-associated dysbiosis playing a role in biliary carcinogenesis.

Population, materials, and methods

Patients & materials

Between 2014 and 2016, biliary fluid was collected during ERCP from 75 consecutive individuals with biliary obstruction, who were referred to tertiary centers.

In line with the Declaration of Helsinki, the research protocol of surveillance and of obtaining blood and bile samples of patients suspected of having either CCA or PBBS (obviously biliary duct lithiasis) was approved by the Ethic Committee of Iran University of medical Sciences under ID: IR.IUMS.REC.1397.115.

Following full explanation of the study’s aim and procedures by a physician, the patients signed a formal consent document, which is to be held by the Iranian partner for 15 years. All participants were adults with high-normal cognition. The inclusion criteria were as follows: adults of 21 years or more; suspected of biliary obstruction due to either cholangiocarcinoma or lithiasis based on elevated liver enzyme and total bilirubin levels; presence of stricture on endosonography or magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP). The exclusion criteria were as follows: history of viral hepatitis, metabolic hepatitis, autoimmune hepatitis, alcoholic hepatitis, non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), medication-induced hepatitis, and chemotherapy. The patients underwent ERCP and brushing. To avoid contact and contamination with the duodenal mucosa upon ERCP, once the endoscope canal exit was positioned to the biliary duct entry, a biliary catheter was used for bile duct canalization and a 1-2mL of bile collected before brushing for cytology; both samples were used for microbiology and pathology analyses and were transferred to the Gastrointestinal and liver research center (GILDRC) Lab and conserved at -80°c until analysis. Those patients with cytology or biopsies suggestive of CCAe were enrolled until the lesions were histologically confirmed based on biopsy or surgical (if applicable) samples. During the study period that did not exceed 15 months, the whole study population comprised 30 CCAe patients and 50 patients with a lithiasis, the latter being considered as controls, due to the final diagnosis of benign biliary pathology. Five patients were excluded from analysis (two in the CCA and three in the control groups) because of missing sample or disease confirmation. The frozen samples were transferred to the EC2M laboratory in France for deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) extraction and sequencing. Briefly, 28 CCAe patients were compared to 47 controls. Patients were categorized into two additional subgroups: those with associated diseases, such as diabetes, inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC), and pancreatitis, as well as those without any associated diseases.

Methods

DNA extraction

Biliary juices were immediately frozen after ERCP until DNA extraction. An unbiased DNA extraction procedure was applied to all samples, before targeted metagenomics was performed. Essentially, pre-extraction by homogenization of the beads, which is associated with cell rupture, was followed by extraction using QiaSymphony (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany), as described by commercial instructions. A negative control was tested in each series, with positive controls used to evaluate the performance of metagenomic techniques for detecting bacteria Zymobiomics®, Ozyme, Montigny le Bretonneux, France).

Targeted metagenomics

Targeted metagenomics (TM) comprised the study of amplicon libraries through the V3-V4 (16S-V3V4) domains of the 16S rRNA bacterial gene [24]. The amplicon was prepared from 5mL of extracts, according to the 16S Metagenomic Sequencing Library Preparation Protocol that was provided by the manufacturer (Illumina, San Diego, California, USA). Quality control was assessed using a D1000 ScreenTape on a TapeStation (Agilent, Santa Clara, California, USA), and quantity was determined via the Quant-it dsDNA Assay kit (ThermoFischer, Waltham, MA, USA) on a Mithras LB 940 (Berthold Technologies, Bad Wildbad, Germany).

All libraries were normalized to nM, pooled, and denatured before end-of-pair sequencing (v3-v4, 2 x 300 bp) on a MiSeq device (Illumina, San Diego, California, USA). The targeted bacterial regions were sequenced according to the manufacturer’s instructions [25]. The 16S rRNA amplicon sequencing data are available from the European Nucleotide Archive (ENA) database (http://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena) under the accession number PRJEB43183.

Overall, 10,483,756 paired-reads were sequenced (137,944.16 +/- 41,883.18 reads/sample, length: 25-251bp). After quality checking with the FastQC (https://www.bioinformatics.babraham.ac.uk/projects/fastqc/, v0.11.9) software, reads were filtered for quality that was less than Q20 (using a sliding window of 5pb) and minimal length of 100bp (using trimmomatic, v0.39) [26]. Remaining quality paired-end reads were merged using the FLASH2 software (v2.2.0, https://github.com/dstreett/FLASH2/blob/master/README) [27], yielding 120,716.70 +/- 38,924.65 (87.4 +/- 5.6%) combined paired per sample. We then employed MALT (v0.4.1, https://software-ab.informatik.uni-tuebingen.de/download/malt/welcome.html) and Megan6 (v6.17.0) [28] software with the rRNA SILVA database (v132) [29] for taxonomical assignation, using parameters for 16S (“SemiGlobal” / “mif” / “LCA”). Abundances were exported as a Biological Observation Matrix (BIOM) for further analyses (S1 File).

Data analysis

Gender, associated diseases, and diabetes differences were assessed using Chi-squared testing (GraphPrism 8), while age and body mass index (BMI) differences were assessed via t-testing (normal distribution was assessed using the D’Agostino-Pearson test). Analyses were performed including age and BMI of patients as co variable. Values were considered statistically significant when p <0.05. PCoA, figures, and differential microbiota analysis were performed using the Shiny Application for Metagenomic Analysis (Shaman), from Institut Pasteur de Paris (http://shaman.pasteur.fr/) [30]. For the differential abundance analysis, we used the BIOM Table and the “target” File that associates each sample with its explanatory variables (see suppl data: S1 File and S3 Table). Abundances of bacteria were summarized at the Phylum and Genus levels. The statistical analysis in SHAMAN is based on the DESeq2/R package which model abundance counts with a negative binomial distribution. For the experimental design, we selected the variables of gender, BMI, age, diagnosis (Control/CCA), and associated diseases. We also included the interaction between diagnosis and associated diseases in the model. We used defaults parameters, such as the “weighted non-null normalization,” which was introduced by Volant et al [30] and accounts more accurately for matrix sparsity. SHAMAN/DESeq2 yields baseMean and FoldChange (and log2FoldChange) and an adjusted p-value. Outputs were analyzed using Benjamini-Hochberg adjustment method. To be retained as differentially abundant, a taxon (phylum or genus) had to fulfill the following criteria: p value adjusted <0.05 and baseMean >100.

Results

Patient characteristics

Overall, 75 patients with biliary obstruction were included in the analysis (n = 28 CCA and n = 47 controls). The characteristics of the patients are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1. Characteristics of patients with cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) and controls.

Control N = 47 CCA N = 28 p value
Female, n (%) 24 (51) 9 (32) 0.15
Male, n (%) 23 (49) 19 (68) 0.15
Body mass index (BMI), mean (SD) 27 (4) 25 (5) 0.18
Age, mean (SD) Yr 57 (17) 64 (12) 0.07
Associated diseases, n (%) 10 (22) 9 (32) 0.2
Diabetes, n (%) 9 (90) 6 (67) 0.2
Pancreatitis, n (%) 1 (10) 0 ND
Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), n (%) 0 2 (22) ND
Primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC), n (%) 0 1 (8) ND
Tumor differentiation, n (%) - 28 (100) ND
Grade 1*, n (%) - 2 (7) ND
Grade 2*, n (%) - 8 (29) ND
Grade 3*, n (%) - 6 (21) ND
Grade 4*, n (%) - 12 (43) ND

Comparisons were performed by using Chi-squared tests for qualitative parameters and t-test for quantitative parameters. ND: not determined.

*according to the International TNM classification.

There was no significant difference between these two groups in terms of age, gender, or BMI. However, the number of associated diseases (diabetes, IBD, PSC, and chronic pancreatitis) differed between both groups, amounting to 22% in controls and 32% in CCA cases with at least one associated disease, «without reaching statistical significance”. Consequently, these patients were reclassified into two subgroups for deeper analysis: those with associated diseases versus those without.

Comparison of the most abundant genera and phyla

As the most abundant genera in the whole population (cases and controls), Enterococcus, Streptococcus, Bacteroides, Klebsiella, Clostriduim, Fusobacteruim, and Pyramidobacter were identified. Furthermore, a trend towards higher abundances of Streptococcus, Bacteroides, and Pyramidobacter in CCA cases contrasted with a trend towards higher abundances of Clostriduim, Klebsiella, Fusobacteruim, and Enterococcus in controls (Fig 1A).

Fig 1. Relative abundances (%) of genera in patients and controls.

Fig 1

The 12 most abundant genera are illustrated in the cases and controls. A) CCA (n = 28) and controls (n = 47), regardless of associated diseases. B) CCA and controls, with (Yes) or without (NO) associated diseases.

Four genera, namely Streptococcus, Enterococcus, Klebsiella, and Pyramidobacter, were more abundant in CCA cases with associated diseases (n = 9), compared to those without (n = 19). The Enterococcus genus was most abundant in controls with associated diseases (n = 10), compared to those without (n = 37) (Fig 1B).

At the phylum level, Proteobacteria was the most abundant, in both cases and controls. In addition, Firmicutes were more abundant in controls (particularly in those with associated co-morbidities), while Bacteroidetes were more abundant in CCA cases (Fig 2A and 2B).

Fig 2. Relative abundances (%) of phyla in patients and controls.

Fig 2

The 12 most abundant phyla in all individuals. A) CCA (n = 28) and controls (n = 47), regardless of associated diseases. B) CCA and controls, with (Yes) or without (NO) associated diseases.

Comparison using principal coordinate analysis (PCoA)

Analysis of the entire biliary microbiota failed to show any significant differences between cases and controls, but there was a trend towards between-group differences (p-0.058, Permanova test) (Fig 3A). However, when these analyses were limited to associated disease-free cases and controls, a significant separation was observed (p <0.01, permanova test) (Fig 3B). This difference was unaffected by age, gender, or BMI.

Fig 3. Principal coordinate analysis (P CoA) of biliary microbiota in patients and controls.

Fig 3

A) PCoA according to the diagnosis, in all individuals (permanova test; p = 0.058). B) PCoA according to the diagnosis, limited to patients without associated diseases (permanova test = 0.01).

Differential bacteria in biliary microbiota (CCA cases versus controls)

The composition of biliary microbiota significantly differed between cases and controls. Several genera were significantly different between both groups (Table 2A; S1A Table). At phyla level, we observed that Firmicutes, Fusobacteria, and Cyanobacteria levels were significantly lower in CCA cases than controls (Table 2B and S1B Table).

Table 2. Significant differential abundances, according to the diagnosis (CCA vs. controls).

A.
Genus Base mean Fold Change p value_adjusted
Clostridium 2597.72 0.10 0.0031
Fusobacterium 2455.33 0.06 0.0005
Granulicatella 800.17 0.12 0.0027
Pseudomonas 715.27 0.12 0.0018
Bacillus 468.05 0.26 0.0488
Actinomyces 252.48 0.18 0.0276
Citrobacter 129.8 0.05 0.0005
Campylobacter 104.23 0.20 0.047
B.
Phyla Base mean FoldChange pvalue_adjusted
Firmicutes 22438.7 0.48 0.0491
Fusobacteria 2713.32 0.10 3.37E-05
Cyanobacteria 272.55 0.17 0.0111

The list of bacteria include those genera at the mean base >100 (mean base of the whole cohort). Comparisons (CCA versus controls) yielded fold changes that are expressed in the values of ratios of the cases/controls; Statistical analysis using the DESeq2 R package. A) Genus level. B) Phylum level.

When analysis was limited to those individuals without associated diseases (19 CCA cases versus 37 controls), we identified 11 bacterial genera that significantly differed between cases and controls (Table 3A). The genera levels of Bacteroides, Geobacillus, Meiothermus, and Anoxybacillus were significantly higher in cases versus controls (Table 3A and S2A Table). Similarly, at the phylum levels, the levels of Deinococcus-Thermus were higher and those of Firmicutes, Fusobacteria, and Actinobacteria were all lower in CCA cases than controls (Table 3B and S2B Table).

Table 3. Significant differential abundances according to the diagnosis (CCA vs. controls).

A.
Genus Base mean Fold Change p value_adjusted
Bacteroides 4388.85 7.06 0.0304
Klebsiella 3125.04 0.02 8.95E-08
Clostridium 2597.72 0.01 1.17E-09
Fusobacterium 2455.33 0.06 0.0007
Haemophilus 892.5 0.05 7.61E-06
Enterobacter 569.44 0.06 0.0009
Geobacillus 530.19 7.95 0.0067
Actinomyces 252.48 0.20 0.0377
Meiothermus 199.74 52.05 5.19E-06
Anoxybacillus 190.83 10.66 0.0378
Citrobacter 129.8 0.03 6.16E-05
B.
Phyla Base Mean Fold Change p value_adjusted
Firmicutes 22438.7 0.38 0.0054
Fusobacteria 2713.32 0.08 9.98E-05
Actinobacteria 1505.03 0.38 0.0490
Deinococcus-Thermus 202.1 19.53 2.10E-07

The list of significantly differential bacteria between cases and controls include the mean base >100. Comparisons (n = 19 cases versus n = 37 controls, without associated co-morbidities) yielded fold changes that are expressed in values of case/control ratios. Statistical analysis using the DESeq2 R package. A) Genus. B) Phylum.

Discussion

Environmental factors play a role in biliary carcinogenesis [6]. To better understand this role, we characterized biliary microbiota in a group of patients that were suffering from CCA. By using a targeted amplicon sequencing approach for 16s rRNA, we could thereby show that the bacteria composition significantly differed in CCA, compared to individuals without CCA that had undergone ERCP for bile collection. Some of the subjects, in either controls or cases, suffered from associated diseases, such as diabetes, pancreatitis, PSC, and IBD, too. All these diseases are known influencing the gut microbiota composition. Thus, we analyzed a subgroup of CCAe cases in whom biliary juice could be obtained through endoscopy exam in comparison with controls, none of which exhibited inflammatory or neoplastic associated diseases. Consequently, we could identify various genera, the abundances of which were shown to vary in cases as compared to controls, strongly suggesting CCAe being linked to dysbiosis.

To the best of our knowledge, previous studies that have demonstrated an association between biliary microbiota dysbiosis and human diseases have mainly concerned the process of cholesterol gallstone formation [22, 23]. These data suggested human gallbladder microbiome possibly playing a physiological role and influencing biliary metabolic profile. In a recent study conducted in patients with cholesterol gallstones [22], the connection of bile bacteria population and gut microbiota has been analyzed. In this paper, the authors argue high microbial diversity in the bile duct being impacted by intestinal microbiota diversity. Whether the differential bacteria panel we found in the biliary fluid is specifically linked with biliary carcinogenesis should be further discussed.

In this pilot study, our aim was to verify that biliary microbiota dysbiosis may be a key contributor to biliary neoplasia. Previous studies have shown that bile fluid dysbiosis could be linked to various diseases, including biliary lithiasis [21, 3133]. This latter condition induces partial or total obstruction of biliary flux. The point that PCoA analysis revealed a significant separation between CCAe and lithiasis subgroups may suggest that biliary microbiota changes could be favored by reduced biliary flow. However, this hypothesis seems unlikely, although bacteria may find a more favorable environment to growth in obstructed bile ducts. By collecting bile fluids above the occlusion using the ERCP approach, we found that patients referred for lithiasis and CCAe can be considered comparable with respect to this bias. Furthermore, consistent with previous studies [21, 3438], we found that phyla (Table 2B and S1B Table) Proteobacteria, Firmicutes, Bacteroidetes, Fusobacteria, and Actinobacteria dominated the bile microbiota in our population. Some genera or species, such as Helicobacter pylori, have been found to be present at higher levels in CCA [15] than in controls. Yet, this was not confirmed in our series, suggesting that Helicobacter pylori presence may suggest stomach juice-induced contamination. In addition, Proteobacteria is presumed to represent about 30% of stomach phyla and 60% of bile duct phyla [39]. Notably, the levels of Proteobacteria found in our series seems to be close to the values described in the small intestine by other authors [40]. These discrepancies in biliary microbiota composition may be accounted for by various conditions including gastric or duodenal contamination. It must be mentioned that although we took specific precaution in collecting biliary fluid (see methods) in the current study to prevent biliary tract juice from being contaminated by gastric or duodenal juices, it is not possible to rule out this bias, as additional effluent samples from stomach, duodenum and intestines have not been cross checked in our series. Amongst other potential factors that may affect bacteria colonization and survival within the biliary tract, the sphincter of Oddi function close to the tumour location could have been altered leading to increased inner pressure of the proximal duct. Alternatively, the pipelines used for taxonomic assignment that are known to vary from study to study could have impacted bacteria assignation. Nevertheless, despite all these biases, it can be assumed that differences in either intestinal or biliary microbiota composition of CCA patients do illustrate different bacteria environments that are associated with neoplasia, in comparison with individuals without tumors. According to this hypothesis, Jia et al [16] analyzed fecal microbiota in a series of intra hepatic CCAi, presumably without any contact with intestinal microbiota. These authors revealed that bacteria communities including Lactobacillus, Actinomyces, Peptostroptococcacae and Alloscardovia were found to be more abundant in gut microbiota from cases that controls. Thus, if involved in carcinogenesis, bacteria could act not only as adherent cells to the biliary tissue but also through the enterohepatic metabolic cycle of microbiota, such as biliary acid metabolism. This pathway has also been suggested to explain tumor growth and outcomes through host immune response to CCA [41]. Further studies including large series of both CCAe and CCAi patients are now required to more deeply characterize biliary cancer-associated dysbiosis as co carcinogenic and prognostic marker.

The dysbiosis we currently identified as being significantly linked to CCAe comprised genera, such as Bacteroides, Geobacillus, Anoxybacillus, and Meiothermus, which were found more abundant in cases than in controls.

Bacteroides are Gram-negative, strict anaerobic, non-spore-forming bacilli, which are intestinal microbiota bacteria. Several studies have demonstrated associations between Bacteroides and colon cancer [42, 43]. In addition, elevated Bacteroides have been found in various other diseases and conditions, including arthritis in transgenic rats HLA-B27 [44, 45]. Studies in germ-free mice have shown that the Bacteroides antigen contributes to the recruitment and proliferation of low-avidity CD8+ T lymphocytes; these cells may be similar to thymic CD4+ Tregs, as well as to the response to chronic antigenic exposure in intestinal lymphoid tissues [46]. The enrichment of Bacteroides in arthritis patients likely indicates that this condition may contribute to disease progression. The expansion of Bacteroides has been hypothesized to be a compensatory mechanism for regulating autoimmune reactions. Moreover, higher abundance of Bacteroides in the bile has been linked to cholethiasis through metabolomic changes [47]. Its role via auto-mmune disease mechanisms cannot yet been ruled out. Whether these bacteria are involved in primary cholangitis and constitute a marker of auto-immune disease has been investigated. Controversial results on PSC-associated biliary microbiota have been published: Pereira et al [48] failed to find any significant association between PSC and biliary microbiota changes, whereas a specific gut microbiota dysbiosis was characterized [42]. We were not in the position to verify this specific point, because only one of our CCA patients suffered from PSC. Regarding the potential association of bile bacteria and biliary CCA, two other studies have similarly employed 16S rRNA sequencing to characterize biliary tract bacteria [15, 49]. The impact of biliary bacteria composition on patients’ outcome has not been demonstrated. Despite a trend towards biliary dysbiosis variations according to stages and one-year survival rates, in our series, we were unable to identify any significant microbial predictive markers able to assess CCA patients with bad prognosis (data not shown). This is most likely due to the small size of our series.

To our knowledge, Geobacillus, Meiothermus, and Anoxybacillus levels, which were found to be more abundant in CCAe, have not previously been linked to CCA. The genus Geobacillus comprises a group of Gram-positive thermophilic bacteria, which are able to grow in an anaerobic milieu above the range of 45–75°C [50]. The genus Meiothermus is a thermophilic environmental bacteria, which is isolated upon a hot spring [51]. The genus Anoxybacillus is a rod-shaped bacterium from the Bacillaceae family, which forms spores that are likely to resist the geothermal spring milieu [52]. Whether these associations illustrate an accompanied bacteria community rather than a causative core cannot be addressed by our study. Interestingly, a recent study has reported an increase in Anoxybacillus and Geobacillus genera in bladder cancer patients [53]. Further, two genera (Lactobacillus and Alloscardovia), have been shown to be associated with CCAi, suggesting that a possible metabolic pathway alteration could possibly favor biliary carcinogenesis [16].

Our study has some limitations. The biliary microbiota characterization has not yet been carried out in healthy subjects, owing to ethical and technical difficulties. We could not verify whether the bacteria we found within the biliary lumen were similar to those that are adherent to tumoral tissues. Indeed, many patients did not undergo surgical tumor resection. Although all precautions were taken to avoid intestinal milieu contamination during ERCP collection, we cannot rule that bacteria originating from the duodenum were included in the collected fluids, since separated milieus were not screened.

Conclusion

We have characterized the biliary microbiota in CCAe patients and compared it with controls. To avoid confounding factors of associated diseases, we considered CCA patients and controls that were both free of co-morbidities. By doing so, we revealed significant changes in biliary microbial components. This suggests a significant CCA-associated biliary dysbiosis may enable us to distinguish these patients from non-cancerous controls. Although our results showed that the associated diseases do modify the composition of the biliary microbiota, we suggest that some of these bacteria may still be involved in CCA development.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Significant differential abundances, according to diagnosis (CCA versus controls).

The total lists of all bacteria including genera (CCA versus controls) after comparisons. These yielded fold changes that are expressed in the log values of ratios of the cases/controls. A) Genus level. B) Phylum level. Statistical analysis were based on the DESeq2 R package.

(XLSX)

S2 Table. Significant differential abundances, according to diagnosis.

(CCA versus controls). The total lists of all bacteria including genera (CCA versus controls) after comparisons between CCA cases (n = 19) and controls (n = 37), without associated co-morbidities. These yielded fold changes that are expressed in the log values of ratios of the cases/controls. A) Genus level. B) Phylum level. Statistical analysis were based on the DESeq2 R package.

(XLSX)

S3 Table. Target file.

Characteristics of the patients with cholangiocarcinoma and the controls.

(CSV)

S1 File. Abundance table (BIOM format).

Number of reads associated with each taxon for each patient and taxonomy.

(XLSX)

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank all the patients for accepting to contribute to the current research, in addition the employees of the Henri Mondor (Créteil, France) and Firouzgar (Tehran, Iran) hospitals, who were involved in the study. They also wish to thank the department Dean, Prof. Farhad Zamani, for supporting the study without any financial support from Iran to the French lab EC2M3. Finally, many thanks go to Vanessa Demontant for her technical help.

Data Availability

The 16S rRNA amplicon sequencing data are available from the European Nucleotide Archive (ENA) database (http://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena) under the accession number PRJEB43183.

Funding Statement

Funding for DNA analyses: UFR Sante-Paris12; UPEC Creteil-France; this routine annual funding of EC2M3 Lab had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Bouvier AM, Remontet L, Jougla E et al. Incidence of gastro-intestinal cancers in France. Gastroenterol Clin Biol 2004; 28: 877–881 10.1016/s0399-8320(04)95152-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Shin RH, Jin-Kyoung O, Masuyer E, Curado MP, Bouvard V, Fang Y, et al. Comparison of Incidence of Intrahepatic and ExtrahepaticCholangiocarcinoma—Focus on East and South-eastern Asia. Asian Pacific J Cancer Prev 2010, 11, 1159–1166). [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Kawarada Y, Yamagiwa K, Das BC. Analysis of the relationships between clinicopathologic factors and survival time in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Am J Surg. 2002; 183: 679–85. 10.1016/s0002-9610(02)00853-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Nathan H, Pawlik TM, Wolfgang CL, Choti MA, Cameron JL, Schulick RD. Trends in survival after surgery for cholangiocarcinoma: a 30-year population-based SEER database analysis. J Gastrointest Surg. 2007; 11: 1488–1496. 10.1007/s11605-007-0282-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Vogel A, Wege H, Caca K, Nashan B, Neumann U: The diagnosis and treatment of cholangiocarcinoma. Dtsch Arztebl Int 2014; 111: 748–54. 10.3238/arztebl.2014.0748 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Khan SA, Tavolari S, Brandi G. Cholangiocarcinoma: Epidemiology and risk factors. Liver Int. 2019; 39 Suppl 1: 19–31. 10.1111/liv.14095 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Callea F, Sergi C, Fabbretti G, Brisigotti M, Cozzutto C, Medicina D. Precancerous lesions of the biliary tree. J Surg Oncol Suppl. 1993; 3: 131–3. 10.1002/jso.2930530535 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Welzel TM, Mellemkjaer L, Gloria GCP, Sakoda LC, Hsing AW, Ghormli LE, et al. Risk factors for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma in a low-risk population: a nationwide case-control study. International journal of cancer. 2007; 120: 638–41. 10.1002/ijc.22283 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Pflughoeft KJ, Versalovic J. Human microbiome in health and disease. Annu Rev Pathol. 2012; 7: 99–122. 10.1146/annurev-pathol-011811-132421 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Hosgood HD, Sapkota AR, Rothman N, Rohan T, Hu W, Xu J, et al. The potential role of lung microbiota in lung cancer attributed to household coal burning exposures. Environ Mol Mutagen. 2014; 55: 643–51. 10.1002/em.21878 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Schmidt BL, Kuczynski J, Bhattacharya A, Huey B, Corby PM, Queiroz ELS, et al. Changes in abundance of oral microbiota associated with oral cancer. PLoS ONE. 2014; 9: e98741. 10.1371/journal.pone.0098741 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Wu N, Yang X, Zhang R, Li J, Xiao X, Hu Y, et al. Dysbiosis signature of fecal microbiota in colorectal cancer patients. Microb Ecol. 2013; 66: 462–70. 10.1007/s00248-013-0245-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Marschall HU, Backhed F. Could gut microbiota protect against sclerosing cholangitis? Hepatology 2016; 63:26–27. 10.1002/hep.28135 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Tan J, Mckenzie C, Potamitis M, Thorburn A, Mackay C, Macia L. The Role of Short-Chain Fatty Acids in Health and Disease. Advances in immunology. 2014; 121: 91–119. 10.1016/B978-0-12-800100-4.00003-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Avilés-Jiménez F., Guitron A., Segura-López F. et al., “Microbiota studies in the bile duct strongly suggest a role for Helicobacter pylori in extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma,” Clinical Microbiology and Infection, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 178. e11–178.e22, 2016. 10.1016/j.cmi.2015.10.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Jia X.; Lu S.; Zeng Z.; Liu Q.; Dong Z.; Chen Y.; et al. Characterization of Gut Microbiota, Bile Acid Metabolism, and Cytokines in Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma. Hepatology 2020, 71, 893–906. 10.1002/hep.30852 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Chen C., Song X., Wei W., et al., “e microbiota continuum along the female reproductive tract and its relation to uterinerelated diseases Nature,” Communications, vol. 8, no. 1, 875 pages, 2017. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Wu P., Zhang G., Zhao J., et al., “Profiling the urinary microbiota in male patients with bladder cancer in China Frontiers in Cellular and Infection,” Microbiology, vol. 8, 167 pages, 2018. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Merritt ME, Donaldson JR. Effect of bile salts on the DNA and membrane integrity of enteric bacteria. J Med Microbiol. 2009; 58: 1533–41. 10.1099/jmm.0.014092-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Verdier J, Luedde T, Sellge G. Biliary Mucosal Barrier and Microbiome. Viszeralmedizin. 2015; 31: 156–61. 10.1159/000431071 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Tao W. Zhang, Liu B., et al. Gut microbiota dysbiosis and bacterial community assembly associated with cholesterol gallstones in large-scale study. BMC Genomics 2013; 14: 669 10.1186/1471-2164-14-669 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Jiménez E, Sánchez B, Farina A, Margolles A, Rodríguez JM. Characterization of the bile and gall bladder microbiota of healthy pigs. MicrobiologyOpen. 2014; 3: 937–949. 10.1002/mbo3.218 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Suau A, Bonnet R, Sutren M, Godon JJ, Gibson GR, Collins MD, et al. Direct analysis of genes encoding 16S rRNA from complex communities reveals many novel molecular species within the human gut. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1999; 65: 4799–4807. 10.1128/AEM.65.11.4799-4807.1999 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Klindworth A, Pruesse E, Schweer T, Peplies J, Quast C, Horn M, et al. Evaluation of general 16S ribosomal RNA gene PCR primers for classical and next-generation sequencing-based diversity studies. Nucleic acids research. 2013; 7;41: e1. 10.1093/nar/gks808 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Illumina. 16S Metagenomic Sequencing Library Preparation 2015. https://web.uri.edu/gsc/files/16s-metagenomic-library-prep-guide-15044223-b.pdf.
  • 26.Bolger AM, Lohse M, Usadel B. Trimmomatic: a flexible trimmer for Illumina sequence data. Bioinformatics. 2014; 30: 2114–20. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btu170 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Magoč T, Salzberg SL. FLASH: fast length adjustment of short reads to improve genome assemblies. Bioinformatics. 2011; 27: 2957–63. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btr507 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Bağcı C, Beier S, Górska A, Huson DH. Introduction to the Analysis of Environmental Sequences: Metagenomics with MEGAN. Methods Mol Biol. 2019; 1910: 591–604. 10.1007/978-1-4939-9074-0_19 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Yilmaz P, Parfrey LW, Yarza P, Gerken J, Pruesse E, Quast C, et al. The SILVA and All-species Living Tree Project (LTP) taxonomic frameworks. Nucleic Acids Res. 2014; 42(Database issue): D643–8. 10.1093/nar/gkt1209 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Volant S, Lechat P, Woringer P, Motreff L, Campagne P, Malabat C, et al. BMC Bioinformatics 2020. August 10;21(1):345. 10.1186/s12859-020-03666-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Shen H, Ye F, Xie L, Yang J, Li Z, Xu P, et al. Metagenomic sequencing of bile from gallstone patients to identify different microbial community patterns and novel biliary bacteria. Scientific Reports. 2015; 5: 1–13. 10.1038/srep17450 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Ye F, Shen H, Li Z, Meng F, Li L, Yang J, et al. Influence of the Biliary System on Biliary Bacteria Revealed by Bacterial Communities of the Human Biliary and Upper Digestive Tracts. PLOS ONE. 2016; 11: e0150519. 10.1371/journal.pone.0150519 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Hiramatsu K, Harada K, Tsuneyama K, Sasaki M, Fujita S, Hashimoto T, et al. Amplification and sequence analysis of partial bacterial 16S ribosomal RNA gene in gallbladder bile from patients with primary biliary cirrhosis. J Hepatol. 2000; 33: 9–18. 10.1016/s0168-8278(00)80153-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Guaglianone E, Cardines R, Vuotto C, Di Rosa R, Babini V, Mastrantonio P, et al. Microbial biofilms associated with biliary stent clogging. FEMS Immunol Med Microbiol. 2010; 59: 410–420. 10.1111/j.1574-695X.2010.00686.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Brook I. Aerobic and anaerobic microbiology of biliary tract disease. J Clin Microbiol. 1989; 27: 2373–2375. 10.1128/JCM.27.10.2373-2375.1989 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Leung JW, Liu YL, Lau GC, Chan RC, Lai AC, Ling TK, et al. Bacteriologic analyses of bile and brown pigment stones in patients with acute cholangitis. Gastrointest Endosc. 2001; 54: 340–5. 10.1067/mge.2001.117547 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Sakaguchi Y, Murata K, Kimura M. Clostridium perfringens and other anaerobes isolated from bile. J Clin Pathol. 1983; 36: 345–349. 10.1136/jcp.36.3.345 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Lu Y, Xiang TH, Shi JS, Zhang BY. Bile anaerobic bacteria detection and antibiotic susceptibility in patients with gallstone. Hepatobiliary & Pancreatic Diseases International: Hbpd INT. 2003; 2:431–434. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Aviles-Jimenez F, Vazquez-Jimenez F, Medrano-Guzman R, Mantilla A, Torres J. Stomach microbiota composition varies between patients with non-atrophic gastritis and patients with intestinal type of gastric cancer. Sci Rep. 2014; 4: 1–11. 10.1038/srep04202 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Kamada N, Chen GY, Inohara N, Núñez G. Control of Pathogens and Pathobionts by the Gut microbiota. Nat Immunol. 2013; 14: 685–690. 10.1038/ni.2608 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Shah A, et al. Targeting the Gut Microbiome as a Treatment for Primary Sclerosing Cholangitis: A Conceptional Framework. Am J Gastroenterol 2020. June;115(6):814–822). 10.14309/ajg.0000000000000604 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Gupta A, Dhakan DB, Maji A, Saxena R, P V, Mahajan S, et al. Association of Flavonifractor plautii, a Flavonoid-Degrading Bacterium, with the Gut Microbiome of Colorectal Cancer Patients in India. mSystems. 2019; 4: e00438–19. 10.1128/mSystems.00438-19 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Sobhani I, Tap J, Roudot-Thoraval F, Roperch JP, Letulle S, Langella P, et al. Microbial Dysbiosis in Colorectal Cancer (CRC) Patients. PLOS ONE. 2011; 6: e16393. 10.1371/journal.pone.0016393 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Rath HC, Herfarth HH, Ikeda JS, Grenther WB, Hamm TE, Balish E, et al. Normal luminal bacteria, especially Bacteroides species, mediate chronic colitis, gastritis, and arthritis in HLA-B27/human beta2 microglobulin transgenic rats. J Clin Invest. 1996; 98: 945–53. 10.1172/JCI118878 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Crook PR, Gray J. Bacteroides causing osteomyelitis in rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 1982; 41: 645–6. 10.1136/ard.41.6.645 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Hebbandi Nanjundappa R, Ronchi F, Wang J, Clemente-Casares X, Yamanouchi J, Sokke Umeshappa C, et al. A Gut Microbial Mimic that Hijacks Diabetogenic Autoreactivity to Suppress Colitis. Cell. 2017; 171: 655–667. 10.1016/j.cell.2017.09.022 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Molinero N., Ruiz L., Milani C. et al., “The human gallbladder microbiome is related to the physiological state and the biliary metabolic profile,” Microbiome, vol. 7, no. 1, p. 100, 2019. 10.1186/s40168-019-0712-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Pereira P, Aho V, Arola J, Boyd S, Jokelainen K, Paulin L, et al. Bile microbiota in primary sclerosing cholangitis: Impact on disease progression and development of biliary dysplasia. PLoS ONE. 2017; 12: e0182924. 10.1371/journal.pone.0182924 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Chen B.; Fu S.W.; Lu L.; Zhao H. A Preliminary Study of Biliary Microbiota in Patients with Bile Duct Stones or Distal Cholangiocarcinoma. BioMed Res. Int. 2019; 2019:1–12. 10.1155/2019/1092563 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Hussein AH, Lisowska BK, Leak DJ. Chapter One—The genus Geobacillus and their biotechnological potential. Advances in Applied Microbiology. 2015; 92: 1–48. 10.1016/bs.aambs.2015.03.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Ming H, Duan Y-Y, Guo Q-Q, Yin Y-R, Zhou E-M, Liu L, et al. Meiothermus roseus sp. nov., a thermophilic bacterium isolated from a geothermal area. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek. 2015; 108: 897–905. 10.1007/s10482-015-0544-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Goh KM, Gan HM, Chan K-G, Chan GF, Shahar S, et al. Analysis of Anoxybacillus Genomes from the Aspects of Lifestyle Adaptations, Prophage Diversity, and Carbohydrate Metabolism. PLoS ONE 2014; 9: e90549. 10.1371/journal.pone.0090549 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Liu F, Liu A, Lu X, Zhang Z, Xue Y, Xu J, et al. Dysbiosis signatures of the microbial profile in tissue from bladder cancer. Cancer Med. 2019; 8: 6904–6914. 10.1002/cam4.2419 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Pradeep Dudeja

27 Aug 2020

PONE-D-20-20572

CHARACTERIZATION of biliary microbiota dysbiosis in extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Saab,

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.

There were major issues raised which related to lack of mechanistic details, small sample size and the mode of presentation and language issues.

Please submit your revised manuscript within 90 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,

Pradeep Dudeja

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 your ethics statement : 'All patients were enrolled at Firoozgar Hospital (Teheran) for the present translational study and provided their informed consent to conduct microbial analyses on the biliary juice recovered during the ERCP (Ethics Committee approval under ID: IR.IUMS.REC.1397.115 of Iran university of medical sciences).'

(a) Please amend your current ethics statement to confirm that your named institutional review board or ethics committee specifically approved this study.

(b) Once you have amended this/these statement(s) in the Methods section of the manuscript, please add the same text to the “Ethics Statement” field of the submission form (via “Edit Submission”).

For additional information about PLOS ONE ethical requirements for human subjects research, please refer to " ext-link-type="uri" xlink:type="simple">http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research."

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 what type of consent 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.

4. In your Methods section, please provide additional information about the participant recruitment method and the demographic details of your participants. Please ensure you have provided sufficient details to replicate the analyses such as: a) the recruitment date range (month and year), b) a description of any inclusion criteria that were applied to participant recruitment and c) a description of how participants were recruited.

5. Please provide a sample size and power calculation in the Methods, or discuss the reasons for not performing one before study initiation.

6. To comply with PLOS ONE submission guidelines, in your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding your statistical analyses. For more information on PLOS ONE's expectations for statistical reporting, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines.#loc-statistical-reporting.

[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?

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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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: • Major comments:

i. Data is held at institute and “may” be accessible under specific request is not adhering to the journals requirements to make all data underlying findings available online, especially since this is large data that could potentially lead to incredible findings in the fields of microbiome and CCA research.

ii. He authors claim no financial support for this work, however, this manuscript demonstrates intensive work.

iii. Wald test is performed for the differential abudance analysis, but due to small sample size 30 of CCA, it is recommended that likelihood ratio test be performed.

iv. There is no information on the severity of CCA in patients (or early/late stage PSC/IBD/etc in cases of co-morbidities) and there is no information on ethnicity or race on patients studied. The authors should attempt to present this information for transparency.

v. Methods in this manuscript should be applied to established data sets, especially those cited in the discussion, to verify that similar results are found. This manuscript claims to characterize CCA bile microbiome but does not verify its findings on publicly available data, or own previously published data sets. Also, there is no comparison of microbiome from CCA-No to those of other biliary diseases or duodenal samples which may demonstrate the true novel findings of this manuscript and reduce suspicion of collection method contamination.

• Minor comments:

i. All figures say “Non” instead of “No” when indicating comorbidity existence in CCA or control patients.

ii. Differential abundance should be presented in linear modeling graph for data presentation to reduce confusion of the base mean and log fold change.

iii. The discussion does not speculate the on the role Anoxybacillus, Geobacillus, and Meiothermus play in the biliary milieu. Additionally. There is no mention of bile altering bacteria levels which would be a great addition to this manuscript since bile flow, bile composition and cholestasis are interrelated in CCA and other biliary diseases.

iv. Introduction and discussion should be edited. There is limited information on the impact of biliary microbiome dysbiosis in CCA development or how important dysbiosis of microbiome composition is in other diseases. The detection method of CCA is not of high importance for the findings in this manuscript unless it is to address any potential contamination from method of collection (which should be reserved for discussion and not introduction).

v. Figures should be combined (all figure 1 together) rather than spread out. The figure legends should be placed outside of manuscript flow since that interrupts the readers comprehension.

Reviewer #2: The current manuscript submitted by Massa Saab et al was designed to characterize biliary microbiota in consecutive patients with a histologically proven CCAe, and their results were compared to a series of patients with benign biliary affected diseases (PBBs), which were considered the control. Using 16S RNA sequencing has demonstrated significant differences in the composition of the biliary microbiota between the two populations, which could implicate CCA-associated dysbiosis in the biliary carcinogenesis. Overall, 32% of CCA and 22% of control patients displayed another associated disease, such as diabetes, pancreatitis, inflammatory bowel disease, or primary sclerosing cholangitis. Comparisons considered associated diseases. Principal coordinate analysis (PCoA) detected a significant disparity of the biliary microbiota composition between the CCAs and controls without an associated disease. Levels of Bacteroides, Geobacillus, Meiothermus, and Anoxybacillus genera were significantly higher in CCA patients’ biliary microbiota, without an associated disease, than in the controls. A specific CCA-related dysbiosis is identified as compared to controls independently from associated diseases, therefore a microorganism community might be involved in the CCA pathogenesis, as suggested by authors. It is an interesting paper and the experiments were properly performed. However, the mechanisms between biliary microbiota and CCA development/progression are undefined, and the data on biliary carcinogenesis are descriptive. Additionally isolated CCA cells need to be better characterized, to make sure that they display the CCA phenotypes associated with biliary microbiota as expected. Moreover, the data is too preliminary and lack of the significance and mechanistic studies to define the specific biliary microbiota associated cancer signaling pathways.

Comments:

1. The major issue of the current manuscript is the mechanisms between biliary microbiota and CCA development/progression are undefined, and the data on biliary carcinogenesis are descriptive. Actually several manuscripts have proved the associations among gut microbiota, bile acid metabolism and cytokines in cholangiocarcinoma development and progression. Therefore further functional characterizations for CCA development and progression are need for the current manuscript.

2. The isolated/primary CCA cells from human CCA tissues were not well characterized and the authors failed to show the CCA phenotypes associated with biliary microbiota as expected. Therefore their cancer associated biliary microbiota phenotypes are questionable.

3. There is some confusion in the manuscript to prove that the levels of Bacteroides, Geobacillus, Meiothermus, and Anoxybacillus genera were significantly higher in CCA patients’ biliary microbiota, without an associated disease, than in the controls. More detailed mechanistic studies should be carried out to define the specific mechanisms of malignant transformation and their down stream signaling mechanisms.

4. The rationale should be provided in introduction. Summary is missing in the discussion section and the conclusion needs to be detailed.

5. Statistic analysis should be included in Figure 1 2 with some detailed CCA cancer stage and survival information.

6. There are not enough data in the main manuscript. Therefore the supplementary information should be moved to the main text.

7. English writing skills need to be improved. The format of the fonts and some technical terms should be consistent.

8. The discussion needs to be modified and focused. Some of the descriptions are disconnected from the central focus in the discussion section.

**********

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.]

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. 2021 Mar 9;16(3):e0247798. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0247798.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


25 Jan 2021

We would like to thank you for the consideration brought our paper, and for allowing us to resubmit a modified version of our manuscript to PLOS One. After careful revision, we responded in a “point-by-point manner” to your own comments as well as to the reviewers’ remarks. The new version has been revised by an English native lecture. We thank reviewers for their fruitful comments. One of reviewers recommended adding a mechanistic approach in the present study. We wish to stress out that several studies around main hypotheses are already in progress. Up to know there is no evidence which out of pathways we investigate is mainly involved in the carcinogenesis. This the reason why we decided including new data regarding tumor staging and long term follow up of patients. Unfortunately, we didn’t find any predictive value in bacterial changes for estimating prognosis likely due to the small size of our cohort cases. We are confident that our study needs to be reproduced through various ethnic populations before going more in-depth through one of these pathways.

We also would thank you for the additional time granted to prepare this present modified version. Consequently, the following items are considered in the revised manuscript:

• Responses to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s).

• A marked-up copy of our manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version and identified as 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

• An unmarked version of revised paper without tracked changes identified as ‘Manuscript'.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.pdf

Decision Letter 1

Pradeep Dudeja

15 Feb 2021

CHARACTERIZATION of biliary microbiota dysbiosis in extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma

PONE-D-20-20572R1

Dear Dr. Saab,

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,

Pradeep Dudeja

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. 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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. 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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. 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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. 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 have addressed all the comments and the manuscript is suitable for publication. The authors have added important data and figures

Reviewer #2: The authors have addressed almost all the concerns from the previous review cycle and the revised manuscript has been significantly improved.

**********

7. 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

Acceptance letter

Pradeep Dudeja

26 Feb 2021

PONE-D-20-20572R1

Characterization of biliary microbiota dysbiosis in extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma

Dear Dr. Saab:

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. Pradeep Dudeja

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Table. Significant differential abundances, according to diagnosis (CCA versus controls).

    The total lists of all bacteria including genera (CCA versus controls) after comparisons. These yielded fold changes that are expressed in the log values of ratios of the cases/controls. A) Genus level. B) Phylum level. Statistical analysis were based on the DESeq2 R package.

    (XLSX)

    S2 Table. Significant differential abundances, according to diagnosis.

    (CCA versus controls). The total lists of all bacteria including genera (CCA versus controls) after comparisons between CCA cases (n = 19) and controls (n = 37), without associated co-morbidities. These yielded fold changes that are expressed in the log values of ratios of the cases/controls. A) Genus level. B) Phylum level. Statistical analysis were based on the DESeq2 R package.

    (XLSX)

    S3 Table. Target file.

    Characteristics of the patients with cholangiocarcinoma and the controls.

    (CSV)

    S1 File. Abundance table (BIOM format).

    Number of reads associated with each taxon for each patient and taxonomy.

    (XLSX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.pdf

    Data Availability Statement

    The 16S rRNA amplicon sequencing data are available from the European Nucleotide Archive (ENA) database (http://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena) under the accession number PRJEB43183.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES