Evidence Hub

Exploring the Complex Relationship between Gut Microbiota and Risk of Colorectal Neoplasia Using Bidirectional Mendelian Randomization Analysis

Li W, Zhou X, Yuan S, Wang L, Yu L, Sun J, Chen J, Xiao Q et al.

Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology, 2023

8 citations

Abstract

Background: Human gut microbiome has complex relationships with the host, contributing to metabolism, immunity, and carcinogenesis.

Methods: Summary-level data for gut microbiota and metabolites were obtained from MiBioGen, FINRISK and human metabolome consortia. Summary-level data for colorectal cancer were derived from a genome-wide association study meta-analysis. In forward Mendelian randomization (MR), we employed genetic instrumental variables (IV) for 24 gut microbiota taxa and six bacterial metabolites to examine their causal relationship with colorectal cancer. We also used a lenient threshold for nine apriori gut microbiota taxa as secondary analyses. In reverse MR, we explored association between genetic liability to colorectal neoplasia and abundance of microbiota studied above using 95, 19, and 7 IVs for colorectal cancer, adenoma, and polyps, respectively.

Results: Forward MR did not find evidence indicating causal relationship between any of the gut microbiota taxa or six bacterial metabolites tested and colorectal cancer risk. However, reverse MR supported genetic liability to colorectal adenomas was causally related with increased abundance of two taxa: Gammaproteobacteria (β = 0.027, which represents a 0.027 increase in log-transformed relative abundance values of Gammaproteobacteria for per one-unit increase in log OR of adenoma risk; P = 7.06×10-8), Enterobacteriaceae (β = 0.023, P = 1.29×10-5).

Conclusions: We find genetic liability to colorectal…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free