The altered lung microbiome dynamics in patients with moderate and severe COPD compared to the healthy group in the Indian population

Druti Hazra; Fayaz SM; Kiran Chawla; Vitali Sintchenko; Elena Martinez; Rahul Magazine; Nayana Siddalingaiah

doi:10.12688/f1000research.132220.1

Home Browse The altered lung microbiome dynamics in patients with moderate and...

ALL Metrics

Views

Downloads

Get PDF

Get XML

Export

▬

✚

Research Article

The altered lung microbiome dynamics in patients with moderate and severe COPD compared to the healthy group in the Indian population

[version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 1 not approved]

Druti Hazra¹, Fayaz SM², Kiran Chawla ¹, [...] Vitali Sintchenko^3,4, Elena Martinez³, Rahul Magazine⁵, Nayana Siddalingaiah¹

Druti Hazra¹, Fayaz SM², [...] Kiran Chawla ¹, Vitali Sintchenko^3,4, Elena Martinez³, Rahul Magazine⁵, Nayana Siddalingaiah¹

PUBLISHED 22 May 2023

Author details Author details

¹ Department of Microbiology, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, Karnataka, 576104, India
² Department of Biotechnology, Manipal Institute of Technology, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, Karnataka, 576104, India
³ Sydney Institute for Infectious Diseases, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, 2145, Australia
⁴ Centre for Infectious Diseases and Microbiology-Public Health, Westmead Hospital, Westmead, New South Wale, 2145, Australia
⁵ Department of Respiratory Medicine, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, Karnataka, 576104, India

Druti Hazra
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation

Fayaz SM
Roles: Formal Analysis, Methodology, Software, Visualization, Writing – Review & Editing

Kiran Chawla
Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Resources, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing

Vitali Sintchenko
Roles: Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing

Elena Martinez
Roles: Formal Analysis, Writing – Review & Editing

Rahul Magazine
Roles: Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing

Nayana Siddalingaiah
Roles: Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing

OPEN PEER REVIEW

REVIEWER STATUS

This article is included in the Manipal Academy of Higher Education gateway.

Abstract

Background: Microbial culture-independent sequencing techniques have advanced our understanding of host-microbiome interactions in health and disease. The purpose of this study was to explore the dysbiosis of airway microbiota in patients with moderate or severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and compare them with healthy controls.
Methods: The COPD patients were investigated for disease severity based on airflow limitations and divided into moderate (50%≤FEV1<80% predicted) and severe groups (FEV1<50% predicted). Spontaneous sputum samples were collected and, the V3-V4 regions of the 16S rRNA coding gene were sequenced to examine the microbiome profile of COPD and healthy participants.
Results: A total of 45 sputum samples were collected from 17 severe COPD, 12 moderate COPD cases, and 16 healthy volunteers. The bacterial alpha diversity (Shannon and Simpson’s index) significantly decreased in the moderate and severe COPD groups, compared to healthy samples. A significantly higher proportion of Firmicutes and Actinobacteria were present in moderate COPD, and Proteobacteria numbers were comparatively increased in severe COPD. In healthy samples, Bacteroidetes and Fusobacteria were more abundant in comparison to both the COPD groups. Among the most commonly detected 20 bacterial genera, Streptococcus was predominant among the COPD sputum samples, whereas Prevotella was the top genus in healthy controls. Linear discriminant analysis (LDA>2) revealed that marker genera like Streptococcus and Rothia were abundant in moderate COPD. For severe COPD, the genera Pseudomonas and Leptotrichia were most prevalent, whereas Fusobacterium and Prevotella were dominant in the healthy group.
Conclusions: Our findings suggest a significant dysbiosis of the respiratory microbiome in COPD patients. The decreased microbial diversity may influence the host immune response and provide microbiological biomarkers for the diagnosis and monitoring of COPD.

Keywords

Microbiome, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, respiratory pathology, 16S rRNA gene sequencing, microbial populations

Corresponding author: Kiran Chawla

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information: The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.

Copyright: © 2023 Hazra D et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

How to cite: Hazra D, SM F, Chawla K et al. The altered lung microbiome dynamics in patients with moderate and severe COPD compared to the healthy group in the Indian population [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 1 not approved]. F1000Research 2023, 12:528 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.132220.1) First published: 22 May 2023, 12:528 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.132220.1) Latest published: 27 Oct 2023, 12:528 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.132220.4)

Introduction

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a heterogenous lung pathology, manifesting with persistent and progressive respiratory symptoms, airway obstruction, and inflammation due to structural abnormalities.¹ COPD is one of the leading causes of mortality and morbidity globally and its burden is predicted to rise further in the upcoming years due to constant exposure to air pollution, respiratory pathogens, and the growing elderly population.¹^–³ COPD is a treatable but incurable disease, and often switches between a stable to an exacerbated state disease.⁴ The frequent exacerbation and worsening of respiratory symptoms affect the individual quality of life with a significant socioeconomic burden and impose a huge healthcare management cost.⁵^,⁶ The progression of COPD often leads to chronic inflammation and major destruction of the lung and airway, which disrupts pulmonary microbiome homeostasis. Commensal microbes play a crucial role in innate immune regulation, protecting against invading pathogens and maintaining epithelial integrity. The recent advancement of culture-independent next-generation sequencing techniques has uncovered the diverse microbial communities colonizing the respiratory mucosa and recognized their roles in health and disease.⁷^–⁹

In the past, several studies have evaluated lung microbiome composition and its association with COPD manifestations. The changes in bacterial diversity and several significant taxa have been identified in COPD patients, which play a role in disease progression. Although a high heterogeneity has been observed among the studies, potentially attributed to the underlying health conditions in different populations and the dynamics of microbial ecology in the COPD Indian population, it remains poorly understood. This study aimed to evaluate the changes in lung microbiome diversity of patients with moderate or severe COPD and compare them with the microbiomes of healthy controls.

Methods

Ethical considerations

This study was approved by the Kasturba Medical College and Kasturba Hospital Institutional Ethics Committee [IEC: 479/2019].

Consent to participate

Written informed consent was obtained from all the participants.

Study design and population

To conduct this prospective observational study, sputum samples were collected from eligible COPD participants, who presented to our hospital and were diagnosed with COPD in accordance with the 2019 Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) guideline.¹⁰ Their lung functions were measured using spirometry. The enrolled cases were regrouped into moderate COPD (50%≤FEV1<80% predicted) and severe COPD (FEV1<50% predicted). The exclusion criteria for COPD participants were: (a) age ≤40 years, (b) patients diagnosed with other respiratory diseases or immunosuppression, and (c) history of antibiotic usage within four weeks prior to sample collection. Healthy controls include individuals ≥40 years of age and those not having any apparent illness. There was no gender-based exclusions or restrictions for recruiting participants. Demographic and clinical information was obtained for the enrolled participants. This study was approved by the Kasturba Medical College and Kasturba Hospital Institutional Ethics Committee (IEC: 479/2019) and the participants were enrolled after providing written informed consent.

Sample collection, DNA isolation, and 16S rDNA sequencing

The participants were instructed to cough up sputum into a sterile container and samples were transported on ice to the laboratory. All sputum samples were evaluated with routine conventional culturing and an aliquot of it was stored at −80°C for the DNA extraction. The sputum samples were homogenized using an equal volume of 0.2% dithiothreitol (DTT) (Sigma Aldrich, USA), and lysozyme-based Qiagen DNA Mini kit (Qiagen, USA) was used to extract the genomic DNA according to the manufacturer’s protocol. The Qubit 2.0 fluorometer (Thermo Fisher Scientific, USA) was used to measure the purity and concentration of the extracted DNA.

The purified DNA was further processed for the 16S rRNA V3-V4 regions targeted amplification to uncover the bacterial community in sputum samples. Based on the Illumina protocol,¹¹ PCR amplification of V3-V4 hypervariable regions (~456 bp) were performed using the primer pair 341F/785R. Sequencing adapters and dual index barcodes were added with a limited cycle of PCR. After the quality assessment, multiplex amplified libraries were pooled equally and paired-end reads (2X300 bp) were generated using the MiSeq instrument (Illumina, San Diego, CA, United States).

Bioinformatics analysis

The sequenced raw data were processed using the standard Mothur v1.46.1 pipeline.¹² A quality check of the reads was carried out and the low-quality reads and chimeras were removed. Contigs were created from the paired-end reads. Unique sequences were considered by removing the identical sequences. The quality reads were then aligned to the SILVA database and clustered into Operational Taxonomic Units (OTUs) at 97% similarity and taxa level 4, which is similar to the genus for Bacteria.¹³

Statistical analysis

The microbial community diversity profiles among the moderate COPD, severe COPD, and healthy groups were analyzed using the alpha and beta-diversity metrics. The Shannon, Simpson, and Chao1 matrices were used to measure bacterial Alpha-diversity and an ANOVA test was done to estimate significant differences. Beta diversity was performed using the Principal Coordinate Analysis (PCoA) method along with the Bray-Curtis index as distance measure and permutational multivariate analysis of variance (PERMANOVA) for the significant measure. The genus biomarkers (discriminative genera among the groups) were identified using linear discriminant analysis effect size (LEfSe) and a cut-off linear discriminant analysis (LDA) score >2.0.

Results

Features of the study participants

Sputum samples from COPD cases (12 moderate COPD and 17 severe COPD) and 16 healthy volunteers were included in the study. The participants’ clinical and demographic features like gender, age, BMI, pulmonary function tests (FEV1% predicted, FEV1 and FEV1/FVC values), mMRC dyspnoea score, and whether they were current smokers are summarized in Table 1. At the time of sampling, all COPD patients were in an exacerbated state of the disease and no significant growth of respiratory pathogens was detected in the sputum cultures.

Table 1. Clinical and demographic features of the study population.

Features	Moderate COPD (n=12)	Severe COPD (n=17)	Healthy (n=16)
Age, years (mean ± SD)	66 ± 5.8	64 ± 5.8	58 ± 5.3
Gender
Male (%)	12 (100)	16 (94.1)	10 (62.5)
Female (%)	-	1 (5.9)	6 (37.5)
BMI (kg/m²) (mean ± SD)	25.4 ± 5.6	23.2 ± 5.7	24.2 ± 4.4
Current Smoker (%)	4 (30.8)	2 (11.8)	3 (18.7)
Post-bronchodilator FEV1, % predicted (mean ± SD)	75.1 ± 16.5	30.8 ± 8.6	NA
Post-bronchodilator FEV1, L (mean ± SD)	2.4 ± 0.5	1.8 ± 0.8	NA
Post-bronchodilator FEV1/FVC ratio, % (mean ± SD)	90.8 ± 13.4	61 ± 17.4	NA
mMRC Dyspnoea scale (IQR)	2(2)	3 (3)	NA

Bacterial diversity in sputum samples

A total of 91,863 OTUs were recovered at a 97% sequence identity with 32,665 OTUs in the patients with moderate COPD, 40,842 OTUs in severe COPD, and 30,980 OTUs in the healthy group. A significantly lower bacterial alpha diversity (Simpson’s and Shannon's index) was observed in moderate COPD and severe COPD samples compared to the healthy group (p<0.05, ANOVA test). The Chao1 index measured the species richness within groups and exhibited no differences (p>0.05) (Figure 1A). The Beta diversity represented by PCoA showed a significant difference in bacterial community clustering among the groups (p<0.01, PERMANOVA test) (Figure 1B).

Figure 1. Bacterial diversity in sputum samples of moderate COPD, severe COPD, and healthy groups.

(A) The measures of alpha diversity indices showed a significant difference (*p < 0.05 and **p < 0.01, ANOVA test). (B) Principal coordinate analysis (PCoA) revealed a distinct bacterial community clustering among the groups (P< 0.01, PERMANOVA). (C) Venn diagram of the core microbiota in tested samples.

As the Venn diagram of the core sputum microbiota (Figure 1C) illustrates, out of the total 91863 OTUs 35.6%, 27.2%, and 26.3% OTUs were unique to severe COPD, moderate COPD, and healthy groups respectively. While 2,649 (2.9%) OTUs were shared by all three groups and 5,831 (6.3%) OTUs were shared between moderate and severe COPD groups, 4,447 (4.8%) OTUs were common for moderate COPD and healthy, and, 4,995 (5.4%) OTUs were common for severe COPD and healthy groups.

The taxonomic profiling of sputum microbiota among groups

The most prevalent microbial phyla in the sputum samples of moderate COPD, severe COPD, and healthy were Firmicutes (46.3%, 35.6%, and 31.9%) followed by Bacteroidetes (20.0%, 26.8%, and 28.7%) Proteobacteria (12.9%, 17.4%, and 16.1%), Actinobacteria (14.0%, 8.5%, and 5.9%), and Fusobacteria (5.3%, 9.5%, and 13%) (Figure 2A). A significantly higher proportion of Firmicutes and Actinobacteria were present in respiratory samples from patients with moderate COPD and Proteobacteria was comparatively increased in severe COPD, whereas in healthy individuals, Bacteroidetes and Fusobacteria were present in a higher abundance compared to both COPD groups.

Figure 2. The taxonomic profiling of sputum microbiota among moderate COPD, severe COPD, and healthy groups.

(A) Relative abundance at the Phyla level, (B) Relative abundance at the genus level, and (C) LEfSe analysis represent the discriminative genera among the groups (LDA>2).

In the cohort of patients with moderate COPD, the top five most commonly detected genera were Streptococcus (28.2%), Rothia (11.4%), Prevotella (8.3%), Porphyromonas (7.9%), and Gemella (6.2%). The dominant genera in severe COPD were Streptococcus (20.2%), Prevotella (11.7%), Porphyromonas (10.1%), Leptotrichia (5.9%), and Rothia (5.3%). In healthy individuals, Prevotella (16.5%) was the most prevalent genus, followed by Streptococcus (13.0%), Neisseria (7.1%), Fusobacteria (6.6%), and Velionella (6.2%). An increasing abundance of Streptococcus (p<0.05), and Rothia was observed in moderate COPD samples, whereas Morexalla and Pseudomonas were relatively higher in severe COPD. Genera like Prevotella, and Fusobacteria were abundantly present in healthy individuals in comparison to moderate COPD. Figure 2B demonstrates the top bacterial genera present in the sputum of patients with moderate or severe COPD, and healthy groups.

The LEfSe analysis was performed to detect the discriminative genera among the groups (Figure 2C). In moderate COPD, six marker genera (LDA>2) Streptococcus, Rothia, Gemella, Carnobacteriaceae, Capnocytophaga, and Weissella were identified. For the severe COPD, genera Pseudomonas and Leptotrichia were higher, whereas Fusobacterium, Bacteroidales, Peptostreptococcus, Prevotella, Porphyromonas, Alloprevotella, etc. were dominant in healthy individuals.

Discussion

The severity of COPD is often influenced by environmental exposures, host genetic makeup, and airway host-microbiome interactions. This study demonstrated the microbial alpha diversity of moderate and severe COPD groups decreased significantly in comparison to the healthy control group. Our findings added important evidence to the understanding of the microbial population dynamics in COPD. Su et al. also reported a decreased bacterial diversity in the acute exacerbations of COPD compared to healthy controls, which was consistent with our findings.¹⁴ Ramsheh et al. also found a higher Alpha diversity in healthy individuals than in COPD bronchial brush samples.¹⁵ The consistent results of these studies indicate the altered microbial diversity in COPD patients compared to healthy and its potential role as a disease marker.

According to our findings, the alpha diversity of moderate COPD declined compared to the severe COPD group. However, Yang et al. and Li et al. did not observe any significant difference in microbial diversity between mild COPD and severe COPD groups, whereas Garcia-Nuñez et al. reported a decreased alpha diversity in advanced COPD compared to moderate-to-severe disease.¹⁶^–¹⁸ This inconsistency among studies could be due to distinct sampling methods, COPD states and exacerbations, and different geographic regions.

In this study, the most dominant phylum was Firmicutes, predominantly present in all the groups, in concordance with previous reports.¹⁵^,¹⁶^,¹⁹^,²⁰ In healthy controls, we observed a higher proportion of Bacteroidetes and Fusobacteria, likewise reported by Ramsheh et al.¹⁵ Proteobacteria was present in relatively higher proportions in patients with severe COPD, which is consistent with previous studies examining bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL)²¹ and sputum¹⁸^,²² samples. According to Wang et al., the increased abundance of Proteobacteria might trigger the pro-inflammatory mediators of the host, which leads to dysbiosis of lung microbiomes.²²

Streptococcus was the predominant genus among the COPD sputum samples, whereas Prevotella was significantly higher in healthy controls. A multi-centric study reported that Prevotella promotes normal lung function and the severity of COPD increases with its decreasing abundance.¹⁵ A lung co-infection mouse model study conducted by Horn KJ et al. suggested that an increased abundance of airway Prevotella can accelerate the innate immune response and rapid pathogen clearance from the lung.²³ In the moderate COPD group, we noted a higher abundance of Streptococcus and Rothia, which was similar to previously published studies of COPD samples.¹⁴^,¹⁶^–¹⁸^,²²^,²⁴ Li W et al. also observed a higher abundance of Rothia in the mild COPD group compared with the severe group,¹⁷ which was negatively correlated with pro-inflammatory markers, which might reduce the disease severity and exacerbation frequency in COPD.²⁵ Another genus, Morexalla, which was abundant in severe COPD samples, was likewise reported by Wang et al.²⁶ and Ramsheh et al.¹⁵ According to Wang et al., the relative abundance of Moraxella increased during COPD exacerbations and was also linked to the host interferon signaling pathway.²⁶ Ramsheh et al. revealed that an increased abundance of Moraxella was associated with the expression of the IL-17 and TNF inflammatory pathways, which elicit the severity of COPD.¹⁵ These studies indicate that patients might suffer an altered lung microbial diversity during COPD disease severity, which means microbiota is a potential marker to predict the prognosis in COPD cases and may change the disease management.

There are a few limitations of our study. First, the population size of this study was small and the samples were collected from a single center. Second, the virome and mycobiome diversity of sputum were not evaluated. Future multi-centre studies in larger diverse populations are required to conclude the stability and alteration of microbiota in health and disease.

Conclusions

Our findings suggested a significant loss of the sputum microbiome diversity in patients with COPD. This decrease is more pronounced in patients with severe disease. The dysbiosis of lung microbiota may cause an alteration of the mucosal immune system and further facilitate inflammation in the lung. Therefore, the improved understanding of the link between the respiratory microbiome and disease may offer new opportunities for an alternative management approach for COPD.

Author contributions

Conceptualization: D.H., K. C.; Methodology: D. H., R. M., K. C.; Data analysis: F. SM., D. H., E. M.; Writing - original draft preparation: D. H.; Writing - review and editing: K. C., V. S., F. SM., N. S.; Supervision: K. C., V. S.

Data availability statement

Underlying data

Zenodo: Sequenced Data COPD and healthy, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7697770.²⁷

Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0).

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) for providing a Senior Research Fellowship (SRF) for the study.

References

1. Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD): Global strategy for prevention, diagnosis and management of COPD: 2023 report.2023. Reference Source
2. Herse F, Kiljander T, Lehtimäki L: Annual costs of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in Finland during 1996-2006 and a prediction model for 2007-2030. NPJ Prim. Care Respir. Med. 2015; 25: 15015. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
3. Mathers CD, Loncar D: Projections of Global Mortality and Burden of Disease from 2002 to 2030. PLoS Med. 2006; 3(11): e442. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
4. Safiri S, Carson-Chahhoud K, Noori M, et al.: Burden of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and its attributable risk factors in 204 countries and territories, 1990-2019: results from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. BMJ. 2022; 378: e069679. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
5. Iheanacho I, Zhang S, King D, et al.: Economic Burden of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD): A Systematic Literature Review. Int. J. Chron. Obstruct. Pulmon. Dis. 2020; 15: 439–460. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
6. Gutiérrez Villegas C, Paz-Zulueta M, Herrero-Montes M, et al.: Cost analysis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD): a systematic review. Heal. Econ. Rev. 2021; 11(1): 31. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
7. Wang L, Hao K, Yang T, et al.: Role of the Lung Microbiome in the Pathogenesis of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. Chin. Med. J. (Engl). 2017; 130(17): 2107–2111. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
8. Li Z, Li Y, Sun Q, et al.: Targeting the Pulmonary Microbiota to Fight against Respiratory Diseases. Cells. 2022; 11(5): 916. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
9. Natalini JG, Singh S, Segal LN: The dynamic lung microbiome in health and disease. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2022; 21: 222–235. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
10. Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease: Global Strategy for the Diagnosis, Management, and Prevention of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.2019. Reference Source
11. Illumina: 16S metagenomic sequencing library preparation protocol: preparing 16S ribosomal RNA gene amplicons for the Illumina MiSeq system. Part no. 15044223 Rev B. Illumina, San Diego, CA.2013. Reference Source
12. Schloss PD, Westcott SL, Ryabin T, et al.: Introducing mothur: open-source, platform-independent, community-supported software for describing and comparing microbial communities. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2009; 75(23): 7537–7541. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
13. Quast C, Pruesse E, Yilmaz P, et al.: The SILVA ribosomal RNA gene database project: improved data processing and web-based tools. Nucleic Acids Res. 2013; 41(Database issue): D590–D596. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
14. Su L, Qiao Y, Luo J, et al.: Characteristics of the sputum microbiome in COPD exacerbations and correlations between clinical indices. J. Transl. Med. 2022; 20(1): 76. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
15. Ramsheh MY, Haldar K, Esteve-Codina A, et al.: Lung microbiome composition and bronchial epithelial gene expression in patients with COPD versus healthy individuals: a bacterial 16S rRNA gene sequencing and host transcriptomic analysis. Lancet Microbe. 2021; 2(7): e300–e310. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
16. Yang CY, Li SW, Chin CY, et al.: Association of exacerbation phenotype with the sputum microbiome in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients during the clinically stable state. J. Transl. Med. 2021; 19(1): 121. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
17. Li W, Wang B, Tan M, et al.: Analysis of sputum microbial metagenome in COPD based on exacerbation frequency and lung function: a case control study. Respir. Res. 2022; 23(1): 321. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
18. Garcia-Nuñez M, Millares L, Pomares X, et al.: Severity-related changes of bronchial microbiome in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2014; 52(12): 4217–4223. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
19. Mayhew D, Devos N, Lambert C, et al.: Longitudinal profiling of the lung microbiome in the AERIS study demonstrates repeatability of bacterial and eosinophilic COPD exacerbations. Thorax. 2018; 73(5): 422–430. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
20. Sze MA, Dimitriu PA, Hayashi S, et al.: The lung tissue microbiome in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2012; 185(10): 1073–1080. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
21. Erb-Downward JR, Thompson DL, Han MK, et al.: Analysis of the lung microbiome in the “healthy” smoker and in COPD. PLoS One. 2011; 6(2): e16384. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
22. Wang Z, Bafadhel M, Haldar K, et al.: Lung microbiome dynamics in COPD exacerbations. Eur. Respir. J. 2016; 47(4): 1082–1092. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
23. Horn KJ, Schopper MA, Drigot ZG, et al.: Airway Prevotella promote TLR2-dependent neutrophil activation and rapid clearance of Streptococcus pneumoniae from the lung. Nat. Commun. 2022; 13(1): 3321. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
24. Pragman AA, Lyu T, Baller JA, et al.: The lung tissue microbiota of mild and moderate chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Microbiome. 2018; 6(1): 7. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
25. Sagar S, Morgan ME, Chen S, et al.: Bifidobacterium breve and Lactobacillus rhamnosus treatment is as effective as budesonide at reducing inflammation in a murine model for chronic asthma. Respir. Res. 2014; 15(1): 46. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
26. Wang Z, Maschera B, Lea S, et al.: Airway host-microbiome interactions in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Respir. Res. 2019; 20(1): 113. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
27. Druti H, Kiran C, Fayaz SM: Sequenced Data COPD and healthy. [Data set]. Zenodo. 2023. Publisher Full Text

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 4

VERSION 4 PUBLISHED 22 May 2023

Author details Author details

Druti Hazra
Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation

Fayaz SM
Roles: Formal Analysis, Methodology, Software, Visualization, Writing – Review & Editing

Kiran Chawla
Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Resources, Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing

Vitali Sintchenko
Roles: Supervision, Writing – Review & Editing

Elena Martinez
Roles: Formal Analysis, Writing – Review & Editing

Rahul Magazine
Roles: Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing

Nayana Siddalingaiah
Roles: Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing

Competing interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information

The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.

Article Versions (4)

version 4

Revised

Published: 27 Oct 2023, 12:528

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.132220.4

version 3

Revised

Published: 06 Oct 2023, 12:528

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.132220.3

version 2

Revised

Published: 01 Aug 2023, 12:528

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.132220.2

version 1

Published: 22 May 2023, 12:528

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.132220.1

© 2023 Hazra D et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Download

Export To

metrics

	Views	Downloads
F1000Research	-	-
PubMed Central Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.	-	-

Citations

SEE MORE DETAILS

CITE

how to cite this article

Hazra D, SM F, Chawla K et al. The altered lung microbiome dynamics in patients with moderate and severe COPD compared to the healthy group in the Indian population [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 1 not approved]. F1000Research 2023, 12:528 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.132220.1)

NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.

track

receive updates on this article

Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Version 1

VERSION 1

PUBLISHED 22 May 2023

Views

Reviewer Report 28 Jul 2023

Veronica Ueckermann, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, Gauteng, South Africa

Approved

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.145128.r182958

The manuscript explores loss of microbial diversity in the sputum samples of patients with moderate and severe COPD, and compares the results with a healthy control group. The healthy control group included some smokers and the study population was dominated by males.

The methodology was well described and both the methods and analysis were appropriate for work in the lung microbiome. The quality of the sputum samples voluntary produced were not discussed and a degree of oropharyngeal contamination is likely.

Findings are consistent with previously published work and highlight once again signals of dysbiosis in the lung microbiome of patients with COPD. Had the sample size allowed, a comparison between current and previous smokers may have provided additional insights.

The limitations of the study were acknowledged - both the small sample size and the fact that the virome (which is becoming increasingly important in COPD) was not evaluated.

Although the findings of the study were not completely novel, the differences by disease severity was interesting and the study does add to a growing body of literature that enhances the understanding of the lung microbiome in respiratory disease. The methodology was sound and the discussion well written.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

No

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Infectious diseases, Critical care, lung microbime, Tuberculosis

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Views

Reviewer Report 20 Jul 2023

Eduard Monso, Airway Inflammation Research Group, Parc Taulí Research and Innovation Institute - I3PT - Parc Taulí Foundation, Barcelona, Spain

Not Approved

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.145128.r175709

The authors described the respiratory microbiome in healthy subjects and COPD patients with different levels of severity, confirming with their study the characteristics of the COPD microbiome previously reported in other communities. The main value of the paper, accordingly, is the analysis of a community living in a specific geographic area, not previously focused. There are some concerns that need to be raised, however, as followed.

The title state that the study focus on the lung microbiome dynamics. However, considering that the studied sample is the sputum, it can only be representative of the bronchial microbiome, not the lung. Furthermore, because there has been a single sampling in the studied population, the study cannot be considered "dynamic".
In the description of the features of the study participants, it is said that they are exacerbated. I think that this is a typewriting mistake, because all the text suggests that the participants are stable (they have not used antibiotics the previous months).
In the table, moderate COPD patients have an average FEV1/FVC of 90. If that is the case, most of them do not suffer from COPD, and probably have only chronic bronchitis. This is a main point that needs to be clarified.
The comparisons would have been much more clear if all COPD patients are compared with healthy subjects, and later, excluding healthy subjects, severe and moderate COPD patients were compared.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Partly
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Partly
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Partly
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Respiratory diseases / COPD / Lung Cancer / Respiratory microbiome

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to state that I do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above.

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 10 Aug 2023

Kiran Chawla, Department of Microbiology, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, 576104, India

10 Aug 2023

Author Response

Response to the Reviewer Comments:

Query 1. The title state that the study focus on the lung microbiome dynamics. However, considering that the studied sample is the sputum, it ... Continue reading Response to the Reviewer Comments:

Query 1. The title state that the study focus on the lung microbiome dynamics. However, considering that the studied sample is the sputum, it can only be representative of the bronchial microbiome, not the lung. Furthermore, because there has been a single sampling in the studied population, the study cannot be considered "dynamic".
Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. In this study, we characterized sputum, an easily obtainable non-invasive sampling method that represents a mix of upper and lower respiratory tracts, used for routine diagnosis of lower-respiratory tract infection.
The term dynamics have been used here to refer to the changes in microbiome composition among the groups

Query 2. In the description of the features of the study participants, it is said that they are exacerbated. I think that this is a typewriting mistake, because all the text suggests that the participants are stable (they have not used antibiotics the previous months).
Response: The enrolled participants were the known cases of COPD, admitted to our hospital for the management of the latest exacerbation state, and a sample was collected before administrating antibiotics. So the patients have not used antibiotics in the previous months. Also, one of our exclusion criteria is antibiotic usage within four weeks prior to sample collection since antibiotics can alter the microbiome compositions.

Query 3. In the table, moderate COPD patients have an average FEV1/FVC of 90. If that is the case, most of them do not suffer from COPD, and probably have only chronic bronchitis. This is a main point that needs to be clarified.
Response: Thank you, Sir, for mentioning this point. This was a typewriting error, which we didn’t notice earlier. We rechecked our data and there was an error in that particular row of that table. It should be the moderate COPD average FEV1/FVC was 64.7 ± 5.6 and Severe COPD 61 ± 7.4

Query 4. The comparisons would have been much more clear if all COPD patients are compared with healthy subjects, and later, excluding healthy subjects, severe and moderate COPD patients were compared.
Response: We compared the sputum microbiome in healthy, severe, and moderate COPD patients as per the objective. We admire your valuable suggestions and we will consider them for our future studies.
Response to the Reviewer Comments:

Query 1. The title state that the study focus on the lung microbiome dynamics. However, considering that the studied sample is the sputum, it can only be representative of the bronchial microbiome, not the lung. Furthermore, because there has been a single sampling in the studied population, the study cannot be considered "dynamic".
Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. In this study, we characterized sputum, an easily obtainable non-invasive sampling method that represents a mix of upper and lower respiratory tracts, used for routine diagnosis of lower-respiratory tract infection.
The term dynamics have been used here to refer to the changes in microbiome composition among the groups

Query 2. In the description of the features of the study participants, it is said that they are exacerbated. I think that this is a typewriting mistake, because all the text suggests that the participants are stable (they have not used antibiotics the previous months).
Response: The enrolled participants were the known cases of COPD, admitted to our hospital for the management of the latest exacerbation state, and a sample was collected before administrating antibiotics. So the patients have not used antibiotics in the previous months. Also, one of our exclusion criteria is antibiotic usage within four weeks prior to sample collection since antibiotics can alter the microbiome compositions.

Query 3. In the table, moderate COPD patients have an average FEV1/FVC of 90. If that is the case, most of them do not suffer from COPD, and probably have only chronic bronchitis. This is a main point that needs to be clarified.
Response: Thank you, Sir, for mentioning this point. This was a typewriting error, which we didn’t notice earlier. We rechecked our data and there was an error in that particular row of that table. It should be the moderate COPD average FEV1/FVC was 64.7 ± 5.6 and Severe COPD 61 ± 7.4

Query 4. The comparisons would have been much more clear if all COPD patients are compared with healthy subjects, and later, excluding healthy subjects, severe and moderate COPD patients were compared.
Response: We compared the sputum microbiome in healthy, severe, and moderate COPD patients as per the objective. We admire your valuable suggestions and we will consider them for our future studies.
Competing Interests: No competing interests. Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 10 Aug 2023

Kiran Chawla, Department of Microbiology, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, 576104, India

10 Aug 2023

Author Response

Response to the Reviewer Comments:

Query 1. The title state that the study focus on the lung microbiome dynamics. However, considering that the studied sample is the sputum, it ... Continue reading Response to the Reviewer Comments:

Query 1. The title state that the study focus on the lung microbiome dynamics. However, considering that the studied sample is the sputum, it can only be representative of the bronchial microbiome, not the lung. Furthermore, because there has been a single sampling in the studied population, the study cannot be considered "dynamic".
Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. In this study, we characterized sputum, an easily obtainable non-invasive sampling method that represents a mix of upper and lower respiratory tracts, used for routine diagnosis of lower-respiratory tract infection.
The term dynamics have been used here to refer to the changes in microbiome composition among the groups

Query 2. In the description of the features of the study participants, it is said that they are exacerbated. I think that this is a typewriting mistake, because all the text suggests that the participants are stable (they have not used antibiotics the previous months).
Response: The enrolled participants were the known cases of COPD, admitted to our hospital for the management of the latest exacerbation state, and a sample was collected before administrating antibiotics. So the patients have not used antibiotics in the previous months. Also, one of our exclusion criteria is antibiotic usage within four weeks prior to sample collection since antibiotics can alter the microbiome compositions.

Query 3. In the table, moderate COPD patients have an average FEV1/FVC of 90. If that is the case, most of them do not suffer from COPD, and probably have only chronic bronchitis. This is a main point that needs to be clarified.
Response: Thank you, Sir, for mentioning this point. This was a typewriting error, which we didn’t notice earlier. We rechecked our data and there was an error in that particular row of that table. It should be the moderate COPD average FEV1/FVC was 64.7 ± 5.6 and Severe COPD 61 ± 7.4

Query 4. The comparisons would have been much more clear if all COPD patients are compared with healthy subjects, and later, excluding healthy subjects, severe and moderate COPD patients were compared.
Response: We compared the sputum microbiome in healthy, severe, and moderate COPD patients as per the objective. We admire your valuable suggestions and we will consider them for our future studies.
Response to the Reviewer Comments:

Query 1. The title state that the study focus on the lung microbiome dynamics. However, considering that the studied sample is the sputum, it can only be representative of the bronchial microbiome, not the lung. Furthermore, because there has been a single sampling in the studied population, the study cannot be considered "dynamic".
Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. In this study, we characterized sputum, an easily obtainable non-invasive sampling method that represents a mix of upper and lower respiratory tracts, used for routine diagnosis of lower-respiratory tract infection.
The term dynamics have been used here to refer to the changes in microbiome composition among the groups

Query 2. In the description of the features of the study participants, it is said that they are exacerbated. I think that this is a typewriting mistake, because all the text suggests that the participants are stable (they have not used antibiotics the previous months).
Response: The enrolled participants were the known cases of COPD, admitted to our hospital for the management of the latest exacerbation state, and a sample was collected before administrating antibiotics. So the patients have not used antibiotics in the previous months. Also, one of our exclusion criteria is antibiotic usage within four weeks prior to sample collection since antibiotics can alter the microbiome compositions.

Query 3. In the table, moderate COPD patients have an average FEV1/FVC of 90. If that is the case, most of them do not suffer from COPD, and probably have only chronic bronchitis. This is a main point that needs to be clarified.
Response: Thank you, Sir, for mentioning this point. This was a typewriting error, which we didn’t notice earlier. We rechecked our data and there was an error in that particular row of that table. It should be the moderate COPD average FEV1/FVC was 64.7 ± 5.6 and Severe COPD 61 ± 7.4

Query 4. The comparisons would have been much more clear if all COPD patients are compared with healthy subjects, and later, excluding healthy subjects, severe and moderate COPD patients were compared.
Response: We compared the sputum microbiome in healthy, severe, and moderate COPD patients as per the objective. We admire your valuable suggestions and we will consider them for our future studies.
Competing Interests: No competing interests. Close
Report a concern

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 4

VERSION 4 PUBLISHED 22 May 2023

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

	Invited Reviewers
	1	2
Version 4 (revision) 27 Oct 23	read
Version 3 (revision) 06 Oct 23	read
Version 2 (revision) 01 Aug 23	read
Version 1 22 May 23	read	read

Eduard Monso, Parc Taulí Research and Innovation Institute - I3PT - Parc Taulí Foundation, Barcelona, Spain
Veronica Ueckermann, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa

Comments on this article

All Comments(0)

Add a comment

Browse by related subjects

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

6 Views

03 Nov 2023 | for Version 4

Eduard Monso, Airway Inflammation Research Group, Parc Taulí Research and Innovation Institute - I3PT - Parc Taulí Foundation, Barcelona, Spain

6 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved

The authors have introduced all required changes and specifications. The current version of the manuscript is approved from my side.

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Respiratory diseases / COPD / Lung Cancer / Respiratory microbiome

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

5 Views

24 Oct 2023 | for Version 3

Eduard Monso, Airway Inflammation Research Group, Parc Taulí Research and Innovation Institute - I3PT - Parc Taulí Foundation, Barcelona, Spain

5 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Not Approved

The authors have addressed satisfactorily the questions raised. The have specified that the samples of COPD patients had been obtained at admission for an exacerbation before the use of any antibiotic. Then, it is clear that they are assessing exacerbation samples, that were compared among them according with the severity pattern, and compared also with samples from healthy subjects. This is important because the title suggests that the authors are studying samples from COPD in stable situation. I think that it would be necessary to specify in the title that the authors are focusing on COPD patients in exacerbation, not in stability, to avoid misunderstandings.

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Respiratory diseases / COPD / Lung Cancer / Respiratory microbiome

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

17 Views

01 Sep 2023 | for Version 2

Eduard Monso, Airway Inflammation Research Group, Parc Taulí Research and Innovation Institute - I3PT - Parc Taulí Foundation, Barcelona, Spain

17 Views Cite this report Responses(2)

Not Approved

The authors have addressed satisfactorily most of the corrections pointed in the previous review. However, there are a couple of them that still need to be managed.

1.- (Introduction) The sentence "Although a high heterogeneity has been observed among the studies, potentially attributed to the underlying health conditions in different populations and the dynamics of microbial ecology in the COPD Indian population, it remains poorly understood" is misspelled, and needs to be corrected.

2.- (Results) The sentence "At the time of sampling, all COPD patients were in an exacerbated state of the disease and no significant growth of respiratory pathogens was detected in the sputum cultures" specifies that the patients are exacerbated, but the study is restricted to patients that have not used antibiotics recently, suggesting that all them must be stable. This is a main point, because the paper is presented as a stability study. However, is part of the patients were exacerbated the results would be more difficult to be interpreted. This point needs to be clearly specified, and the upper sentence corrected, if misspelled.

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Respiratory diseases / COPD / Lung Cancer / Respiratory microbiome

Respond to this report

Responses (2)

Author Response

16 Nov 2023

Kiran Chawla, Department of Microbiology, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, 576104, India

We value your kind suggestions and thank you for your valuable input.
Query 1: (Introduction) The sentence "Although a high heterogeneity has been observed among the studies, potentially attributed to the underlying health conditions in different populations and the dynamics of microbial ecology in the COPD Indian population, it remains poorly understood" is misspelled, and needs to be corrected.

Response: For a better understanding of this sentence, we can split the sentence into the following
“A high heterogeneity has been observed among these studies, potentially attributed to the health conditions in different study populations. However, the changes in microbial ecology in the COPD Indian population still remain unclear.”

Query 2: (Results) The sentence "At the time of sampling, all COPD patients were in an exacerbated state of the disease and no significant growth of respiratory pathogens was detected in the sputum cultures" specifies that the patients are exacerbated, but the study is restricted to patients that have not used antibiotics recently, suggesting that all them must be stable. This is a main point because the paper is presented as a stability study. However, is part of the patients were exacerbated the results would be more difficult to be interpreted.

Response: The enrolled participants were the known cases of COPD, admitted to our hospital for the management of their latest or new exacerbation state. After the collection of sputum samples, patients were given the proper medical management/antibiotics based on the severity of the COPD.
We would like to clarify that in our study, we excluded the patients with a prior history of antibiotics for 4 weeks before the sample collection because, in our tertiary care hospital, many patients come after getting initial antibiotic treatment from the primary health-care centers.

We hope we are able to clarify your concerns and look for your positive response.

View more View less

Competing Interests

We declare no competing interests.

Author Response

16 Nov 2023

Kiran Chawla, Department of Microbiology, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, 576104, India

Dear Reviewer,
We value your suggestions and thank you for your valuable input.

Response to query 1: To better understand this sentence, we have split the sentence into the following “A high heterogeneity has been observed among these studies, potentially attributed to the underlying health conditions of selected populations and geographical variations. However, the changes in the sputum microbial profile in the Indian population with COPD are not well understood.”

Response to query 2: The enrolled participants were the known cases of COPD, admitted to our hospital to manage their latest or new exacerbation state. After the collection of sputum samples, patients were given the proper medical management/antibiotics based on the severity of the COPD.

We want to clarify that in our study, we excluded the patients with a prior history of antibiotics for 4 weeks before the sample collection. Because, in our tertiary care hospital, many patients come after getting initial antibiotics.

View more View less

Competing Interests

We declare no competing interests

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

16 Views

28 Jul 2023 | for Version 1

Veronica Ueckermann, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, Gauteng, South Africa

16 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

No

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Infectious diseases, Critical care, lung microbime, Tuberculosis

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

19 Views

20 Jul 2023 | for Version 1

Eduard Monso, Airway Inflammation Research Group, Parc Taulí Research and Innovation Institute - I3PT - Parc Taulí Foundation, Barcelona, Spain

19 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Not Approved

The title state that the study focus on the lung microbiome dynamics. However, considering that the studied sample is the sputum, it can only be representative of the bronchial microbiome, not the lung. Furthermore, because there has been a single sampling in the studied population, the study cannot be considered "dynamic".
In the description of the features of the study participants, it is said that they are exacerbated. I think that this is a typewriting mistake, because all the text suggests that the participants are stable (they have not used antibiotics the previous months).
In the table, moderate COPD patients have an average FEV1/FVC of 90. If that is the case, most of them do not suffer from COPD, and probably have only chronic bronchitis. This is a main point that needs to be clarified.
The comparisons would have been much more clear if all COPD patients are compared with healthy subjects, and later, excluding healthy subjects, severe and moderate COPD patients were compared.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Partly
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Partly
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Partly
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Respiratory diseases / COPD / Lung Cancer / Respiratory microbiome

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Author Response

10 Aug 2023

Kiran Chawla, Department of Microbiology, Kasturba Medical College, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, 576104, India

Response to the Reviewer Comments:

Query 1. The title state that the study focus on the lung microbiome dynamics. However, considering that the studied sample is the sputum, it can only be representative of the bronchial microbiome, not the lung. Furthermore, because there has been a single sampling in the studied population, the study cannot be considered "dynamic".
Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. In this study, we characterized sputum, an easily obtainable non-invasive sampling method that represents a mix of upper and lower respiratory tracts, used for routine diagnosis of lower-respiratory tract infection.
The term dynamics have been used here to refer to the changes in microbiome composition among the groups

Query 2. In the description of the features of the study participants, it is said that they are exacerbated. I think that this is a typewriting mistake, because all the text suggests that the participants are stable (they have not used antibiotics the previous months).
Response: The enrolled participants were the known cases of COPD, admitted to our hospital for the management of the latest exacerbation state, and a sample was collected before administrating antibiotics. So the patients have not used antibiotics in the previous months. Also, one of our exclusion criteria is antibiotic usage within four weeks prior to sample collection since antibiotics can alter the microbiome compositions.

Query 3. In the table, moderate COPD patients have an average FEV1/FVC of 90. If that is the case, most of them do not suffer from COPD, and probably have only chronic bronchitis. This is a main point that needs to be clarified.
Response: Thank you, Sir, for mentioning this point. This was a typewriting error, which we didn’t notice earlier. We rechecked our data and there was an error in that particular row of that table. It should be the moderate COPD average FEV1/FVC was 64.7 ± 5.6 and Severe COPD 61 ± 7.4

Query 4. The comparisons would have been much more clear if all COPD patients are compared with healthy subjects, and later, excluding healthy subjects, severe and moderate COPD patients were compared.
Response: We compared the sputum microbiome in healthy, severe, and moderate COPD patients as per the objective. We admire your valuable suggestions and we will consider them for our future studies.

View more View less

Competing Interests

No competing interests.

Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:

Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested

Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.

Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions

[1] 1. Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD): Global strategy for prevention, diagnosis and management of COPD: 2023 report.2023. Reference Source

[2] 2. Herse F, Kiljander T, Lehtimäki L: Annual costs of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in Finland during 1996-2006 and a prediction model for 2007-2030. NPJ Prim. Care Respir. Med. 2015; 25: 15015. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[3] 3. Mathers CD, Loncar D: Projections of Global Mortality and Burden of Disease from 2002 to 2030. PLoS Med. 2006; 3(11): e442. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[4] 4. Safiri S, Carson-Chahhoud K, Noori M, et al.: Burden of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and its attributable risk factors in 204 countries and territories, 1990-2019: results from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. BMJ. 2022; 378: e069679. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[5] 5. Iheanacho I, Zhang S, King D, et al.: Economic Burden of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD): A Systematic Literature Review. Int. J. Chron. Obstruct. Pulmon. Dis. 2020; 15: 439–460. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[6] 6. Gutiérrez Villegas C, Paz-Zulueta M, Herrero-Montes M, et al.: Cost analysis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD): a systematic review. Heal. Econ. Rev. 2021; 11(1): 31. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[7] 7. Wang L, Hao K, Yang T, et al.: Role of the Lung Microbiome in the Pathogenesis of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. Chin. Med. J. (Engl). 2017; 130(17): 2107–2111. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[8] 8. Li Z, Li Y, Sun Q, et al.: Targeting the Pulmonary Microbiota to Fight against Respiratory Diseases. Cells. 2022; 11(5): 916. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[9] 9. Natalini JG, Singh S, Segal LN: The dynamic lung microbiome in health and disease. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2022; 21: 222–235. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[10] 10. Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease: Global Strategy for the Diagnosis, Management, and Prevention of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.2019. Reference Source

[11] 11. Illumina: 16S metagenomic sequencing library preparation protocol: preparing 16S ribosomal RNA gene amplicons for the Illumina MiSeq system. Part no. 15044223 Rev B. Illumina, San Diego, CA.2013. Reference Source

[12] 12. Schloss PD, Westcott SL, Ryabin T, et al.: Introducing mothur: open-source, platform-independent, community-supported software for describing and comparing microbial communities. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2009; 75(23): 7537–7541. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[13] 13. Quast C, Pruesse E, Yilmaz P, et al.: The SILVA ribosomal RNA gene database project: improved data processing and web-based tools. Nucleic Acids Res. 2013; 41(Database issue): D590–D596. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[14] 14. Su L, Qiao Y, Luo J, et al.: Characteristics of the sputum microbiome in COPD exacerbations and correlations between clinical indices. J. Transl. Med. 2022; 20(1): 76. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[15] 15. Ramsheh MY, Haldar K, Esteve-Codina A, et al.: Lung microbiome composition and bronchial epithelial gene expression in patients with COPD versus healthy individuals: a bacterial 16S rRNA gene sequencing and host transcriptomic analysis. Lancet Microbe. 2021; 2(7): e300–e310. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[16] 16. Yang CY, Li SW, Chin CY, et al.: Association of exacerbation phenotype with the sputum microbiome in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients during the clinically stable state. J. Transl. Med. 2021; 19(1): 121. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[17] 17. Li W, Wang B, Tan M, et al.: Analysis of sputum microbial metagenome in COPD based on exacerbation frequency and lung function: a case control study. Respir. Res. 2022; 23(1): 321. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[18] 18. Garcia-Nuñez M, Millares L, Pomares X, et al.: Severity-related changes of bronchial microbiome in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2014; 52(12): 4217–4223. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[19] 19. Mayhew D, Devos N, Lambert C, et al.: Longitudinal profiling of the lung microbiome in the AERIS study demonstrates repeatability of bacterial and eosinophilic COPD exacerbations. Thorax. 2018; 73(5): 422–430. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[20] 20. Sze MA, Dimitriu PA, Hayashi S, et al.: The lung tissue microbiome in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2012; 185(10): 1073–1080. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[21] 21. Erb-Downward JR, Thompson DL, Han MK, et al.: Analysis of the lung microbiome in the “healthy” smoker and in COPD. PLoS One. 2011; 6(2): e16384. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[22] 22. Wang Z, Bafadhel M, Haldar K, et al.: Lung microbiome dynamics in COPD exacerbations. Eur. Respir. J. 2016; 47(4): 1082–1092. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[23] 23. Horn KJ, Schopper MA, Drigot ZG, et al.: Airway Prevotella promote TLR2-dependent neutrophil activation and rapid clearance of Streptococcus pneumoniae from the lung. Nat. Commun. 2022; 13(1): 3321. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[24] 24. Pragman AA, Lyu T, Baller JA, et al.: The lung tissue microbiota of mild and moderate chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Microbiome. 2018; 6(1): 7. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[25] 25. Sagar S, Morgan ME, Chen S, et al.: Bifidobacterium breve and Lactobacillus rhamnosus treatment is as effective as budesonide at reducing inflammation in a murine model for chronic asthma. Respir. Res. 2014; 15(1): 46. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[26] 26. Wang Z, Maschera B, Lea S, et al.: Airway host-microbiome interactions in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Respir. Res. 2019; 20(1): 113. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[27] 27. Druti H, Kiran C, Fayaz SM: Sequenced Data COPD and healthy. [Data set]. Zenodo. 2023. Publisher Full Text

The altered lung microbiome dynamics in patients with moderate and severe COPD compared to the healthy group in the Indian population

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Methods

Ethical considerations

Consent to participate

Study design and population

Sample collection, DNA isolation, and 16S rDNA sequencing

Bioinformatics analysis

Statistical analysis

Results

Features of the study participants

Table 1. Clinical and demographic features of the study population.

Bacterial diversity in sputum samples

Figure 1. Bacterial diversity in sputum samples of moderate COPD, severe COPD, and healthy groups.

The taxonomic profiling of sputum microbiota among groups

Figure 2. The taxonomic profiling of sputum microbiota among moderate COPD, severe COPD, and healthy groups.

Discussion

Conclusions

Author contributions

Data availability statement

Underlying data

Acknowledgments

References

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

Comments on this article

Browse by related subjects

Competing Interests Policy

Stay Updated