Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
Microbiome studies have revealed gut microbiota's potential impact on complex diseases. However, many studies often focus on one disease per cohort. We developed a meta-analysis workflow for gut microbiome profiles and analyzed shotgun metagenomic data covering 11 diseases. Using interpretable machine learning and differential abundance analysis, our findings reinforce the generalization of binary classifiers for Crohn's disease (CD) and colorectal cancer (CRC) to hold-out cohorts and highlight the key microbes driving these classifications. We identified high microbial similarity in disease pairs like CD vs ulcerative colitis (UC), CD vs CRC, Parkinson's disease vs type 2 diabetes (T2D), and schizophrenia vs T2D. We also found strong inverse correlations in Alzheimer's disease vs CD and UC. These findings, detected by our pipeline, provide valuable insights into these diseases.ImportanceAssessing disease similarity is an essential initial step preceding a disease-based approach for drug repositioning. Our study provides a modest first step in underscoring the potential of integrating microbiome insights into the disease similarity assessment. Recent microbiome research has predominantly focused on analyzing individual diseases to understand their unique characteristics, which by design excludes comorbidities in individuals. We analyzed shotgun metagenomic data from existing studies and identified previously unknown similarities between diseases. Our research represents a pioneering effort that utilizes both interpretable machine learning and differential abundance analysis to assess microbial similarity between diseases.
Scientific assessment
Research question
Assess the question within the original study’s scope.
Methods & sample
Check the source article for study design and sample details.
Key findings
An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.
Limitations
Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.
Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.