Gut Microbiome Profiling in Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease and Healthy Individuals in Indonesian Population

Abstract

Background: The gut microbiome is thought to produce metabolites that are widely investigated to play a role in various disease pathophysiologies. Aim: This study aims to identify the differences in gut microbiome diversity and profile between nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and healthy individuals. Methods: This was a cross-sectional study. We collected 21 fecal specimens from NAFLD subjects and 13 controls. The gut microbiota from all samples were profiled by using 16s ribosomal RNA next-generation sequencing. Statistical analysis was done using SPSS version 25.0 software. Results: NAFLD subjects had a greater body mass index. Hypertension, diabetes, and dyslipidemia were found in 19%, 28.6%, and 81%, respectively, in NAFLD subjects. There was a lower diversity of gut microbiota in NAFLD compared to the control group. At the phylum level, Firmicutes was found more in the control than the NAFLD group (42.24% vs. 54.01%, P = 0.037). At the genus level, the percentage of Enterobacter was more abundant in the NAFLD group compared to the control group (0.517% vs. 0%, P = 0.001). At the genus level, there was a negative correlation between Bifidobacterium and NAFLD fibrosis score (NFS) (r = −0.532, P = 0.013). Conclusion: The diversity of the gut microbiota in NAFLD group was less than in control group. Firmicutes was found to be less prevalent in NAFLD patients compared to control. Enterobacter was found to be more abundant in NAFLD patients. The amount of Bifidobacterium was inversely correlated to the severity of NAFLD based on NFS.

Composition of gut microbiota and non‐alcoholic fatty liver disease: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

“…A total of 38 studies 11–21,33,35,36,38–41,44–46,48,49,51–53,56,58–62,64–66,68–71,74,75,78,79,82,84 provided data for α‐diversity (Table 1), which was then assessed using eight indices, namely richness/evenness (Shannon [ n = 37, 3186 cases, and 3990 controls]）, Chao1 [ n = 16, 1002 cases, and 1824 controls], Simpson [ n = 12, 488 cases, and 419 controls]), estimates of richness (observed species [ n = 10, 836 cases, and 813 controls], richness [ n = 7, 791 cases, and 1354 controls], faith phylogenetic diversity [PD, n = 6, 761 cases, and 1936 controls], evenness [Pielou, n = 6, 552 cases, and 185 controls]), and abundance coverage estimator (ACE; n = 4, 64 cases and 73 controls).…”

“…A total of 38 studies [11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21]33,35,36,[38][39][40][41][44][45][46]48,49,[51][52][53]56,[58][59][60][61][62][64][65][66][68][69][70][71]74,75,78,79,82,84 provided data for α-diversity (Table 1), which was then assessed using eight indices, namely richness/evenness (Shannon T A B L E 2 Total analysis, stratified analysis, and sensitivity analysis among alpha diversity.…”