METHODS OF DIAGNOSING DISEASE

Information

  • Patent Application
  • 20220128556
  • Publication Number
    20220128556
  • Date Filed
    October 01, 2021
    3 years ago
  • Date Published
    April 28, 2022
    2 years ago
Abstract
The application provides new and improved methods for diagnosing IBS.
Description
SEQUENCE LISTING

The instant application contains a Sequence Listing which has been submitted electronically in ASCII format and is hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety. Said ASCII copy, created on Oct. 27, 2021, is named 56686-702_301_SL.txt and is 13,273 bytes in size.


TECHNICAL FIELD

This invention is in the field of diagnosis and in particular the diagnosis of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS).


BACKGROUND

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a common condition that affects the digestive system. Results from global epidemiological studies have shown that IBS is present in 3% to 30% of a population, with no common trend across different countries (1). Symptoms include cramps, bloating, diarrhoea and constipation and occur over a long time period, generally years. Disorders such as anxiety, major depression, and chronic fatigue syndrome are common among people with IBS. There is no known cure for IBS and treatment is generally carried out to improve symptoms. Treatment may include dietary changes, medication, probiotics, and/or counselling. Dietary measures that are commonly suggested as treatments include increasing soluble fiber intake, a gluten-free diet, or a short-term diet low in fermentable oligosaccharides, disaccharides, monosaccharides, and polyols (FODMAPs). The medication loperamide is used to help with diarrhea while laxatives are be used to help with constipation. Antidepressants may improve overall symptoms and pain. Like most chronic non-communicable disorders, IBS appears to be heterogeneous (2). It ranges in severity from nuisance bowel disturbance to social disablement, accompanied by marked symptomatic heterogeneity (3). Although frequently considered a disorder of the brain-gut axis (4,5), it is unclear if IBS begins in the gut or in the brain or both. The occurrence of post-infectious IBS (6) suggests that a proportion of cases are initiated in the end-organ, albeit with susceptibility risk factors, some of which may be psychosocial. Advances in microbiome science, with emerging evidence for a modifying influence by the microbiota on neurodevelopment and perhaps on behaviour, have broadened the concept of the mind/body link to encompass the microbiota-gut-brain axis (7).


However, progress in understanding and treating IBS has been limited by the absence of reliable biomarkers and IBS is still defined by symptoms. Currently, gastrointestinal (GI) diseases such as IBS are standardised using the Rome criteria. Diagnosis of IBS using the Rome Criteria is based on whether the patient has symptoms which are associated with IBS. These criteria were established by a group of experts in functional gastrointestinal disorders, known as the Rome Consensus Commission, in order to develop and provide guidance in research. They have been updated in five separate editions, to make them more relevant outside of research, and useful in improving clinical trials (1,8). However, results from one study (1) have shown that the prevalence of IBS is dependent on which edition of the Rome criteria is applied; the later editions exhibited a lower prevalence of IBS amongst populations.


Other criteria used to diagnose IBS include the WONCA criteria, involving the exclusion of other organic diseases, and DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders). Here, the analysis included before diagnosis is minimal, with specialist examination occurring only as an exception (1). Investigations have been carried out into gut microbiota alterations in patients with IBS compared to control (non-IBS) groups (9,10,11,12). Interaction of the microbiome with diet, antibiotics and enteric infections, all of which may be involved in IBS, is consistent with the hypothesis that microbiome alterations could activate or perpetuate pathophysiological mechanisms in the syndrome (13,14). Biomarkers have been found to be associated with IBS, which has provided more flexibility for defining subpopulations of IBS that are not based on clinical symptoms (1). However, robust microbiome signatures or biomarkers that separate IBS patients from controls and that help inform therapies are lacking, though signatures have been suggested for IBS severity (12). Furthermore, most microbiota studies to date have employed 16S rRNA profiling, and did not analyse bacterial metabolites.


The Rome criteria are also used to classify IBS subtypes. Currently, IBS subtypes are defined by the Rome criteria (15). These subtypes are IBS-C, IBS-D and IBS-M. IBS-C is IBS with predominant constipation where stool types 1 and 2 (according to the Bristol stool chart) are present more than 25% of the time and stool types 6 and 7 are present less than 25% of the time. IBS-D is IBS with predominant diarrhoea where stool types 1 and 2 are present less than 25% of the time and stool types 6 and 7 more than 25% of the time. IBS-M is IBS where there is a mixture of IBS-C and IBS-D with stool types 1, 2, 6 and 7 present more than 25% of the time, and is known as IBS-mixed type. While these classifications can establish predominance of constipation over diarrhoea and diarrhoea over constipation, they are not very useful for long term treatment of IBS given the heterogenic nature of the disease and the tendency of patients to move from one subtype classification to another within a given time period (16). The current approach has significant limitations including failure to inform treatment of patients who alternate between subtypes sometimes within days (17). More understanding is required for this disease and like other gut related illness a change in gut microbiota can be signatory of a change in disease pattern (18). Furthermore, the forms of diarrhoea or constipation can be diverse. Pharmaceutical agents designed to tackle polar opposite symptoms have the potential for severe unwanted adverse effects if prescribed for a patient who has been misclassified (19). What is of interest are alterations in the microbiome of patients with IBS and what correlation if any there is with the symptoms of IBS. However, IBS subtypes (IBS-C, IBS-D, IBS-M) are not useful for distinguishing between the different microbiomes of patients diagnosed with IBS according to the Rome criteria.


There is a requirement for further and improved methods for diagnosing bowel disorders such as IBS, including the diagnosis of the various IBS subtypes.


SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

The inventors have developed new and improved methods for diagnosing IBS. A comprehensive and detailed analysis of the microbiome, the metabolome and gene pathways in patients and control (non-IBS) individuals has allowed new indicators of disease to be identified. The invention therefore provides a method of diagnosing IBS in a patient comprising detecting: a bacterial strain of a taxa associated with IBS; a microbial gene involved in a pathway associated with IBS; and/or a metabolite associated with IBS. The inventors have also developed new and improved methods for stratification of patients with IBS. The invention therefore provides a method of classification of a patient with IBS to a subgroup based on the microbiome, comprising detecting: a bacterial strain of a taxa associated with an IBS subgroup and/or a metabolite associated with an IBS subgroup.





BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE FIGURES


FIGS. 1A-1D. Microbiota compositional analysis of Control and IBS groups. (FIG. 1A) Principal Co-Ordinate Analysis (PCoA) of microbiota beta diversity showing significant difference between Control and IBS groups. PCoA performed using Spearman distance at 16S genus level (p-value=0.001; Control: n=63, IBS n=78). (FIG. 1B) Predictive taxa for IBS determined by Random Forest machine learning on shotgun dataset (Control: n=59; IBS n=80). (FIG. 1C) PCoA of the microbiota composition showing no significant difference between IBS clinical subtypes. PCoA performed using Spearman distance at 16S OTU level (p-value=0.976; IBS-C: n=29, IBS-D: n=20, IBS-M: n=29). (FIG. 1D) Shotgun genus profile of Control and IBS groups (Control: n=58, IBS: n=78). P-values for data/tests presented in panels A and C were calculated using Permutational MANOVA (R function/package:adonis/vegan)



FIG. 2. PCoA of microbiota diversity shows significant difference between Control and IBS groups. PCoA performed using Spearman distance at shotgun genus level (p-value=0.001; Control: n=58, IBS n=78).



FIGS. 3A-3C. Microbiota diversity of IBS and Control groups. (FIG. 3A). The diversity (Observed richness) of the IBS group was significantly different from the Control group based on Wilcoxon rank sum test (pvalue=9.215e-08, Control: n=63, IBS: n=78). (FIG. 3B) The diversity (observed richness) of the IBS clinical sub-types were significantly different from the Control group based on Kruskal-Wallis (p-value=1.28e-06, Control: n=63; IBS-C: n=29; IBS-D: n=20; IBS-M: n=29). (FIG. 3C) The diversity (Shannon index) of the Control was significantly different from the IBS group using differences based on Wilcoxon (p-value=0.00032, Control: n=63, IBS: n=78).



FIGS. 4A-4C. Comparison of Control and IBS urine and fecal metabolomes. (FIG. 4A) PCoA of urine volatile organic compounds (FAIMS) metabolomes. Adonis p-value=0.001; (Control: n=65; IBS: n=80). (FIG. 4B) PCoA of urine MS metabolomics using Spearman distance. Adonis p-value=0.001; (Control: n=63; IBS: n=80). (FIG. 4C) PCoA of fecal MS metabolomics using Spearman distance. Adonis p-value=0.001; (Control: n=63; IBS: n=80). P-values we calculated using Permutational MANOVA (R function/package:adonis/vegan)



FIG. 5. PCoA of FAIMS urine metabolomics using Spearman distance shows a significant difference between Control and IBS clinical sub-types (Adonis p-value=0.001; Control: n=63; IBS-C: n=29; IBS-D: n=20; IBS-M: n=29).



FIGS. 6A-6B. Urine metabolomic Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves to distinguish IBS from Control status. (FIG. 6A) ROC curve analysis using 10-Fold cross-validation on urine LC/GC-MS metabolomics (Control: n=61; IBS: n=78 where 85% (52/61 of the control group and 95% (74/78) of the IBS group were correctly predicted. (FIG. 6B) ROC curve analysis using 10-Fold cross-validation on urine FAIMS metabolomics (Control: n=63; IBS: n=78 where 70% (44/63 of the control group and 83% (65/78) of the IBS group were correctly predicted.



FIG. 7. PCoA of fecal metabolomics using Spearman distance shows no significant difference between the IBS clinical sub-types (p-value=0.202; IBS-C: n=29; IBS-D: n=20; IBS-M: n=29).



FIG. 8. Between class analysis (BCA) showing two microbiota-IBS clusters when compared to the Control group (Control: n=63, IBS Cluster I: n=35, IBS Cluster II: n=43).



FIG. 9. Core workflow of an alternative machine learning pipeline. N represents number of features returned by Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO).



FIG. 10. Principal Coordinate analysis of co-abundant genes in metagenomics samples shows a significant split between IBS (80 samples) and Controls (59 samples). Significance of the split was determined using PMANOVA (p<0.001).



FIG. 11. Heatmap of microbiome OTU data with hierarchical clustering using Canberra distance and ward linkage.



FIG. 12. Alpha diversity (observed species) of the healthy controls and the three IBS subgroups (IBS-1, IBS-2, IBS-3). Observed species (richness) is defined as the count of unique OTU's within a sample. Significance was determined using ANOVA.



FIG. 13. PCoA of Canberra distances of healthy controls and the three IBS subgroups (IBS-1, IBS-2, IBS-3) at the genus level for samples sequenced using 16S.



FIG. 14. PCoA of Canberra distances of healthy controls and the three IBS subgroups (IBS-1, IBS-2, IBS-3) at the species level for shotgun sequenced samples.



FIG. 15. PCoA of Canberra distances of healthy controls and the three IBS subgroups (IBS-1, IBS-2, IBS-3) for the fecal metabolomics samples.



FIG. 16. PCoA of Canberra distances of healthy controls and the three IBS subgroups (IBS-1, IBS-2, IBS-3) for the urine metabolomics samples.



FIG. 17. Microbiota compositional analysis of Control and IBS groups. PCoA of the metagenomic species analysis (co-abundant genes, CAGs) showing a significant difference between Control and IBS groups. (Control: n=59; IBS n=80). P-values for data/tests presented were calculated using Permutational MANOVA (R function/package:adonis/vegan)





DISCLOSURE OF THE INVENTION

Bacterial Taxa as Predictive Features of IBS


The inventors have identified bacterial taxa that are predictive of IBS, as demonstrated in the examples. Accordingly, the invention provides methods for diagnosing IBS comprising detecting the presence of certain bacterial taxa. As detailed below, the bacterial taxa used in the invention may be defined with reference to 16S rRNA gene sequences, or the invention may use Linnaean taxonomy. Bacteria of either category of taxa may be detected using Clade-specific bacterial genes, 16S sequences, transcriptomics, metabolomics, or a combination of such techniques. Preferably, these methods comprise detecting bacteria (i.e. one or more bacterial strains) in a fecal sample from a patient. Alternatively, the bacteria may be detected from an oral sample, such as a swab. Generally, detecting a bacterial taxa associated with IBS in the methods of the invention comprises measuring the relative abundance of the bacteria in a sample, for example relative to a corresponding sample from a control (non-IBS) individual or relative to a reference value. In one embodiment, the present invention provides a method for diagnosing IBS, comprising detecting bacterial species which may include one or more of the following genera: Actinomyces, Oscillibacter, Paraprevotella, Lachnospiraceae, Erysipelotrichaceae and Coprococcus. In one embodiment, the present invention provides a method for diagnosing IBS, comprising detecting a bacterial strain belonging to a genus selected from the group consisting of: Escherichia, Clostridium, Streptococcus, Parabacteroides, Turicibacter, Eubacterium, Bacteroides, Klebsiella, Pseudoflavonifractor, and Enterococcus. In a particular embodiment, the bacterial species is of the genus Actinomyces. In a particular embodiment, the bacterial species is of the genus Oscillibacter. In a particular embodiment, the bacterial species is of the genus Paraprevotella. In a particular embodiment, the bacterial species is of the genus Lachnospiraceae. In a particular embodiment, the bacterial species is of the genus Erysipelotrichaceae. In a particular embodiment, the bacterial species is of the genus Coprococcus. In a particular embodiment, the bacterial species is of the genus Escherichia. In a particular embodiment, the bacterial species is of the genus Clostridium. In a particular embodiment, the bacterial species is of the genus Streptococcus. In a particular embodiment, the bacterial species is of the genus Parabacteroides. In a particular embodiment, the bacterial species is of the genus Turicibacter. In a particular embodiment, the bacterial species is of the genus Eubacterium. In a particular embodiment, the bacterial species is of the genus Bacteroides. In a particular embodiment, the bacterial species is of the genus Klebsiella. In a particular embodiment, the bacterial species is of the genus Pseudoflavonifractor. In a particular embodiment, the bacterial species is of the genus Enterococcus. In preferred embodiments, the method of the invention comprises detecting bacteria (i.e. one or more bacterial strains) of more than one of the genera listed in Table 1, such as detecting bacteria of Actinomyces, Oscillibacter, Paraprevotella, Lachnospiraceae, Erysipelotrichaceae and Coprococcus. In certain embodiments, the bacteria (i.e. one or more bacterial strains) may be detected using Clade-specific bacterial genes, 16S sequences, transcriptomics or metabolomics. In any such embodiments, detecting the bacteria comprises measuring the relative abundance of the bacteria in a sample, for example relative to a corresponding sample from a control (non-IBS) individual or relative to a reference value. The examples demonstrate that such methods are particularly effective.


In one embodiment, the present invention provides a method for diagnosing IBS, comprising detecting one or more bacterial species selected from the following: Ruminococcus gnavus, Coprococcus catus, Bamesiella intestinihominis, Anaerotruncus colihominis, Eubacterium eligens, Clostridium symbiosum, Roseburia inulinivorans, Paraprevotella clara, Ruminococcus lactaris, Clostridium citroniae, Clostridium leptum, Ruminococcus bromii, Bacteroides thetaiotaomicron, Eubacterium biforme, Bifidobacterium adolescentis, Parabacteroides distasonis, Dialister invisus, Bacteroides faecis, Butyrivibrio crossotus, Clostridium nexile, Bacteroides cellulosilyticus, Pseudoflavonifractor capillosus, Streptococcus anginosus, Streptococcus sanguinis, Desulfovibrio desulfuricans and/or Clostridium ramosum. In certain embodiments, the method of the invention comprises detecting two or more species from the above list, such as at least 5, 10, 15, 20 or all of the species. In one embodiment, the present invention provides a method for diagnosing IBS, comprising detecting one or more bacterial strains that may be selected from the list consisting of Lachnospiraceae bacterium_3_1_46FAA, Lachnospiraceae bacterium_7_1_58FAA, Lachnospiraceae bacterium_1_4_56FAA, Lachnospiraceae bacterium_2_1_58FAA, Coprococcus sp_ART55_1, Alistipes sp_AP11 and/or Bacteroides sp_1_1_6, or corresponding strains, such as strains with a 16S rRNA gene sequence that is at least 95%, 96%, 97%, 98%, 99%, 99.5% or 99.9% identical to the 16S gene rRNA sequence of the reference bacterium. In certain embodiments, the method of the invention comprises detecting two or more bacteria from the above list, such as at least 3, 4, 5 or all of the bacteria. In any such embodiments, detecting the bacteria comprises measuring the relative abundance of the bacteria in a sample, for example relative to a corresponding sample from a control (non-IBS) individual or relative to a reference value. In certain embodiments, the bacteria (i.e. one or more bacterial strains) may be detected using Clade-specific bacterial genes, 16S sequences, transcriptomics or metabolomics.


In one embodiment, the present invention provides a method for diagnosing IBS, comprising detecting one or more bacterial species selected from the following: Prevotella buccalis, Butyricicoccus pullicaecorum, Granulicatella elegans, Pseudoflavonifractor capillosus, Clostridium ramosum, Streptococcus sanguinis, Clostridium citroniae, Desulfovibrio desulfuricans, Haemophilus pittmaniae, Paraprevotella clara, Streptococcus anginosus, Anaerotruncus colihominis, Clostridium symbiosum, Mitsuokella multacida, Clostridium nexile, Lactobacillus fermentum, Eubacterium biforme, Clostridium leptum, Bacteroides pectinophilus, Coprococcus catus, Eubacterium eligens, Roseburia inulinivorans, Bacteroides faecis, Bamesiella intestinihominis, Bacteroides thetaiotaomicron, Ruminococcus bromii, Ruminococcus gnavus, Ruminococcus lactaris, Parabacteroides distasonis, Butyrivibrio crossotus, Bacteroides cellulosilyticus, Bifidobacterium adolescentis, and/or Dialister invisus. In certain embodiments, the method of the invention comprises detecting two or more species from the above list, such as at least 5, 10, 15, 20 or all of the species. In one embodiment, the present invention provides a method for diagnosing IBS, comprising detecting one or more bacterial strains that may be selected from the list consisting of Lachnospiraceae bacterium_2_1_58FAA, Lachnospiraceae bacterium_7_1_58FAA, Lachnospiraceae bacterium_1_4_56FAA, Lachnospiraceae bacterium_3_1_46FAA, Alistipes sp_AP11, Bacteroides_sp_1_1_6, and/or Coprococcus_sp_ART55_1, or corresponding strains, such as strains with a 16S rRNA gene sequence that is at least 95%, 96%, 97%, 98%, 99%, 99.5% or 99.9% identical to the 16S gene rRNA sequence of the reference bacterium. In certain embodiments, the method of the invention comprises detecting two or more bacteria from the above list, such as at least 3 or 4 or all of the bacteria. In any such embodiments, detecting the bacteria (i.e. one or more bacterial strains) comprises measuring the relative abundance of the bacteria in a sample, for example relative to a corresponding sample from a control (non-IBS) individual or relative to a reference value. In certain embodiments, the bacteria (i.e. one or more bacterial strains) may be detected using clade-specific bacterial genes, 16S sequences, transcriptomics or metabolomics.


In one embodiment, the present invention provides a method for diagnosing IBS, comprising detecting one or more bacterial strains belonging to an operational taxonomic unit (OTU) associated with IBS. As known in the art, an operational taxonomic unit (OTU) is an operational definition used to classify groups of closely related individuals. As used herein, an “OTU” is a group of organisms which are grouped by DNA sequence similarity of a specific taxonomic marker gene (49). In some embodiments, the specific taxanomic marker gene is the 16S rRNA gene. In some embodiments, the Ribosomal Database Project (RDP) taxonomic classifier is used to assign taxonomy to representative OTU sequences. For example, the sequence information in Table 12 can be used to classify whether bacteria (i.e. one or more bacterial strains) belong to the OTUs listed in Table 11. Bacteria having at least 97% sequence identity to the sequences in Table 12 belong to the corresponding OTUs in Table 11. In preferred embodiments, the OTU is selected from tables 1, 11 and/or 12. In any such embodiments, detecting the bacteria (i.e. one or more bacterial strains) comprises measuring the relative abundance of the bacteria in a sample, for example relative to a corresponding sample from a control (non-IBS) individual or relative to a reference value.


In certain embodiments, the bacterial species belongs to a sequence-based taxon. In preferred embodiments, the sequence-based taxon is selected from tables 1-3.


In one embodiment, a bacterial species or strain predictive of IBS is more abundant in patients suffering from IBS. In a particular embodiment, the method of the invention comprises measuring the abundance of a bacterial species or strain, wherein increased abundance is associated with IBS, and wherein the strain or species is selected from: Ruminococcus gnavus, Lachnospiraceae bacterium_3_1_46FAA, Lachnospiraceae bacterium_7_1_58FAA, Anaerotruncus colihominis, Lachnospiraceae bacterium_1_4_56FAA, Clostridium symbiosum, Clostridium citroniae, Lachnospiraceae bacterium_2_1_58FAA, Clostridium nexile, and/or Clostridium ramosum, In one embodiment, the present invention provides a method for diagnosing IBS, comprising detecting one or more bacterial species or strains which is more abundant in patients suffering from IBS. In certain embodiments, the method of the invention comprises detecting two or more species or strains from the above list, such as at least 5, 10, 15, 20 or all of the species.


In one embodiment, the bacterial species predictive of IBS is significantly more abundant in patients suffering from IBS. In a preferred embodiment, the bacterial species predictive of IBS that is significantly more abundant in patients suffering from IBS is Ruminococcus gnavus and/or Lachnospiraceae spp.


In one embodiment, a bacterial species or strain predictive of IBS is less abundant in patients suffering from IBS. In a particular embodiment, the method of the invention comprises measuring the abundance of a bacterial species or strain, wherein decreased abundance is associated with IBS, and wherein the strain or species is selected from: Coprococcus catus, Barnesiella intestinihominis, Eubacterium eligens, Paraprevotella clara, Ruminococcus lactaris, Eubacterium biforme, and/or Coprococcus sp_ART55_1. In one embodiment, the present invention provides a method for diagnosing IBS, comprising detecting one or more bacterial species or strains which are less abundant in patients suffering from IBS.


In one embodiment, the bacterial species predictive of IBS is significantly less abundant in patients suffering from IBS. In a preferred embodiment, the bacterial species predictive of IBS that is significantly less abundant in patients suffering from IBS is Barnesiella intestinihominis and/or Coprococcus catus.


In a particular embodiment, the present invention provides a method for diagnosing IBS, comprising detecting bacterial taxa which are predictive of IBS selected from table 2. In certain embodiments, the bacterial taxa predictive of IBS are significantly more abundant in patients suffering from IBS, for example as shown in tables 2 and/or 3. In other embodiments, the bacterial taxa predictive of IBS is significantly less abundant in patients suffering from IBS, for example as shown in tables 2 and/or 3.


In one embodiment, a bacterial species or strain predictive of IBS is differentially abundant in patients suffering from IBS. In a particular embodiment, the method of the invention comprises measuring the abundance of a bacterial species, wherein differential abundance is associated with IBS, and wherein the species is selected from: Ruminococcus gnavus, Clostridium bolteae, Anaerotruncus colihominis, Flavonifractor plautii, Clostridium clostridioforme, Clostridium hathewayi, Clostridium symbiosum, Ruminococcus torques, Alistipes senegalensis, Prevotella copri, Eggerthella lenta, Clostridium asparagiforme, Barnesiella intestinihominis, Clostridium citroniae, Eubacterium eligens, Clostridium ramosum, Coprococcus catus, Eubacterium biforme, Ruminococcus lactaris, Bacteroides massiliensis, Haemophilus parainfluenzae, Clostridium nexile, Clostridium innocuum, Bacteroides Xylanisolvens, Oxalobacter formigenes, Alistipes putredinis, Paraprevotella clara and/or Odoribacter splanchnicus. In a particular embodiment, the method of the invention comprises measuring the abundance of a bacterial strain, wherein differential abundance is associated with IBS, and wherein the strain is selected from: Clostridiales bacterium 1 7 47FAA, Lachnospiraceae bacterium 1 4 56FA, Lachnospiraceae bacterium 51 57FAA, Lachnospiraceae bacterium 3 1 46FAA, Lachnospiraceae bacterium 7 1 58FAA, Coprococcus sp ART55 1, Lachnospiraceae bacterium 3 1 57FAA CT1, Lachnospiraceae bacterium 2 1 58FAA and/or Eubacterium sp 3 1 31. In certain embodiments, the bacteria (i.e. one or more bacterial strains) may be detected using Clade-specific bacterial genes, 16S sequences, transcriptomics or metabolomics.


In one embodiment, a bacterial species or strain predictive of IBS is differentially abundant in patients suffering from IBS. In a particular embodiment, the method of the invention comprises measuring the abundance of a bacterial species, wherein differential abundance is associated with IBS, and wherein the species is selected from: Escherichia coli, Streptococcus aginosus, Parabacteroides johnsonii, Streptococcus gordonii, Clostridium boltae, Turicibacter sanguinis, Paraprevotella Xylamphila, Streptococcus mutans, Bacteroides plebeius, Clostridium clostridioforme, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Clostridium hathewayi, Bacteroides fragilis, Prevotella disiens, Clostridium leptum, Pseudoflavonifractor capillosus, Bacteroides intestinalis, Enterococcus faecalis, Streptococcus infantis, Alistipes shahii, Clostridium asparagiforme, Clostridium symbiosum and/or Streptococcus sanguinis. In a particular embodiment, the method of the invention comprises measuring the abundance of a bacterial strain, wherein differential abundance is associated with IBS, and wherein the strain is selected from: Clostridiales bacterium 1 7 47FAA, Eubacterium sp 3 1 31, Lachnospiraceae bacterium 5 1 57FAA, Clostridiaceae bacterium JC118 and/or Lachnospiraceae bacterium 1 4 56FA. In certain embodiments, the bacteria (i.e. one or more bacterial strains) may be detected using Clade-specific bacterial genes, 16S sequences, transcriptomics or metabolomics.


In one embodiment, the fecal microbiota alpha diversity of patients with IBS is reduced. In one embodiment, the intra-individual microbiota diversity of patients with IBS is reduced. In one embodiment, the fecal microbiota alpha diversity of patients with IBS is significantly lower than non-IBS patients. In one embodiment, the intra-individual microbiota diversity of patients with IBS is significantly lower than non-IBS patients. In a further embodiment, the microbiota alpha diversity is not significantly different between IBS clinical subtypes.


In one embodiment, the present invention provides a method for diagnosing IBS, comprising detecting one or more bacterial strains belonging to an operational taxonomic unit (OTU) associated with IBS. In preferred embodiments, the OTU is selected from table 11. In one embodiment, the OTU associated with IBS is classified as belonging to the Firmicutes phylum. In a particular embodiment, the OTU associated with IBS is classified as belonging to the Clostridia class. In a particular embodiment, the OTU associated with IBS is classified as belonging to the Clostridiales order. In a particular embodiment, the OTU associated with IBS is classified as belonging to the Clostridiales Lachnospiraceae family or the Ruminococcaceae family. In a particular embodiment, the OTU associated with IBS is classified as belonging to the Butyricicoccus genus.


In one embodiment, the present invention provides a method for diagnosing IBS, comprising detecting bacterial strains belonging to one or more OTUs listed in Table 11. The sequences in Table 12 can be used to classify bacteria as belonging to the OTUs listed in Table 11. Bacteria (i.e. one or more bacterial strains) having at least 97% sequence identity to the sequences in Table 12 belong to the corresponding OTUs in Table 11. The alignment is across the length of the sequence. In both Metaphlan2 and HUMAnN2 runs, alignment for species composition is done using bowtie 2. Bowtie2 is run with “very-sensitive argument” and the alignment performed is “Global alignment”.


In one embodiment, the present invention provides a method for diagnosing IBS, comprising detecting bacteria (i.e. one or more bacterial strains) having a 16S rRNA gene sequence at least 97% (e.g. 98%, 99%, 99.5% or 100%) identical to SEQ ID No: 1. In certain such embodiments, the bacteria is classified as belonging to the Lachnospiraceae family.


In one embodiment, the present invention provides a method for diagnosing IBS, comprising detecting bacteria (i.e. one or more bacterial strains) having a 16S rRNA gene sequence at least 97% (e.g. 98%, 99%, 99.5% or 100%) identical to SEQ ID No: 2. In certain such embodiments, the bacteria is classified as belonging to the Firmicutes phylum.


In one embodiment, the present invention provides a method for diagnosing IBS, comprising detecting bacteria (i.e. one or more bacterial strains) having a 16S rRNA gene sequence at least 97% (e.g. 98%, 99%, 99.5% or 100%) identical to SEQ ID No: 3. In certain such embodiments, the bacteria is classified as belonging to the Butyricicoccus genus.


In one embodiment, the present invention provides a method for diagnosing IBS, comprising detecting bacteria (i.e. one or more bacterial strains) having a 16S rRNA gene sequence at least 97% (e.g. 98%, 99%, 99.5% or 100%) identical to SEQ ID No: 4. In certain such embodiments, the bacteria is classified as belonging to the Lachnospiraceae family.


In one embodiment, the present invention provides a method for diagnosing IBS, comprising detecting bacteria (i.e. one or more bacterial strains) having a 16S rRNA gene sequence at least 97% (e.g. 98%, 99%, 99.5% or 100%) identical to SEQ ID No: 5. In certain such embodiments, the bacteria is classified as belonging to the Clostridiales order.


In one embodiment, the present invention provides a method for diagnosing IBS, comprising detecting bacteria (i.e. one or more bacterial strains) having a 16S rRNA gene sequence at least 97% (e.g. 98%, 99%, 99.5% or 100%) identical to SEQ ID No: 6. In certain such embodiments, the bacteria is classified as belonging to the Ruminococcaceae family.


In one embodiment, the present invention provides a method for diagnosing IBS, comprising detecting bacteria (i.e. one or more bacterial strains) having a 16S rRNA gene sequence at least 97% (e.g. 98%, 99%, 99.5% or 100%) identical to SEQ ID No: 7. In certain such embodiments, the bacteria is classified as belonging to the Ruminococcaceae family.


In one embodiment, the present invention provides a method for diagnosing IBS, comprising detecting bacteria (i.e. one or more bacterial strains) having a 16S rRNA gene sequence at least 97% (e.g. 98%, 99%, 99.5% or 100%) identical to SEQ ID No: 8. In certain such embodiments, the bacteria is classified as belonging to the Firmicutes phylum.


In one embodiment, the present invention provides a method for diagnosing IBS, comprising detecting bacteria (i.e. one or more bacterial strains) having a 16S rRNA gene sequence at least 97% (e.g. 98%, 99%, 99.5% or 100%) identical to SEQ ID No: 9. In certain such embodiments, the bacteria is classified as belonging to the Ruminococcaceae family.


In one embodiment, the present invention provides a method for diagnosing IBS, comprising detecting bacteria (i.e. one or more bacterial strains) having a 16S rRNA gene sequence at least 97% (e.g. 98%, 99%, 99.5% or 100%) identical to SEQ ID No:10. In certain such embodiments, the bacteria is classified as belonging to the Lachnospiraceae family.


In preferred embodiments, the invention provides a method for diagnosing IBS, comprising detecting different bacteria (i.e. one or more bacterial strains) having 16S rRNA gene sequences at least 97% (e.g. 98%, 99%, 99.5% or 100%) identical to two or more of SEQ ID No:1-10, such as 5, 8, or all of SEQ ID No:1-10.


Alteration of Pathways as a Predictor of IBS


The inventors have identified that certain pathways are over or underrepresented in the genomes of the microbiota of patients suffering from IBS. Therefore, the invention provides methods for diagnosing IBS based on the presence or abundance of genes, pathways, or bacteria carrying such genes. Methods of diagnosis comprising detecting genes involved in one or more of the pathways identified herein may be particularly useful for use with different populations of patients because different patient populations may have different microbiome populations.


In one embodiment, the present invention provides a method for diagnosing IBS, comprising detecting microbial genes involved in one or more of the pathways selected from the list in table 4. In certain embodiments, the presence, or increased abundance relative to a control (non-IBS) individual, of genes involved in a pathway recited in Table 4 is associated with IBS. In a preferred embodiment, the method comprises detecting genes involved in amino acid biosynthesis/degradation pathways. The data show that these pathways are significantly more abundant in patients with IBS. In a preferred embodiment, the method comprises detecting genes involved in starch degradation V pathway. The data show that such genes are significantly more abundant in patients with IBS. In another embodiment, genes that are significantly more abundant in patients with IBS are associated with Lachnospiraceae and Ruminococcus species. In certain embodiments, the method of the invention comprises detecting genes involved in at least 2, 5, 10, 15, 20 or 30 of the pathways in table 4. In any such embodiments, detecting the genes comprises measuring the relative abundance of the genes, or bacteria carrying the genes in a sample, for example relative to a corresponding sample from a control (non-IBS) individual or relative to a reference value. In certain embodiments, the presence of the microbial genes is detected by detecting metabolites in the sample. In certain embodiments, the presence of the microbial genes is detected by detecting a taxa of bacteria know to carry the microbial genes.


In other embodiments, the absence or decreased abundance relative to a control (non-IBS) individual of genes involved in a pathway are associated with IBS, for example as shown in table 4. In a preferred embodiment, genes involved in galactose degradation, sulfate reduction, sulfate assimilation and cysteine biosynthesis pathways are detected. The data show that these pathways are significantly less abundant in patients with IBS. In a particular embodiment, pathways indicative of sulphur metabolism are less abundant in patients with IBS. In any such embodiments, detecting the genes comprises measuring the relative abundance of the genes, or bacteria carrying the genes in a sample, for example relative to a corresponding sample from a control (non-IBS) individual or relative to a reference value.


In certain embodiments, methods comprising detecting the presence or absence or relative abundance of genes involved in a pathway comprise detecting nucleic acid sequences in a sample from the patient. Additionally or alternatively, the methods comprise detecting bacterial species known to carry the genes of the relevant pathway.


In one embodiment, the present invention provides a method for diagnosing IBS, comprising detecting the differential abundance of one or more pathways predictive of IBS relative to control (non-IBS) individuals. In a particular embodiment, the adenosine ribonucleotide de novo biosynthesis functional pathway is differentially abundant in IBS relative to control (non-IBS) individuals. In a preferred embodiment, the adenosine ribonucleotide de novo biosynthesis functional pathway is more abundant in IBS patients relative to control (non-IBS) individuals.


Alteration of Metabolomes as a Predictor of IBS


The inventors have identified metabolites that are associated with IBS and the invention provides methods for diagnosing IBS that comprise detecting such metabolites. Methods of diagnosis comprising detecting metabolites identified herein may be particularly useful for use with different populations of patients because different patient populations may have different microbiome populations, but there may be more uniformity in terms of detectable metabolites. Generally, detecting a metabolite associated with IBS in the methods of the invention comprises measuring the concentration of the metabolite in a sample or measuring changes in the concentration of a metabolite and optionally comparing the concentration to a corresponding sample from a control (non-IBS) individual or relative to a reference value. In some embodiments, detecting a metabolite associated with IBS in the methods of the invention comprises measuring the concentration of a precursor of the metabolite and optionally comparing the concentration to a corresponding sample from a control (non-IBS) individual or relative to a reference value. In some embodiments, detecting a metabolite associated with IBS in the methods of the invention comprises measuring the concentration of a breakdown product of the metabolite and optionally comparing the concentration to a corresponding sample from a control (non-IBS) individual or relative to a reference value. In certain embodiments, the method comprises detecting a bacterial taxa known to produce a metabolite predictive of IBS.


Alteration of Urine Metabolomes as a Predictor of Ibs


In one embodiment, the present invention provides a method for diagnosing IBS, comprising detecting urine metabolites which may include one or more of the following: A 80987, Ala-Leu-Trp-Gly, Medicagenic acid 3-O-b-D-glucuronide and/or (−)-Epigallocatechin sulfate. In one embodiment, the present invention provides a method for diagnosing IBS, comprising detecting one or more urine metabolites selected from the list in table 5. In any such embodiments, detecting the metabolite comprises measuring the concentration of the metabolite in a sample, for example relative to a corresponding sample from a control (non-IBS) individual or relative to a reference value. In other embodiments, detecting the metabolite comprises measuring the concentration of the metabolite in a sample, and normalising the concentration relative to urine creatinine levels in each sample. In some embodiments, the method comprises detecting a precursor or breakdown product of the above metabolites. In one embodiment, machine learning is applied to urine metabolome data to diagnose IBS.


In a particular embodiment, the method comprises detecting adenosine, such as measuring the concentration of adenosine in a sample. The examples demonstrate that adenosine is more abundant in IBS patients relative to control (non-IBS) individuals. Thus, a level of adenosine that is increased relative to a healthy control is indicative of IBS.


In one embodiment, the present invention provides a method for diagnosing IBS, comprising detecting one or more urine metabolites that are differentially abundant in patients suffering from IBS compared to a healthy control (i.e. from one or more subjects who does not suffer from IBS). In one embodiment, the one or more urine metabolites that are differentially abundant in patients suffering from IBS are: N-Undecanoylglycine, Gamma-glutamyl-Cysteine, Alloathyriol, Trp-Ala-Pro, A 80987, Medicagenic acid 3-O-b-D-glucuronide, Ala-Leu-Trp-Gly, Butoctamide hydrogen succinate, (−)-Epicatechin sulfate, 1,4,5-Trimethyl-naphtalene, Tricetin 3′-methyl ether 7,5′-diglucuronide, Torasemide, (−)-Epigallocatechin sulfate, Dodecanedioylcarnitine, 1,6,7-Trimethylnaphthalene, Tetrahydrodipicolinate, Sumiki's acid, Silicic acid, Delphinidin 3-(6″-O-4-malyl-glucosyl)-5-glucoside, L-Arginine, Leucyl-Methionine, Phe-Gly-Gly-Ser, Gin-Met-Pro-Ser, Creatinine, Ala-Asn-Cys-Gly, 2-hydroxy-2-(hydroxymethyl)-2H-pyran-3(6H)-one, Thiethylperazine, 5-((2-iodoacetamido)ethyl)-1-aminonapthalene sulfate, dCTP, Isoleucyl-Proline, 3,4-Methylenesebacic acid, Dimethylallylpyrophosphate/Isopentenyl pyrophosphate, (4-Hydroxybenzoyl)choline, Diazoxide, 3,5-Di-O-galloyl-1,4-galactarolactone, 2-Hydroxypyridine, Decanoylcarnitine, Asp-Met-Asp-Pro, 3-Methyldioxyindole, (1S,3R,4S)-3,4-Dihydroxycyclohexane-1-carboxylate, Ala-Lys-Phe-Cys, 3-Indolehydracrylic acid, [FA (18:0)] N-(9Z-octadecenoyl)-taurine, Ferulic acid 4-sulfate, Urea, N-Carboxyacetyl-D-phenylalanine, 4-Methoxyphenylethanol sulfate, UDP-4-dehydro-6-deoxy-D-glucose, Linalyl formate, Demethyloleuropein, 5′-Guanosyl-methylene-triphosphate, Allyl nonanoate, 2-Phenylethyl octanoate, beta-Cellobiose, D-Galactopyranosyl-(1->3)-D-galactopyranosyl-(1->3)-L-arabinose, Cys-Phe-Phe-Gln, Hippuric acid, Cys-Pro-Pro-Tyr, Met-Met-Thr-Trp, methylphosphonate, 3′-Sialyllactosamine, 2,4,6-Octatriynoic acid, Delphinidin 3-O-3″,6″-O-dimalonylglucoside, L-Valine, Met-Met-Cys, Cysteinyl-Cysteine, (all-E)-1,8,10-Heptadecatriene-4,6-diyne-3,12-diol, L-Lysine, Pivaloylcarnitine, Lenticin, Phenol glucuronide, Tyrosyl-Cysteine, Osmundalin, Tetrahydroaldosterone-3-glucuronide, N-Methylpyridinium, L-prolyl-L-proline, Glutarylcarnitine, [FA (15:4)] 6,8,10,12-pentadecatetraenal, Methyl bisnorbiotinyl ketone, Acetoin, LysoPC(18:2(9Z,12Z)), Hexyl 2-furoate, N-carbamoyl-L-glutamate, L-Homoserine, L-Asparagine, Tiglylcarnitine, Thymine, 3-hydroxypyridine, Menadiol disuccinate, 9-Decenoylcarnitine, Pyrocatechol sulfate, sedoheptulose anhydride, (+)-gamma-Hydroxy-L-homoarginine, Thioridazine, Cys-Glu-Glu-Glu, Marmesin rutinoside, L-Serine, L-Urobilinogen, Isobutyrylglycine, S-Adenosylhomocysteine, 2,3-dioctanoylglyceramide, 3-Methoxy-4-hydroxyphenylglycol glucuronide, sulfoethylcysteine, Hydroxyphenylacetylglycine, Pyrroline hydroxycarboxylic acid, 1-(alpha-Methyl-4-(2-methylpropyl)benzeneacetate)-beta-D-Glucopyranuronic acid, 2-Methylbutylacetate, N1-Methyl-4-pyridone-3-carboxamide, Cortolone-3-glucuronide, Asn-Cys-Gly, N6,N6,N6-Trimethyl-L-lysine, Benzylamine, 5-Hydroxy-L-tryptophan, Armillaric acid, Leucine/Isoleucine, 2-Butylbenzothiazole, D-Sedoheptulose 7-phosphate, [Fv Dimethoxy,methyl(9:1)] (2S)-5,7-Dimethoxy-3′,4′-methylenedioxyflavanone, Oxoadipic acid, Thr-Cys-Cys, Creatine, Hydroxybutyrylcarnitine, 5′-Dehydroadenosine, Phe-Thr-Val, dUDP, L-Glutamine and/or Kaempferol 3-(2″,3″-diacetyl-4″-p-coumaroylrhamnoside). In one embodiment, the present invention provides a method for diagnosing IBS, comprising detecting one or more urine metabolites predictive of IBS. In one embodiment, the urine metabolite predictive of IBS is selected from: N-Undecanoylglycine, Gamma-glutamyl-Cysteine, Alloathyriol, Trp-Ala-Pro, A 80987, Medicagenic acid 3-O-b-D-glucuronide, Ala-Leu-Trp-Gly, Butoctamide hydrogen succinate, (−)-Epicatechin sulfate, 1,4,5-Trimethyl-naphtalene, Tricetin 3′-methyl ether 7,5′-diglucuronide, Torasemide, (−)-Epigallocatechin sulfate, Dodecanedioylcarnitine, 1,6,7-Trimethylnaphthalene, Tetrahydrodipicolinate, Sumiki's acid, Silicic acid, Delphinidin 3-(6″-O-4-malyl-glucosyl)-5-glucoside, L-Arginine, Leucyl-Methionine, Phe-Gly-Gly-Ser, Gin-Met-Pro-Ser, Creatinine, Ala-Asn-Cys-Gly, 2-hydroxy-2-(hydroxymethyl)-2H-pyran-3(6H)-one, Thiethylperazine, 5-((2-iodoacetamido)ethyl)-1-aminonapthalene sulfate, dCTP, Isoleucyl-Proline, 3,4-Methylenesebacic acid, Dimethylallylpyrophosphate/Isopentenyl pyrophosphate, (4-Hydroxybenzoyl)choline, Diazoxide, 3,5-Di-O-galloyl-1,4-galactarolactone, 2-Hydroxypyridine, Decanoylcarnitine, Asp-Met-Asp-Pro, 3-Methyldioxyindole, (1S,3R,4S)-3,4-Dihydroxycyclohexane-1-carboxylate, Ala-Lys-Phe-Cys, 3-Indolehydracrylic acid, [FA (18:0)] N-(9Z-octadecenoyl)-taurine, Ferulic acid 4-sulfate, Urea, N-Carboxyacetyl-D-phenylalanine, 4-Methoxyphenylethanol sulfate, UDP-4-dehydro-6-deoxy-D-glucose, Linalyl formate, Demethyloleuropein, 5′-Guanosyl-methylene-triphosphate, Allyl nonanoate, 2-Phenylethyl octanoate, beta-Cellobiose, D-Galactopyranosyl-(1->3)-D-galactopyranosyl-(1->3)-L-arabinose, Cys-Phe-Phe-Gln, Hippuric acid, Cys-Pro-Pro-Tyr, Met-Met-Thr-Trp, methylphosphonate, 3′-Sialyllactosamine, 2,4,6-Octatriynoic acid, Delphinidin 3-O-3″,6″-0-dimalonylglucoside, L-Valine, Met-Met-Cys, Cysteinyl-Cysteine, (all-E)-1,8,10-Heptadecatriene-4,6-diyne-3,12-diol, L-Lysine, Pivaloylcarnitine, Lenticin, Phenol glucuronide, Tyrosyl-Cysteine, Osmundalin, Tetrahydroaldosterone-3-glucuronide, N-Methylpyridinium, L-prolyl-L-proline, Glutarylcarnitine, [FA (15:4)] 6,8,10,12-pentadecatetraenal, Methyl bisnorbiotinyl ketone, Acetoin, LysoPC(18:2(9Z,12Z)), Hexyl 2-furoate, N-carbamoyl-L-glutamate, L-Homoserine, L-Asparagine, Tiglylcarnitine, Thymine, 3-hydroxypyridine, Menadiol disuccinate, 9-Decenoylcarnitine, Pyrocatechol sulfate, sedoheptulose anhydride, (+)-gamma-Hydroxy-L-homoarginine, Thioridazine, Cys-Glu-Glu-Glu, Marmesin rutinoside, L-Serine, L-Urobilinogen, Isobutyrylglycine, S-Adenosylhomocysteine, 2,3-dioctanoylglyceramide, 3-Methoxy-4-hydroxyphenylglycol glucuronide, sulfoethylcysteine, Hydroxyphenylacetylglycine, Pyrroline hydroxycarboxylic acid, 1-(alpha-Methyl-4-(2-methylpropyl)benzeneacetate)-beta-D-Glucopyranuronic acid, 2-Methylbutylacetate, N1-Methyl-4-pyridone-3-carboxamide, Cortolone-3-glucuronide, Asn-Cys-Gly, N6,N6,N6-Trimethyl-L-lysine, Benzylamine, 5-Hydroxy-L-tryptophan, Armillaric acid, Leucine/Isoleucine, 2-Butylbenzothiazole, D-Sedoheptulose 7-phosphate, [Fv Dimethoxy,methyl(9:1)] (2S)-5,7-Dimethoxy-3′,4′-methylenedioxyflavanone, Oxoadipic acid, Thr-Cys-Cys, Creatine, Hydroxybutyrylcarnitine, 5′-Dehydroadenosine, Phe-Thr-Val, dUDP, L-Glutamine and/or Kaempferol 3-(2″,3″-diacetyl-4″-p-coumaroylrhamnoside).. In one embodiment, the present invention provides a method for diagnosing IBS, comprising detecting differential abundance of one or more urine metabolites selected from the list in table 6. In certain embodiments, the method of the invention comprises detecting 2, 5, 10, 15 or 20 or all of the metabolites from table 6. In any such embodiments, detecting the metabolite comprises measuring the concentration of the metabolite in a sample, for example the concentration relative to a corresponding sample from a control (non-IBS) individual or relative to a reference value. In some embodiments, detecting the metabolite comprises measuring the concentration of the metabolite in a sample, and normalising the concentration relative to urine creatinine levels in each sample. In some embodiments, the method comprises detecting a precursor or breakdown product of the above metabolites.


In certain embodiments, the abundance of urine metabolites is significantly increased in patients with IBS, for example as shown in table 6. In one embodiment, the method comprises detecting metabolites involved in fatty acid oxidation and/or fatty acid metabolism, which are significantly more abundant in patients with IBS. In a preferred embodiment, N-Undecanoylglycine is detected, which is significantly more abundant in patients with IBS. In another preferred embodiment, Decanoylcarnitine is detected, which is significantly more abundant in patients with IBS.


In one embodiment, a urine metabolite predictive of IBS is more abundant in patients suffering from IBS compared to a healthy control. In one embodiment, the present invention provides a method for diagnosing IBS, comprising detecting one or more urine metabolites that have been found to be predictive that a patient is suffering from IBS. In one embodiment, the present invention provides a method for diagnosing IBS, comprising detecting one or more urine metabolites that are more abundant in patients suffering from IBS compared to a healthy control (i.e. from one or more subjects who does not suffer from IBS). In certain embodiments, the abundance of urine metabolites is increased in patients with IBS, for example as shown in table 6 and/or table 21b. In one embodiment, the one or more urine metabolites that are more abundant in patients suffering from IBS are: A 80987, Medicagenic acid 3-O-b-D-glucuronide, N-Undecanoylglycine, Ala-Leu-Trp-Gly, Gamma-glutamyl-Cysteine, Butoctamide hydrogen succinate, (−)-Epicatechin sulfate, 1,4,5-Trimethyl-naphtalene, Trp-Ala-Pro, Dodecanedioylcarnitine, 1,6,7-Trimethylnaphthalene, Sumiki's acid, Phe-Gly-Gly-Ser, 2-hydroxy-2-(hydroxymethyl)-2H-pyran-3(6H)-one, 5-((2-iodoacetamido)ethyl)-1-aminonapthalene sulfate, Thiethylperazine, dCTP, Dimethylallylpyrophosphate/Isopentenyl pyrophosphate, Asp-Met-Asp-Pro, 3,5-Di-O-galloyl-1,4-galactarolactone, Decanoylcarnitine, [FA (18:0)] N-(9Z-octadecenoyl)-taurine, UDP-4-dehydro-6-deoxy-D-glucose, Delphinidin 3-O-3″,6″-O-dimalonylglucoside, Osmundalin and/or Cysteinyl-Cysteine. In a preferred embodiment, one or more urine metabolites selected from: A 80987, Medicagenic acid 3-O-b-D-glucuronide, N-Undecanoylglycine, Ala-Leu-Trp-Gly, and/or Gamma-glutamyl-Cysteine are detected, which are more abundant in patients with IBS compared to healthy controls. In one embodiment, the present invention provides a method for diagnosing IBS, comprising detecting an increase in abundance of one or more urine metabolites selected from the list in table 6 and/or table 21b. In certain embodiments, the method of the invention comprises detecting 2, 5, 10, 15 or 20 or all of the metabolites from table 6 and/or table 21b. In any such embodiments, detecting the metabolite comprises measuring the concentration of the metabolite in a sample, for example the concentration relative to a corresponding sample from a control (non-IBS) individual or relative to a reference value. In some embodiments, detecting the metabolite comprises measuring the concentration of the metabolite in a sample, and normalising the concentration relative to urine creatinine levels in each sample. In some embodiments, the method comprises detecting a precursor or breakdown product of the above metabolites. In a preferred embodiment, epicatechin sulfate is detected, which is more abundant in patients with IBS. In a preferred embodiment, medicagenic acid 3-O-b-D-glucuronide is detected, which is more abundant in patients with IBS.


In certain embodiments, the abundance of urine metabolites is significantly decreased in patients with IBS, for example as shown in table 6. In one embodiment, the method comprises detecting metabolites involved in the biosynthesis of nitric oxide, which are significantly less abundant in patients with IBS. In one embodiment amino acids are significantly less abundant in patients with IBS, for example L-arginine.


In one embodiment, a urine metabolite predictive of IBS is less abundant in patients suffering from IBS compared to a healthy control. In one embodiment, the present invention provides a method for diagnosing IBS, comprising detecting one or more urine metabolites that have been found to be predictive that a patient is not suffering from IBS, i.e. that the patient is a healthy control. In one embodiment, the present invention provides a method for diagnosing IBS, comprising detecting one or more urine metabolites that are less abundant in patients suffering from IBS compared to a healthy control (i.e. from one or more subjects who does not suffer from IBS). In one embodiment, the present invention provides a method for diagnosing IBS, comprising detecting one or more urine metabolites that are more abundant in healthy controls (i.e. from one or more subjects who does not suffer from IBS) compared to patients suffering from IBS. In certain embodiments, the abundance of urine metabolites is decreased in patients with IBS, for example as shown in table 6 and/or table 21a. In one embodiment, the one or more urine metabolites that are less abundant in patients suffering from IBS are: Tricetin 3′-methyl ether 7,5′-diglucuronide, Alloathyriol, Torasemide, (−)-Epigallocatechin sulfate, Tetrahydrodipicolinate, Silicic acid, Delphinidin 3-(6″-O-4-malyl-glucosyl)-5-glucoside, Creatinine, L-Arginine, Leucyl-Methionine, Gln-Met-Pro-Ser, Ala-Asn-Cys-Gly, Isoleucyl-Proline, 3,4-Methylenesebacic acid, (4-Hydroxybenzoyl)choline, Diazoxide, (1S,3R,4S)-3,4-Dihydroxycyclohexane-1-carboxylate, 2-Hydroxypyridine, Ala-Lys-Phe-Cys, 3-Methyldioxyindole, N-Carboxyacetyl-D-phenylalanine, Urea, Ferulic acid 4-sulfate, 3-Indolehydracrylic acid, Demethyloleuropein, 5′-Guanosyl-methylene-triphosphate, Linalyl formate, 4-Methoxyphenylethanol sulfate, Allyl nonanoate, D-Galactopyranosyl-(1->3)-D-galactopyranosyl-(1->3)-L-arabinose, Met-Met-Thr-Trp, Cys-Pro-Pro-Tyr, methylphosphonate, 2-Phenylethyl octanoate, Hippuric acid, Glutarylcarnitine and/or Cys-Phe-Phe-Gln. In a preferred embodiment, one or more urine metabolites selected from: Tricetin 3′-methyl ether 7,5′-diglucuronide, Alloathyriol, Torasemide, (−)-Epigallocatechin sulfate and/or Tetrahydrodipicolinate are detected, which are less abundant in patients with IBS compared to healthy controls. In one embodiment, the present invention provides a method for diagnosing IBS, comprising detecting a decrease in abundance of one or more urine metabolites selected from the list in table 6 and/or table 21a. In certain embodiments, the method of the invention comprises detecting 2, 5, 10, 15 or 20 or all of the metabolites from table 6 and/or table 21a. In any such embodiments, detecting the metabolite comprises measuring the concentration of the metabolite in a sample, for example the concentration relative to a corresponding sample from a control (non-IBS) individual or relative to a reference value. In some embodiments, detecting the metabolite comprises measuring the concentration of the metabolite in a sample, and normalising the concentration relative to urine creatinine levels in each sample. In some embodiments, the method comprises detecting a precursor or breakdown product of the above metabolites.


In one embodiment, the present invention provides a method for diagnosing IBS, comprising detecting one or more urine metabolites that are differentially abundant in patients suffering from IBS compared to a healthy control (i.e. from one or more subjects who does not suffer from IBS). In a preferred embodiment, the one or more urine metabolites that are differentially abundant in patients suffering from IBS are sulfate, glucuronide, carnitine, glycine and glutamine conjugates. In one embodiment, the method comprises detecting metabolites involved in phase 2 metabolism, which are is upregulated in patients with IBS. In any such embodiments, detecting the metabolite comprises measuring the concentration of the metabolite in a sample, for example the concentration relative to a corresponding sample from a control (non-IBS) individual or relative to a reference value. In other embodiments, detecting the metabolite comprises measuring the concentration of the metabolite in a sample, and normalising the concentration relative to urine creatinine levels in each sample.


Alteration of Fecal Metabolomes as a Predictor of IBS


In one embodiment, the present invention provides a method for diagnosing IBS, comprising detecting one or more fecal metabolites selected from: 3-deoxy-D-galactose, Tyrosine, I-Urobilin, Adenosine, Glu-Ile-Ile-Phe, 3,6-Dimethoxy-19-norpregna-1,3,5,7,9-pentaen-20-one, 2-Phenylpropionate, MG(20:3(8Z,11Z,14Z)/0:0/0:0), 1,2,3-Tris(1-ethoxyethoxy)propane, Staphyloxanthin, Hexoses, 20-hydroxy-E4-neuroprostane, Nonyl acetate, 3-Feruloyl-1,5-quinolactone, trans-2-Heptenal, Pyridoxamine, L-Arginine, Dodecanedioic acid, Ursodeoxycholic acid, 1-(Malonylamino)cyclopropanecarboxylic acid, Cortisone, 9,10,13-Trihydroxystearic acid, Glu-Ala-Gln-Ser, Quasiprotopanaxatriol, N-Methylindolo[3,2-b]-5alpha-cholest-2-ene, PG(20:0/22:1(11Z)), (−)-Epigallocatechin, 2-Methyl-3-ketovaleric acid, Secoeremopetasitolide B, PC(20:1(11Z)/P-16:0), Glu-Asp-Asp, N5-acetyl-N5-hydroxy-L-ornithine acid, Silicic acid, (1xi,3xi)-1,2,3,4-Tetrahydro-1-methyl-beta-carboline-3-carboxylic acid, PS(36:5), Chorismate, Isoamyl isovalerate, PA(0-36:4), PE(P-28:0) and/or gamma-Glutamyl-S-methylcysteinyl-beta-alanine. In certain embodiments, the method of the invention comprises detecting at least 2, 5, 10, 15 or 20 or all of these metabolites. In any such embodiments, detecting the metabolite comprises measuring the concentration of the metabolite in a sample, for example the concentration relative to a corresponding sample from a control (non-IBS) individual or relative to a reference value.


In one embodiment, the invention provides a method for diagnosing IBS, comprising detecting one or more fecal metabolites selected from: L-Phenylalanine, Adenosine, MG(20:3(8Z,11Z,14Z)/0:0/0:0), L-Alanine, 3,6-Dimethoxy-19-norpregna-1,3,5,7,9-pentaen-20-one, Glu-Ile-Ile-Phe, Glu-Ala-Gln-Ser, 2,4,8-Eicosatrienoic acid isobutylamide, Piperidine, Staphyloxanthin, beta-Carotinal, Hexoses, Ile-Arg-Ile, 11-Deoxocucurbitacin I, 1-(Malonylamino)cyclopropanecarboxylic acid, PG(37:2), [PR] gamma-Carotene/beta,psi-Carotene, 20-hydroxy-E4-neuroprostane, Ethylphenyl acetate, Dodecanedioic acid, Ile-Lys-Cys-Gly, Tuberoside, D-galactal, 3,6-Dihydro-4-(4-methyl-3-pentenyl)-1,2-dithiin, demethylmenaquinone-6, L-Arginine, PC(o-16:1(9Z)/14:1(9Z)), Mesobilirubinogen, Traumatic acid, alpha-Tocopherol succinate, 3-Methylcrotonylglycine, (S)-(E)-8-(3,6-Dimethyl-2-heptenyl)-4′,5,7-trihydroxyflavanone, xi-7-Hydroxyhexadecanedioic acid, beta-Pinene, Leu-Ser-Ser-Tyr, Orotic acid, Heptane-1-thiol, Glu-Asp-Asp, LysoPE(18:2(9Z,12Z)/0:0), LysoPE(22:0/0:0), Creatine, Inosine, SM(d32:2), Arg-Leu-Val-Cys, PS(0-18:0/15:0), Pyridoxamine, N-Heptanoylglycine, Hematoporphyrin IX, 3beta,5beta-Ketotriol, 2-Phenylpropionate, trans-2-Heptenal, LysoPC(0:0/18:0), Linoleoyl ethanolamide, LysoPE(24:0/0:0), 2-Methyl-3-hydroxyvaleric acid, Quasiprotopanaxatriol, N-oleoyl isoleucine, (−)-(E)-1-(4-Hydroxyphenyl)-7-phenyl-6-hepten-3-ol, [FA hydroxy(4:0)] N-(3S-hydroxy-butanoyl)-homoserine lactone, Riboflavin cyclic-4′,5′-phosphate, Arg-Lys-Trp-Val, PC(20:1(11Z)/P-16:0), 3,5-Dihydroxybenzoic acid, Tyrosine, 2,3-Epoxymenaquinone, His-Met-Val-Val, PI(41:2), Phenol, 3,3′-Dithiobis[2-methylfuran], Ala-Leu-Trp-Pro, 1,2,3-Tris(1-ethoxyethoxy)propane, Vanilpyruvic acid, 2-Hydroxy-3-carboxy-6-oxo-7-methylocta-2,4-dienoate, Secoeremopetasitolide B, 2-O-Benzoyl-D-glucose, Ile-Leu-Phe-Trp, (R)-lipoic acid, PA(20:4(5Z,8Z,11Z,14Z)e/2:0), PE(P-16:0e/0:0), Benzyl isobutyrate, Hexyl 2-furoate, Trp-Ala-Ser, LysoPC(15:0), 4-Hydroxycrotonic acid, 3-Feruloyl-1,5-quinolactone, Furfuryl octanoate, PC(22:2(13Z,16Z)/15:0), (−)-1-Methylpropyl 1-propenyl disulphide, PC (36:6), Leucyl-Glycine, CE(16:2), Triterpenoid, Violaxanthin, [FA hydroxy(17:0)] heptadecanoic acid, 2-Hydroxyundecanoate, Chorismate, delta-Dodecalactone, 3-O-Protocatechuoylceanothic acid, PG(16:1(9Z)/16:1(9Z)), p-Cresol sulfate, Quercetin 3′-sulfate, PS(26:0)), Ala-Leu-Phe-Trp, L-Glutamic acid 5-phosphate, N,2,3-Trimethyl-2-(1-methylethyl)butanamide, Isoamyl isovalerate, n-Dodecane, PC(14:1(9Z)/14:1(9Z)), Lucyoside Q, Endomorphin-1, 3-Hydroxy-10′-apo-b,y-carotenal, Pyrroline hydroxycarboxylic acid, S-Propyl 1-propanesulfinothioate, N-Methylindolo[3,2-b]-5alpha-cholest-2-ene, Tocopheronic acid, 1-(2,4,6-Trimethoxyphenyl)-1,3-butanedione, Homogentisic acid, LysoPE(18:1(9Z)/0:0), N-stearoyl valine, trans-Carvone oxide, 1,1′-Thiobis-1-propanethiol, 2-(Ethylsulfonylmethyl)phenyl methylcarbamate, menaquinone-4, Benzeneacetamide-4-O-sulphate, N5-acetyl-N5-hydroxy-L-ornithine, Succinic acid, Asn-Lys-Val-Pro, LysoPC(14:1(9Z)), Phenol glucuronide, 2-methyl-Butanoic acid, 2-methylbutyl ester, 3-O-Caffeoyl-1-O-methylquinic acid, [FA hydroxy(24:0)] 3-hydroxy-tetracosanoic acid, N-(2-hydroxyhexadecanoyl)-sphinganine-1-phospho-(1′-myo-inositol), gamma-Dodecalactone, PA(22:1(11Z)/0:0), Butyl butyrate, TG(20:5(5Z,8Z,11Z,14Z,17Z)/18:1(9Z)/22:5(7Z,10Z,13Z,16Z,19Z))[iso6], Clausarinol, 4-Methyl-2-pentanone, Trigoneline, Arg-Val-Pro-Tyr, 2,3-Methylenesuccinic acid, Serinyl-Threonine, Lycoperoside D, Geraniol, 1-18:2-lysophosphatidylglycerol, omega-6-Hexadecalactone, Ambrettolide, gamma-Glutamyl-S-methylcysteinyl-beta-alanine, FA oxo(22:0), D-Ribose, LysoPC(17:0), PA(0-36:4), C19 Sphingosine-1-phosphate, 4-Hydroxy-5-(dihydroxyphenyl)-valeric acid-O-methyl-O-sulphate, PE(14:1(9Z)/14:0), Citronellyl tiglate, Ethyl methylphenylglycidate (isomer 1), N-Acetyl-leu-leu-tyr and/or PS(O-34:3). In certain embodiments, the method of the invention comprises detecting at least 2, 5, 10, 15 or 20 or all of these metabolites. In any such embodiments, detecting the metabolite comprises measuring the concentration of the metabolite in a sample, for example the concentration relative to a corresponding sample from a control (non-IBS) individual or relative to a reference value.


In a preferred embodiment, method comprises detecting the fecal metabolite L-tyrosine. In a preferred embodiment, the method comprises detecting L-arginine. In a preferred embodiment, method comprises detecting the bile acid ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA). In a preferred embodiment, the method comprises detecting bile pigment lurobilin. In a preferred embodiment, the method comprises detecting dodecanedioic acid. In a preferred embodiment, the method comprises detecting L-Phenylalanine. In a preferred embodiment, the method comprises detecting L-Phenylalanine. In a preferred embodiment, the method comprises detecting Adenosine. In a preferred embodiment, the method comprises detecting MG(20:3(8Z,11Z,14Z)/0:0/0:0). In a preferred embodiment, the method comprises detecting L-Alanine. In a preferred embodiment, the method comprises detecting 3,6-Dimethoxy-19-norpregna-1,3,5,7,9-pentaen-20-one.


In one embodiment, the present invention provides a method for diagnosing IBS, comprising detecting one or more fecal metabolites selected from the list in table 7. In one embodiment, the present invention provides a method for diagnosing IBS, comprising detecting one or more fecal metabolites selected from the list in table 13. In any such embodiments, detecting the metabolite comprises measuring the concentration of the metabolite in a sample, for example the concentration relative to a corresponding sample from a control (non-IBS) individual or relative to a reference value. In one embodiment, machine learning is applied to fecal metabolome data to diagnose IBS.


In one embodiment, the present invention provides a method for diagnosing IBS, comprising detecting one or more fecal metabolites that are differentially abundant in patients suffering from IBS. In one embodiment, the one or more fecal metabolites that are differentially abundant in patients suffering from IBS are: 2-Phenylpropionate, 3-Buten-1-amine, Adenosine, I-Urobilin, 2,3-Epoxymenaquinone, [FA (22:5)] 4,7,10,13,16-Docosapentaynoic acid, 3,6-Dimethoxy-19-norpregna-1,3,5,7,9-pentaen-20-one, Cucurbitacin S, N-Heptanoylglycine, 11-Deoxocucurbitacin I, Staphyloxanthin, Piperidine, Leu-Ser-Ser-Tyr, L-Urobilin, L-Phenylalanine, Ala-Leu-Trp-Pro, 3-Feruloyl-1,5-quinolactone, PG(P-16:0/14:0), 3-deoxy-D-galactose, MG(20:3(8Z,11Z,14Z)/0:0/0:0), Mesobilirubinogen, L-Alanine, Tyrosine, PG(O-30:1), beta-Pinene, 2,4,8-Eicosatrienoic acid isobutylamide, Glutarylglycine, [PR] gamma-Carotene/beta,psi-Carotene, Neuromedin B (1-3), Heptane-1-thiol, Violaxanthin, Isolimonene, Ile-Lys-Cys-Gly, His-Met-Val-Val, Allyl caprylate, Hydroxyprolyl-Tryptophan, Dodecanedioic acid, 2-O-Benzoyl-D-glucose, 2-Ethylsuberic acid, D-Urobilin, 20-hydroxy-E4-neuroprostane, PG(O-31:1), Anigorufone, Nonyl acetate, L-Arginine, PG(P-32:1), Glu-Ala-Gln-Ser, PG(31:0), Cucurbitacin I, Arg-Lys-Phe-Val, Genipinic acid, Hexoses, Lys-Phe-Phe-Phe, PI(41:2), D-galactal, Traumatic acid, Adenine, PC(22:2(13Z,16Z)/15:0), 2-Phenylethyl beta-D-glucopyranoside, PG(37:2), Glycerol tributanoate, Arg-Leu-Pro-Arg, 2-O-p-Coumaroyl-D-glucose, 3,4-Dihydroxyphenyllactic acid methyl ester, PG(P-28:0), PG(34:0), L-Lysine, Ribitol, LysoPE(18:2(9Z,12Z)/0:0), PA(20:4(5Z,8Z,11Z,14Z)e/2:0), 5-Dehydroshikimate, Threoninyl-Isoleucine, L-Methionine, PS(26:0)), alpha-Pinene, Fenchene, Glu-Ile-Ile-Phe, Gln-Phe-Phe-Phe, Ursodeoxycholic acid, PC(34:2), 3,17-Androstanediol glucuronide, Pyridoxamine, [ST hydrox] (25R)-3alpha,7alpha-dihydroxy-5beta-cholestan-27-oyl taurine, PA(42:2), [FA (16:0)] 2-bromo-hexadecanal, 3,6-Dihydro-4-(4-methyl-3-pentenyl)-1,2-dithiin, 3-Methylcrotonylglycine xi-7-Hydroxyhexadecanedioic acid, Camphene, 2-Hydroxy-3-carboxy-6-oxo-7-methylocta-2,4-dienoate, 7C-aglycone, 1-(3-Aminopropyl)-4-aminobutanal, Benzyl isobutyrate, (S)-(E)-8-(3,6-Dimethyl-2-heptenyl)-4′,5,7-trihydroxyflavanone, 1,3-di-(5Z,8Z,11Z,14Z,17Z-eicosapentaenoyl)-2-hydroxy-glycerol (d5), SM(d18:0/18:0), L-Homoserine, 17beta-(Acetylthio)estra-1,3,5(10)-trien-3-ol acetate, [ST (2:0)] 5beta-Chola-3,11-dien-24-oic Acid, PG(33:2), PE(22:4(7Z,10Z,13Z,16Z)/P-16:0), Protoporphyrinogen IX, alpha-Tocopherol succinate, Methyl (9Z)-6′-oxo-6,5′-diapo-6-carotenoate, PG(16:1(9Z)/16:1(9Z)), PC(o-22:1(13Z)/20:4(8Z,11Z,14Z,17Z)), PG(31:2), alpha-phellandrene, [PS (12:0/13:0)] 1-dodecanoyl-2-tridecanoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphoserine (ammonium salt), Glu-Asp-Asp, PG(33:1), PA(0-20:0/22:6(4Z,7Z,10Z,13Z,16Z,19Z)), [FA oxo(19:0)] 18-oxo-nonadecanoic acid, PG(16:1(9Z)/18:0), Leu-Val, demethylmenaquinone-6, PC(o-16:1(9Z)/14:1(9Z)), PG(P-32:0), (24E)-3beta,15alpha,22S-Triacetoxylanosta-7,9(11),24-trien-26-oic acid, PA(33:5), LysoPC(0:0/18:0), Ile-Arg-Ile, Lauryl acetate, Glu-Glu-Gly-Tyr, 3-(Methylthio)-1-propanol, (−)-(E)-1-(4-Hydroxyphenyl)-7-phenyl-6-hepten-3-ol, Dimethyl benzyl carbinyl butyrate and/or Methyl 2,3-dihydro-3,5-dihydroxy-2-oxo-3-indoleacetic acid. In one embodiment, the present invention provides a method for diagnosing IBS, comprising detecting differential abundance of one or more fecal metabolites selected from the list in table 8. In certain embodiments, the method of the invention comprises detecting at least 2, 5, 10, 15 or 20 or all of these metabolites. In some embodiments, the method comprises detecting a precursor or breakdown product of the above metabolites.


In certain embodiments, the abundance of metabolites is significantly increased in patients with IBS, for example as shown in table 8. In one embodiment, bile acids are significantly more abundant in patients with IBS. In a particular embodiment, [ST hydroxy] (25R)-3alpha,7alpha-dihydroxy-5beta-cholestan-27-oyl taurine is detected or is measured. It is significantly more abundant in patients with IBS. In a particular embodiment, [ST (2:0)] 5beta-Chola-3,11-dien-24-oic acid is detected or is measured. It is significantly more abundant in patients with IBS. In a particular embodiment, UDCA is detected or is measured, it is significantly more abundant in patients with IBS. In another embodiment, amino acids are significantly more abundant in patients with IBS. for example tyrosine and/or lysine. In particular embodiments, the method of the invention comprises detecting or quantifying the levels of tyrosine or lysine in a sample and diagnosing IBS. In certain embodiments, the abundance of metabolites is significantly decreased in patients with IBS, for example as shown in table 8.


In one embodiment, the present invention provides a method for diagnosing IBS, comprising detecting one or more fecal metabolites that are differentially abundant in patients suffering from IBS compared to a healthy control (i.e. from one or more subjects who does not suffer from IBS). In a preferred embodiment, the one or more fecal metabolites that are differentially abundant in patients suffering from IBS are sulfate, glucuronide, carnitine, glycine and glutamine conjugates. In one embodiment, the method comprises detecting metabolites involved in phase 2 metabolism, which are is upregulated in patients with IBS. In any such embodiments, detecting the metabolite comprises measuring the concentration of the metabolite in a sample, for example the concentration relative to a corresponding sample from a control (non-IBS) individual or relative to a reference value.


In one embodiment, the present invention provides a method for diagnosing IBS-D (IBS associated with diarrhoea), comprising detecting one or more fecal metabolites that are differentially abundant in patients suffering from IBS-D. In one embodiment, bile acids are differentially abundant in patients with IBS-D. In one embodiment, total bile acid, secondary bile acids, sulphated bile acids, UDCA and/or conjugated bile acids are differentially abundant in patients with IBS-D. In a particular embodiment, total bile acid is differentially abundant in patients with IBS-D. In a particular embodiment, secondary bile acids are differentially abundant in patients with IBS-D. In a particular embodiment, sulphated bile acids are differentially abundant in patients with IBS-D. In a particular embodiment, UDCA is differentially abundant in patients with IBS-D. In a particular embodiment, conjugated bile acids are differentially abundant in patients with IBS-D. In any such embodiments, detecting the metabolite comprises measuring the concentration of the metabolite in a sample, for example the concentration relative to a corresponding sample from a control (non-IBS) individual or relative to a reference value.


Methods of Detecting Urine Metabolites


GC/LC-MS


Metabolites may be detected by any suitable method known in the art. In one embodiment, urine metabolites that are differentially abundant in patients suffering from IBS compared to a healthy control (i.e. from one or more subjects who does not suffer from IBS) are detected using GC/LC-MS.


In a particular embodiment, GC/LC-MS is preferably used for detecting urine metabolites that are predictive of IBS. For urine metabolomics, the values of metabolites may be normalized with reference to urine creatinine levels in each sample.


FAIMS (High Field Asymmetric Waveform Ion Mobility Spectrometry)


In one embodiment, urine metabolites that are differentially abundant in patients suffering from IBS are detected using FAIMS. In a particular embodiment, FAIMS is preferably used for detecting urine metabolites that are predictive of IBS. For urine metabolomics, the values of metabolites may be normalized with reference to urine creatinine levels in each sample.


Ion mobility spectrometry (IMS) is a well-known technique for analysing ion separation in the gaseous phase based on differences in ion mobilities under the influence of an electric field. Field Asymmetric Ion Mobility Spectrometry (FAIMS) is a specific example of an IMS technique that uses a high voltage asymmetric waveform at radio frequency combined with a static compensation voltage applied between two electrodes to separate ions at atmospheric pressure. Different ions pass through the electric fields to a detector at different compensation voltages. Thus, by varying the compensation voltage, a FAIMS analyser can detect the presence of different ions in the sample. The FAIMS instrument benefits from small size and lack of pumping requirements, allowing for portability as a standalone instrument. FAIMS is described in more detail in reference (20).


The FAIMS output consists of two modes: a positive mode (for positively charged ions) and a negative mode (for negatively charged ions). Each of these modes is made up of 51 dispersion fields (DFs), totaling 102 DFs taking both modes into account. Each DF is applied to the testing sample following the principle of linear sweep voltammetry, i.e. the compensation voltage is varied from a starting value to an end value, separated by 512 equally spaced voltages. The ion current value at each of the equally spaced voltages is measured. Each pair of compensation voltage and measured ion current can be referred to as a data point. Across all dispersion fields for both the positive and negative modes, there are 52224 data points.


Previous applications of FAIMS have used the method to study gastrointestinal toxicity, bile acid diarrhoea, and colorectal cancer. For example, PCT application WO 2016/038377 describes a method for diagnosing coeliac disease or bile acid diarrhoea by analysing the concentration of a signature compound in a body sample from a test subject using FAIMS and comparing this concentration with a reference for the concentration of the signature compound in an individual who does not suffer from the disease. An increase in the concentration of the signature compound in the body sample from the test subject compared to the reference suggests that the subject is suffering from the disease being screened for, or has a pre-disposition thereto, or provides a negative prognosis of the subject's condition.


In use, the FAIMS analyser is operated by running the device with air (no sample) and water, to clean the analyser. A urine sample is then introduced to obtain the signals. The FAIMS analyser is operated with water and then with air again before the next test sample is run. The signals from all of the dispersion fields are then aligned using crosscorrelation.


In some embodiments, the method of diagnosing IBS of the present invention is a computer-implemented method. In a preferred embodiment, the computer-implemented method is a method for analysing a FAIMS profile of a urine sample to determine the presence or absence of IBS and/or classify the urine sample into an IBS subset is provided. The method comprises:

    • obtaining signals corresponding to the FAIMS profile of the urine sample, air, and water;
    • pre-processing the obtained signals by performing one or more of: smoothing the signals, trimming off baseline noise from the signals, and aligning the signals in regions of interest;
    • extracting a plurality of features from the pre-processed signal; and
    • applying a trained classifier using the extracted features to determine the presence or absence of IBS and/or classify the urine sample into an IBS subset.


Advantageously, by applying signal smoothing to the received signals, the raw signal strength is retained while reducing the ‘noise’ in the signal. By trimming the signal, noise is reduced, improving the quality of the output and reducing technical artefacts between runs caused by crosscontamination and carry-over signals.


Overall, the method retains more features for analysis compared to the prior art method, which, in the context of a diagnostic application, improves the capability to distinguish between populations and stratify subgroups within a population.


Preferably, pre-processing the obtained signals comprises all three steps of smoothing the signals, trimming off baseline noise from the signals, and aligning the signals in regions of interest.


Obtaining the FAIMS signal may comprise analysing the biological sample with a FAIMS system to produce a signal corresponding to the FAIMS profile of the biological sample.


Preferably, the signal smoothing is performed using a Savitzky-Golay filter, as described in Anal. Chem., 36(8), 1964, Savitzky A., Golay M J E. “Smoothing and Differentiation of Data by Simplified Least Squares Procedures”, pages 1627-1639 (21). Using a Savitzky-Golay filter is advantageous because it keeps the peak signal values intact, which can improve the accuracy of the classification. The signal smoothing may be applied to the dispersion fields of both positive and negative modes of the signal.


The signal trimming may be performed using an optimised baseline cut-off. The signal alignment may be performed using cross correlation.


Selection of features from the signals may be performed using a linear regression model, for example LASSO. LASSO is described in more detail in Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 58(1), 1996, R. Tibshirani, “Regression Shrinkage and Selection via the Lasso”, pages 267-288 (22).


The trained classifier is preferably a support vector machine. Alternatively, the classifier may be a random forest. In a preferred embodiment, the classifier is a random forest.


Integrative Analysis of Diet, Microbiome and Metabolome in IBS Patients


In certain embodiments, the invention provides a method of diagnosing IBS comprising one or more of i) detecting a bacterial species, for example as discussed above, ii) detecting genes involved in one or more of the pathways, for example as discussed above, iii) detecting metabolites, for example as discussed above. In any such embodiments, detecting the bacteria, gene or metabolite comprises measuring the abundance or concentration of said marker in a sample, for example the relative to a corresponding sample from a control (non-IBS) individual or relative to a reference value.


In one embodiment, the invention provides a method of diagnosing IBS, comprising detecting the depletion of a bacterial species. In one embodiment, the depleted bacterial species is one or more of the following: Paraprevotella species, Bacteroides species, Barnesiella intestinihominis, Eubacterium eligens, Ruminococcus lactaris, Eubacterium biforme, Desulfovibrio desulfuricans, Coprococcus species and Eubacterium species. In certain embodiments, the method of the invention comprises detecting one or more of Paraprevotella species, Bacteroides species, Barnesiella intesfinihominis, Eubacterium eligens, Ruminococcus lactaris, Eubacterium biforme, Desulfovibrio desulfuricans, Coprococcus species and Eubacterium species.


In one embodiment, the invention provides a method of diagnosing IBS, comprising detecting the differential utilisation of dietary components. In a particular embodiment, the invention provides a method of diagnosing IBS, comprising detecting the differential utilisation of a high protein diet.


In one embodiment, the invention provides a method of diagnosing IBS, comprising detecting higher levels of peptides and amino acids. In another embodiment, the invention provides a method of diagnosing IBS, comprising detecting increased levels of L-alanine, L-lysine, L-methionine, L-phenylalanine and/or tyrosine.


In one embodiment, the invention provides a method of diagnosing IBS, comprising detecting increased levels of bile acids. In a particular embodiment, the invention provides a method of diagnosing IBS, comprising detecting increased levels of UDCA, sulfolithocholylglycine and [ST hydrox](25R)-3alpha,7alpha-dihydroxy-5beta-cholestan-27-oyl taurine and/or Iurobilin.


In one embodiment, the invention provides a method of diagnosing IBS, comprising detecting increased levels of metabolites. In another embodiment, the invention provides a method of diagnosing IBS, comprising detecting increased levels of allantoin, cis-4-decenedioic acid, decanoylcarnitine and/or dodecanedioylcarnitine.


Diagnostic Methods


The inventors have developed new and improved methods for diagnosing IBS.


In preferred embodiments, the methods of the invention are for use in diagnosing a patient resident in Europe, such as Northern Europe, preferably Ireland or a patient that has a European, Northern European or Irish diet. The examples demonstrate that the methods of the invention are particular effective for such patients.


In certain embodiments of any aspect of the invention, the abundance of bacteria, genes or metabolites is assessed relative to control (non-IBS) individuals. In preferred embodiments, the abundance of urine metabolites is assessed relative to control (non-IBS) individuals. Such reference values may be generated using any technique established in the art.


In certain embodiments of any aspect of the invention, comparison to a corresponding sample from a control (non-IBS) individual is a comparison to a corresponding sample from a healthy individual.


Preferably the method of diagnosing IBS has a sensitivity of greater than 40% (e.g. greater than 45%, 50% or 52%, e.g. 53% or 58%) and a specificity of greater than 90% (e.g. greater than 93% or 95%, e.g. 96%).


In certain embodiments, the method of diagnosis is a method of monitoring the course of treatment for IBS.


In certain embodiments, the step of detecting the presence or abundance of bacteria, such as in a fecal sample, comprises a nucleic acid based quantification methodology, for example 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing. Methods for qualitative and quantitative determination of bacteria in a sample using 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing are described in the literature and will be known to a person skilled in the art. Other techniques may involve PCR, rtPCR, qPCR, high throughput sequencing, metatranscriptomic sequencing, or 16S rRNA analysis.


In alternative aspects of any embodiment of the invention, the invention provides a method for diagnosing the risk of developing IBS.


In any embodiment of the invention, modulated abundance of a bacterial strain, species, metabolite or gene pathway is indicative of IBS. In preferred embodiments, the abundance of the bacterial strain, species or OTU as a proportion of the total microbiota in the sample is measured to determine the relative abundance of the strain, species or OTU. In preferred embodiments, the concentration of a metabolite is measured, in particular a urine metabolite. In preferred embodiments, the abundance of bacterial strains carrying a gene pathway of interest as a proportion of the total microbiota in the sample is measured to determine the relative abundance of the strains, or concentrations of gene sequences are measured. Then, in such preferred embodiments, the relative abundance of the bacterium or OTU or the concentration of the metabolite or gene sequence in the sample is compared with the relative abundance or concentration in the same sample from a control (non-IBS) individual. A difference in relative abundance of the bacterium or OTU in the sample, e.g. a decrease or an increase, compared to the reference is a modulated relative abundance. As explained herein, detection of modulated abundance can also be performed in an absolute manner by comparing sample abundance values with absolute reference values. Therefore, the invention provides a method of determining IBS status in an individual comprising the step of assaying a biological sample from the individual for a relative abundance of one or more IBS-associated bacteria and/or a modulated concentration of a metabolite or gene pathway, wherein a modulated relative abundance of the bacteria or modulated concentration of a metabolite or gene pathway is indicative of IBS. Similarly, the invention provides a method of determining whether an individual has an increased risk of having IBS comprising the step of assaying a biological sample from the individual for a relative abundance of one or more IBS-associated oral bacteria or IBS-associated metabolites or gene pathways, wherein modulated relative abundance or concentration is indicative of an increased risk.


In any embodiment of the invention, detecting a bacteria may comprise detecting “modulated relative abundance”. As used herein, the term “modulated relative abundance” as applied to a bacterium or OTU in a sample from an individual should be understood to mean a difference in relative abundance of the bacterium or OTU in the sample compared with the relative abundance in the same sample from a control (non-IBS) individual (hereafter “reference relative abundance”). In one embodiment, the bacterium or OTU exhibits increased relative abundance compared to the reference relative abundance. In one embodiment, the bacterium or OTU exhibits decreased relative abundance compared to the reference relative abundance. Detection of modulated abundance can also be performed in an absolute manner by comparing sample abundance values with absolute reference values. In one embodiment, the reference abundance values are obtained from age and/or sex matched individuals. In one embodiment, the reference abundance values are obtained from individuals from the same population as the sample (i.e. Celtic origin, North African origin, Middle Eastern origin). Method of isolating bacteria from oral and fecal sample are routine in the art and are further described below, as are methods for detecting abundance of bacteria. Any suitable method may be employed for isolating specific species or genera of bacteria, which methods will be apparent to a person skilled in the art. Any suitable method of detecting bacterial abundance may be employed, including agar plate quantification assays, fluorimetric sample quantification, qPCR, 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing, and dye-based metabolite depletion or metabolite production assays.


Stratifying Patients


In certain embodiments, the methods of the invention are for use in stratifying patients according to the type of IBS that they are suffering from. In particular, in certain embodiments, the methods of the invention are for diagnosing a patient suffering from IBS as having a normal-like microbiota (i.e. a microbiota composition similar to the microbiota composition of a person without IBS), or an altered microbiota (i.e. a microbiota dissimilar to the microbiota of a person without IBS) (see Jeffery I B, O'Toole P W, Ohman L, Claesson M J, Deane J, Quigley E M, Simren M. 2012. “An irritable bowel syndrome subtype defined by species-specific alterations in fecal microbiota.” Gut 61:997-1006 (23)). Patients suffering from IBS with a normal-like microbiota may benefit from different treatments compared to patients with an altered microbiota, so the methods of the invention may result in more appropriate treatment strategies and better outcomes for patients. Therefore, in certain embodiments, the methods of the invention comprise developing and/or recommending a treatment plan for a patient based on their microbiota. IBS patients with normal-like microbiota may benefit from treatments known to ameliorate anxiety or depression. IBS patients with an altered microbiota may benefit from treatments able to instigate beneficial changes in the microbiota and/or address dysbiosis, such as live biotherapeutic products, in particular compositions comprising Blautia hydrogenotrophica (as described in WO2018109461). IBS patients with an altered microbiota may also benefit from diet adjustments, such as a FODMAP (fermentable oligo-, di-, monosaccharides and polyols) diet. Compositions comprising Blautia hydrogenotrophica are also effective for treating visceral hypersensitivity (as described in WO2017148596), which patients with normal-like microbiota may experience, so such compositions will also be useful for treating such patients.


In certain embodiments, the invention provides a method for stratifying patients suffering from IBS into subgroups based on their microbiome and/or metabolome. In a particular embodiment, the method of the invention comprises detecting one or more bacterial strains belonging to at least one genus selected from the group consisting of: Anaerostipes, Anaerotruncus, Anaerofilum, Bacteroides, Blaufia, Eggerthella, Streptococcus, Gordonibacter, Holdemania, Ruminococcus, Veilonella, Akkermansia, Alistipes, Bamesiella, Butyricicoccus, Butyricimonas, Clostridium, Coprococcus, Faecalibacterium, Haemophilus, Howardella, Methanobrevibacter, Oscillobacter, Prevotella, Pseudoflavonifractor, Roseburia, Slackia, Sporobacter and Victivallis. In a particular embodiment, the method of the invention comprises detecting bacterial species which may belong to Clostridium clusters IV, XI or XVIII. In a particular embodiment, the method of the invention comprises detecting bacterial strains which may include one or more of the following species: Anaerostipes hadrus, Bacteroides ovatus, Bacteroides thetaiotaomicron, Clostridium asparagiforme, Clostridium boltaea, Clostridium hathewayi, Clostridium symbiosum, Coprococcus comes, Ruminococcus gnavus, Streptococcus salivarus, Ruminococcus torques, Alistipes senegalensis, Eubacterium eligens, Eubacterium siraeum, Faecalibacterium prausnitzii, Roseburia hominis, Haemophilus parainfluenzae, Ruminococcus callidus, Veilonella parvula and Coprococcus sp. ART55/1. In a particular embodiment, the method of the invention comprises detecting one or more of the following bacterial strains: Lachnospiracaea bacterium 3 1 46FAA, Lachnospiracaea bacterium 5 1 63FAA, Lachnospiracaea bacterium 7 1 58FAA and Lachnospiracaea bacterium 8 1 57FAA. In a particular embodiment, the method of the invention comprises detecting bacterial taxa selected from tables 17, 18, 19 and/or 20. In certain embodiments, the method of the invention comprises detecting a metabolite associated with an IBS subgroup. In certain embodiments, the metabolite is detected in a fecal sample. In certain embodiments, the metabolite is detected in a urine sample.


In certain embodiments, the invention provides a method of assessing whether a patient suffering from IBS would benefit from a treatment able to instigate beneficial changes in the microbiota and/or address dysbiosis, such as a live biotherapeutic product. In a particular embodiment, the method of the invention comprises detecting one or more bacterial strains belonging to at least one genus selected from the group consisting of: Anaerostipes, Anaerotruncus, Anaerofilum, Bacteroides, Blaufia, Eggerthella, Streptococcus, Gordonibacter, Holdemania, Ruminococcus, Veilonella, Akkermansia, Alistipes, Bamesiella, Butyricicoccus, Butyricimonas, Clostridium, Coprococcus, Faecalibacterium, Haemophilus, Howardella, Methanobrevibacter, Oscillobacter, Prevotella, Pseudoflavonifractor, Roseburia, Slackia, Sporobacter and Victivallis. In a particular embodiment, the method of the invention comprises detecting bacterial species which may belong to Clostridium clusters IV, XI or XVIII. In a particular embodiment, the method of the invention comprises detecting bacterial strains which may include one or more of the following species: Anaerostipes hadrus, Bacteroides ovatus, Bacteroides thetaiotaomicron, Clostridium asparagiforme, Clostridium boltaea, Clostridium hathewayi, Clostridium symbiosum, Coprococcus comes, Ruminococcus gnavus, Streptococcus salivarus, Ruminococcus torques, Alistipes senegalensis, Eubacterium eligens, Eubacterium siraeum, Faecalibacterium prausnitzii, Roseburia hominis, Haemophilus parainfluenzae, Ruminococcus callidus, Veilonella parvula and Coprococcus sp. ART55/1. In a particular embodiment, the method of the invention comprises detecting one or more of the following bacterial strains: Lachnospiracaea bacterium 3 1 46FAA, Lachnospiracaea bacterium 5 1 63FAA, Lachnospiracaea bacterium 7 1 58FAA and Lachnospiracaea bacterium 8 1 57FAA. In a particular embodiment, the method of the invention comprises detecting bacterial taxa selected from tables 17, 18, 19 and/or 20. In certain embodiments, the method of the invention comprises detecting a metabolite associated with an IBS subgroup. In certain embodiments, the metabolite is detected in a fecal sample. In certain embodiments, the metabolite is detected in a urine sample.


In certain embodiments, the method of the invention comprises identifying a subgroup which is characterised by an altered microbiome and/or metabolome relative to healthy control subjects. In certain embodiments, the method of the invention comprises identifying a subgroup which is characterised by a microbiome and/or metabolome similar to healthy control subjects. In certain embodiments, the methods of the invention are for use in classifying of a patient suffering from IBS into a subgroup based on their microbiome. In certain embodiments, the methods of the invention are for use in determining whether a patient suffering from IBS would benefit from a treatment able to instigate beneficial changes in the microbiota and/or address dysbiosis, such as live biotherapeutic products. In certain embodiments, it may be deemed that a patient suffering from IBS would benefit from a treatment able to instigate beneficial changes in the microbiota and/or address dysbiosis, such as live biotherapeutic products, if said patient is classified as belonging to a subgroup characterised by an altered microbiome and/or metabolome relative to healthy control subjects. In certain embodiments, it may be deemed that a patient suffering from IBS would not benefit from a treatment able to instigate changes in the microbiota and/or address dysbiosis, such as live biotherapeutic products, if said patient is classified as belonging to a subgroup characterised by similar microbiome and/or metabolome to healthy control subjects.


Kits


The invention also provides kits comprising reagents for performing the methods of the invention, such as kits containing reagents for detecting one or more, such as two or more of the bacterial species, genes or metabolites set out above. As such, provided are kits that find use in practicing the subject methods of diagnosing IBS, as mentioned above. The kit may be configured to collect a biological sample, for example a urine sample or a fecal sample. In a preferred embodiment, the kit is configured to collect a urine sample. The individual may be suspected of having IBS. The individual may be suspected of being at increased risk of having IBS. A kit can comprise a sealable container configured to receive the biological sample. A kit can comprise polynucleotide primers. The polynucleotide primers may be configured for amplifying a 16S rRNA polynucleotide sequence from at least one IBS-associated bacterium to form an amplified 16S rRNA polynucleotide sequence. A kit may comprise a detecting reagent for detecting the amplified 16S rRNA sequence. A kit may comprise instructions for use.


EXAMPLES
Summary

Background & Aims: Diagnosis and stratification of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is based on symptoms and other disease exclusion. Whether the pathogenesis begins centrally and/or at the end organ is unclear. Some patients have an alteration in their microbiota. Therefore, microbiome and metabolomic profiling was conducted to identify biomarkers for the condition.


To work toward an evidence-based stratification of patients with IBS, a metagenomic study of fecal samples was performed, along with metabolomic analyses of urine and faeces in patients with IBS (according to the Rome IV criteria) in comparison with controls. Microbiome and metabolomic signatures are evident in IBS but these are independent of the traditional clinical symptom-based subsets of IBS (IBS-D vs IBS-C, IBS-alternating or mixed).


Methods: 80 patients with IBS (Rome IV) and 65 non-IBS controls were enrolled.


Anthropometric, medical and dietary information were collected with fecal and urine samples for microbiome and metabolomic analyses. Shotgun and 16S rRNA amplicon sequencing were performed on feces, and urine and fecal metabolites were analysed by gas chromatography (GC)—and liquid chromatography (LC) mass spectrometry (MS).


Results: Differential connections between diet and the microbiome with alterations of the metabolome were evident in IBS. Microbiota composition and predicted microbiome function in patients with IBS differed significantly from those of controls, but these were independent of IBS-symptom subtypes. Fecal metabolomic profiles also differed significantly between IBS patients and controls and were discriminatory for the condition. The urine metabolome contained an array of predictive metabolites but was mainly dominated by dietary and medication-related metabolites.


Conclusion: Despite clinical heterogeneity, IBS can be identified by species-, metagenomics and fecal metabolomic-signatures which are independent of symptom-based subtypes of IBS. These findings are useful for diagnosing IBS and for developing precision therapeutics for IBS.


Example 1—Microbiota Profiling of Ibs Patients and Controls

Materials and Methods


Subject recruitment: Eighty patients aged 16-70 years with IBS meeting the Rome IV criteria were recruited at Cork University Hospital. Clinical subtyping of the patients (15) was as follows: IBS with constipation (IBS-C), mixed IBS (IBS-M) or IBS with diarrhea (IBS-D). Sixty-five controls of the same age range and of the same ethnicity and geographic region were recruited. Descriptive statistics for the study population are presented in Table 10.


Exclusion criteria included the use of antibiotics within 6 weeks prior to study enrolment, other chronic illnesses including gastrointestinal diseases, severe psychiatric disease, abdominal surgery other than hernia repair or appendectomy. Standard-of-care blood analysis was carried out on all participants if recent results were not available, and all subjects were tested by serology to exclude coeliac disease. The inclusion/exclusion criteria for the control population were the same as for the IBS population with the exception of having to fulfil the Rome IV criteria for IBS. Gastrointestinal (GI) symptom history, psychological symptoms, diet, medical history and medication data were collected on each participant (both IBS and controls) and using the following questionnaires: Bristol Stool Score (BSS), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) (24); Food Frequency Questionnaire (FFQ) (25). Ethical approval for the study was granted by the Cork Research Ethics Committee (protocol number: 4DC001) before commencing the study and all participants provided written informed consent to take part.


Sample collection: Fecal and urine samples were collected from all participants for microbiome and metabolomics profiling. Subjects collected a freshly voided fecal sample at home using a collection kit and brought the sample to the clinic that day, when a fresh urine sample was collected. Samples were kept at 4° C. until brought to the laboratory for storage at −80° C. which was within a few hours of the sample collection.


Microbiome profiling and metagenomics-16S amplicon sequencing: Genomic DNA was extracted and amplified from frozen fecal samples (0.25 g) using the method described by Brown et al. (26). The modifications from the methods described by Brown et al. (26) included bead beating tubes consisting of 0.5 g of 0.1 mm zirconia beads and 4×3.5 mm glass beads. Fecal samples were homogenised via bead beating for 3×60 s cycles and cooled on ice between each cycle. Genomic DNA was visualised on 0.8% agarose gel and quantified using the SimpliNano Spectrometer (Biochrom™, US). The PCR master mix used 2× Phusion Taq High-Fidelity Mix (Thermo Scientific, Ireland) and 15 ng of DNA. The resulting PCR products were purified, quantified and equimolar amounts of each amplicon were then pooled before being sent for sequencing to the commercial supplier (GATC Biotech AG, Konstanz, Germany) on the MiSeq (2×250 bp) chemistry platforms. Sequencing was performed by GATC Biotech, Germany on an Illumina MiSeq instrument using a 2×250 bp paired end sequencing run.


Microbiome profiling and metagenomics—16S amplicon sequencing: Using the Qiagen DNeasy Blood & Tissue Kit and following the manufacturer's instructions, microbial DNA was extracted from 0.25 g of each of 144 frozen fecal samples (IBS: n=80 and control (n=64). No fecal sample was available for one control subject. The 16S rRNA gene amplicons preparation and sequencing was carried out using the 16S Sequencing Library Preparation Nextera protocol developed by Illumina (San Diego, Calif., USA). 15 ng of each of the DNA fecal extracts was amplified using PCR and primers targeting the V3-V4 variable region of the 16S rRNA gene using the following gene-specific primers:









16S Amplicon PCR Forward Primer


(S-D-Bact-0341-b-S-17) = 5′


(SEQ ID NO: 40)


TCGTCGGCAGCGTCAGATGTGTATAAGAGACAGCCTACGGGNGGCWGCAG





16S Amplicon PCR Reverse Primer


(S-D-Bact-0785-a-A-21) = 5′


(SEQ ID NO: 41)


GTCTCGTGGGCTCGGAGATGTGTATAAGAGACAGGACTACHVGGGTATCT





AATCC






The amplicon size was 531 bp. The products were purified and forward and reverse barcodes were attached by a second round of adapter PCR.


Microbiome profiling and metagenomics—Shotgun sequencing: For shotgun sequencing, 1 μg (concentration>5 ng/μL) of high molecular weight DNA for each sample was sent to GATC Biotech, Germany for sequencing on Illumina HiSeq platform (HiSeq 2500) using 2×250 bp paired-end chemistry. This returned 2,714,158,144 raw reads (2,612,201,598 processed reads) of which 45.6% were mapped to an average of 222,945 gene families per sample with a mean count value of 8,924,302±2,569,353 per sample.


Bioinformatics analysis (16S amplicon sequencing): Miseq 16S sequencing data was returned for 144 subjects. Data generated for 3 samples (2 IBS and 1 control) were removed as the number of reads returned from sequencing was too low for analysis, leaving 141 samples (control: n=63, IBS n=78). Raw amplicon sequence data were merged and the reads trimmed using the flash methodology (27). The USEARCH pipeline was used to generate the OTU table (28). The UPARSE algorithm was used to cluster the sequences into OTUs at 97% similarity (29). UCHIME chimera removal algorithm was used with Chimeraslayer to remove chimeric sequences (30). The Ribosomal Database Project (RDP) taxonomic classifier was used to assign taxonomy to the representative OTU sequences (28) and microbiota compositional (abundance and diversity) information was generated.


Bioinformatics analysis (Shotgun metagenomic sequencing): For shotgun metagenomics, 6 control samples were not sequenced due to data not passing QC or no sample available (control: n=59; IBS n=80). The number of raw read pairs obtained after sequencing, varied from 5,247,013 to 21,280,723 (Mean=9,763,159±2,408,048). Reads were processed in accordance with the Standard Operating Procedure of Human Microbiome Project (HMP) Consortium (31). Metagenomic composition and functional profiles were generated using HUMAnN2 pipeline (32). For each sample, multiple profiles were obtained, including: microbial composition profiles from clade-specific gene information (using MetaPhlAn2), Gene family abundance, pathways stratified per organism, total pathway coverage and abundance.


Machine learning: An in-house machine learning pipeline was applied to each datatype (16S, shotgun, and urine and fecal MS metabolomics) using a twostep approach applying the Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO) feature selection followed by Random Forest


(RF) modelling (33). The models were implemented using R software version 3.4.0, using package glmnet version 2.0-10 for LASSO feature selection, and R package randomForest version 4.6-12. (34).


Each variable consisted of data from 78 IBS patients IBS and 64 controls. First, feature selection was performed using the LASSO algorithm to improve accuracy and interpretability of models by efficiently selecting the relevant features. This process was tuned by parameter lambda, which was optimized for each dataset using a grid search. The training data was filtered to include only the features selected by the LASSO algorithm, and RF was then used for modelling whereby 1500 trees were built. Both LASSO feature selection and RF modelling were performed using 10-fold cross validation (CV) repeated 10 times (10-fold, 10 repeats, R package caret version 6.0-76.), which generated an internal 10-fold prediction yielding an optimal model that predicts the IBS or Control classification of samples. This 10-fold cross-validation procedure was repeated ten times and the average area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity and specificity were reported.


Results


Microbiome Differs Between IBS and Controls but not Across IBS Clinical Subtypes


Microbiota profiling by 16S rRNA amplicon sequencing and Principal Co-Ordinate Analysis (PCoA) of the microbiota composition data confirmed that the microbiota of subjects with IBS was distinct from that of controls (FIG. 1a), albeit with some degree of overlap.


Machine learning was used to identify bacterial taxa predictive of IBS and control groups (FIG. 1b). These taxa belonged to the Ruminococcaceae, Lachnospiraceae and Bacteroides families/genera.


Machine learning (based on shotgun data) identified 6 genera predictive of IBS which included Lachnospiraceae, Oscillibacter and Coprococcus with an Area under the Curve (AUC) of 0.835 (sensitivity: 0.815 and specificity: 0.704; Table 1).


At the species level, 40 predictive features (AUC of 0.878; sensitivity: 0.894, specificity: 0.687; Table 2) were identified which included Ruminococcus gnavus and Lachnospiraceae spp which were significantly more abundant in IBS, while Barnesiella intestinihominis and Coprococcus catus were among taxa significantly less abundant in IBS based on pairwise comparison (Table 3). These alterations are consistent with previous studies (10-12), where the taxa that were significantly differentially abundant belonged to the Ruminococcaceae, Lachnospiraceae and Bacteroidetes families/genera.


Clinical subtypes of IBS did not separate in a PCoA of microbiota beta diversity derived from 16S profiling data (FIG. 1c). Metagenomic shotgun sequencing corroborated 16S profiling in separating IBS subjects from controls (FIG. 2). Moreover, the microbiota composition at genus and species level (as assigned using shotgun sequence data) underscored the microbiota composition differences between IBS and controls. (FIG. 1d). Pairwise comparison of the annotated metagenome dataset identified 232 shotgun pathways stratified per organism that were significantly more abundant in the IBS group compared to the controls (Table 4). These notably included a number of amino acid biosynthesis/degradation pathways whose altered activity may be relevant to IBS pathophysiology (35).


Other pathways that were less abundant in the metagenome of subjects with IBS included galactose degradation, sulfate reduction, sulfate assimilation and cysteine biosynthesis, collectively indicative of a reduced sulphur metabolism in IBS. The genes encoding 12 pathways were more abundant in IBS subjects including those for starch degradation V. Of a total of 232 functional pathways that were significantly more abundant in the IBS group, 113 were associated with the Lachnospiraceae family or the Ruminococcus species.


Discussion


A species-level microbiome signature for IBS was identified that included some broad taxonomic groups (lower abundance of Bacteroides species, elevated levels of Lachnospiraceae and Ruminococcus spp.) as well as a list of 32 taxa whose collected abundance values could discriminate between IBS and controls. The ability to distinguish the microbiota of subjects with IBS from controls is superior to that of an earlier study based on a supervised split (10), or one which could not distinguish between control and IBS microbiota (12), but which also reported no statistical difference in the phenotypes of the IBS subjects and controls for rates of anxiety, depression, stool frequency and Bristol stool form. The relatively mild disease symptoms of this IBS cohort (12) may have confounded identifying a microbiome signature. Supporting this, in a recent study of the gut microbiome in IBS and IBD, microbiome alterations were significantly associated with a physician diagnosed IBS group but were of fewer and of lower significance in the self-diagnosed IBS subgroup (36).


Example 2—Urine Metabolome Profiling of Ibs Patients and Controls

Materials and Methods


Subject recruitment and sample collection were carried out as described in Example 1.


Urine FAIMS: FAIMS analysis was performed using a protocol modified from that of Arasaradnam et al. (37) and described below. Any other appropriate method known in the art for detecting metabolites may be used in the methods of the invention. Frozen (−80° C.) urine samples were thawed overnight at 4° C., 5 mL of each urine sample was aliquoted into a 20 mL glass vial and placed into an ATLAS sampler (Owlstone, UK) attached to the Lonestar FAIMS instrument (Owlstone, UK). The sample was heated to 40° C. and sequentially run three times.


Each sample run had a flow rate over the sample of 500 mL/min of clean dry air.


Further make-up air was added to create a total flow rate of 2.5 L/min. The FAIMS was scanned from 0 to 99% dispersion field in 51 steps, +6 V to −6 V compensation voltage in 512 steps and both positive and negative ions were detected to produce an untargeted volatile organic compound (VOC) profile for each sample. The signals for each sample at each DF were smoothed using the Savitzky-Golay filter (window size=9, degree=3). The signals were trimmed based on an optimized cut-off of 0.007 for positive mode and −0.007 for negative mode outputs, to obtain the region of interest, and reduce the baseline noise. Signals were aligned to the trimmed signals at each DF, using cross-correlation, using the mean signal as reference to make them comparable. Since the initial DFs of the FAIMS signal, and higher DFs were non-informative, signals corresponding to 17th DF till 42nd DF of both, positive, and negative modes were considered. These pre-processing steps were performed using customized programs developed in Python, v. 2.7.11, with relevant packages (Scipy v-1.1, and Numpy v-1.15.2). To further reduce the complexity, and to retain informative data, kurtosis normality tests were performed on each feature vector and features with raw p-value >0.1, were considered, and final profile was generated for various statistical analyses.


Bioinformatics analysis of urine metabolome data (FAIMS): Each urine sample analysed using FAIMS yielded a profile with ca. 52,224 data points. A pooled profile containing these data points for each sample was generated for pre-processing, to reduce the noise, size, and complexity of the data.


Urine GC/LC MS: 5 mL samples of frozen urine were sent on dry ice to Metabolomic Discoveries (now Metabolon), Potsdam, Germany. Untargeted metabolomics analysis was performed using liquid chromatography (LC) and Solid Phase Microextraction (SPME) gas chromatography (GC) and metabolites were identified using electrospray ionization mass spectrometry (ESI-MS). Short chain fatty acids (SCFA) analysis was also performed by LC-tandem mass spectrometry.


For urine metabolomics, the values of metabolites were normalized with reference to urine creatinine levels in each sample.


Bioinformatics analysis of urine metabolome data (MS): Urine MS metabolomics data was returned for all IBS subjects (n=80) and all but 2 controls (n=63) as these did not pass QC or no sample was available. A total of 2,887 metabolites were returned from untargeted urine metabolomics analysis, of which 594 were identified. Only the identified features with peak values normalized by creatinine levels in urine (mg/dl) were considered for further analysis.


Machine learning: An in-house machine learning pipeline was applied to each datatype (in this example, urine MS metabolomics) using a twostep approach applying the Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO) feature selection followed by Random Forest (RF) modelling (38), as described in Example 1. The models were implemented using R software version 3.4.0, using package glmnet version 2.0-10 for LASSO feature selection, and RF package randomForest version 4.6-12. (34). The ability of urine FAIMS metabolomics to differentiate between health classes was tested using support vector machines (SVM), with a linear kernel, using python 2.7 and Scikit-Learn (v 0.19.2) (39). Features of FAIMS profile were selected using kurtosis normality test. These features were centered and scaled. The samples were split into training and test set, for 10 fold cross validation. Class weights were balanced. Other parameters were set to default. No supervised feature selection was used.


Results


Altered Urine Metabolomes in IBS


Metabolomic analysis was extended to all subjects, focusing initially on urine as a non-invasive test sample. Two methods were compared: High field asymmetric waveform ion mobility spectrometry (FAIMS) analysis for volatile organics, and both GC- and LC-MS.


The FAIMS technique did not identify discriminatory metabolites directly, but separated samples/subjects by characteristic plumes of ionized metabolites. In unsupervised analysis, FAIMS readily identified urine samples from controls and IBS (FIG. 4a) but could not distinguish between IBS clinical subtypes (FIG. 5).


GC/LC-MS analysis of the urine metabolome also separated IBS patients from controls (FIG. 4b) and with greater accuracy than FAIMS (FIGS. 6a and 6b).


Machine learning identified four urine metabolomics features predictive of IBS (AUC 0.999; sensitivity: 0.988, specificity: 1.000) which were reflective of dietary components (Table 5). Pairwise comparison of control and IBS urine metabolomes identified 127 differentially abundant features (Table 6). 89 urine metabolites were significantly less abundant in IBS subjects including a number of amino acids such as L-arginine, a precursor for the biosynthesis of nitric oxide which is associated both with mucosal defence as well as IBS pathophysiology (40). Another 38 metabolites were present at significantly higher levels in IBS including an acylgylcine (N-undecanoylglycine) and an acylcarnitine (decanoylcarnitine). Elevated levels of metabolites from these groups are associated with altered fatty acid oxidation/metabolism and disease (41,42,43).


Discussion


Urine metabolomics was highly discriminatory for IBS. The machine learning model showed that the compounds identified were predominantly diet- or medication-associated.


Example 3—Fecal Metabolome Profiling of Ibs Patients and Controls

Materials and Methods


Subject recruitment and sample collection were carried out as described in Example 1.


Fecal GC/LC MS: 1 g samples of frozen feces were sent on dry ice to Metabolomic Discoveries (now Metabolon), Potsdam, Germany. For LC-MS, the samples were dried and resuspended to a final concentration of 10 mg per 400 μL before analysis. GC-MS and SCFA analysis were performed using wet samples. Untargeted metabolomics and SCFA analysis was carried out as described previously for urine MS metabolomics.


Bioinformatics analysis of fecal metabolome data: Fecal MS metabolomics data was returned for all IBS subjects (n=80) and all but 2 controls (n=63) as these did not pass QC or no sample was available. 2,933 metabolites were returned from untargeted fecal metabolomics analysis carried out by the service provider of which 753 were identified. Metabolites identified using LC-MS were not normalized, since the fecal samples were already normalized with dry weight (10 mg per 400 μL) during sample preparation. Metabolites identified using GC-MS were normalized with corresponding sample wet weights. Only the identified metabolites were considered for further analyses. Machine learning analysis was carried out as described previously for the urine metabolome. Summary statistics for all datasets were generated using the Wilcoxon rank sum test with q-value adjustment for multiple testing.


Machine learning: An in-house machine learning pipeline was applied to each datatype (in this example, fecal MS metabolomics) using a twostep approach applying the Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO) feature selection followed by Random Forest (RF) modelling (38), as described in Example 1. The models were implemented using R software version 3.4.0, using package glmnet version 2.0-10 for LASSO feature selection, and RF package randomForest version 4.6-12. (39).


Results


Altered Fecal Metabolomes in IBS


Analysis of the Fecal Metabolome by GC/LC-MS Separated IBS Patients from Controls


(FIG. 4c) but no difference was observed between the clinical IBS subtypes (FIG. 7). Machine learning applied to this dataset identified 40 fecal metabolites predictive of IBS (AUC:0.862, sensitivity: 0.821 and specificity: 0.647; Table 7) which included the amino acids L-tyrosine, and L-arginine; the bile acid UDCA; a bile pigment Iurobilin and dodecanedioic acid, an indicator of fatty acid oxidation defects (44).


Machine learning applied to the shotgun species dataset produced a marginally better prediction model for IBS than the fecal metabolomic model (AUC 0.878, sensitivity 0.894 and specificity 0.687) based on 40 predictive species (Table 2). The adenosine ribonucleotide de novo biosynthesis functional pathway was significantly more abundant in 11 of the 32 predictive species which resonates with adenosine being the fourth highest ranked predictive metabolite for IBS.


Pairwise comparison analysis of metabolites identified 128 significantly differential abundant features including 77 which were significantly depleted in IBS (Table 8). 51 fecal metabolites were significantly more abundant including tyrosine and lysine and three Bile Acids (BAs):[ ST hydroxy] (25R)-3alpha,7alpha-dihydroxy-5beta-cholestan-27-oyl taurine; [ST (2:0)] 5beta-Chola-3,11-dien-24-oic acid, and UDCA, which is one of the predictive metabolites for IBS.. BAs affect water absorption in intestine, and can lead to diarrhea (45).


The level of bile acid metabolites in the subgroups was analysed and a significant difference was observed in the IBS-D subtype for most bile acid categories (Total BAs, secondary BAs, sulphated BAs, UDCA and conjugated BAs) when compared to the control subjects as shown in Table 9a. These differences were associated with an altered functional potential, reflected by the ursodeoxycholate biosynthesis and glycocholate metabolism pathway gene abundances correlating with the secondary BAs, UDCA and total BA levels (Table 9b). Primary BAs and taurine:glycine conjugated BAs were not significantly different across the groups. Similar findings (in a smaller IBS/control cohort) were reported by Dior and colleagues (46) for secondary BAs, sulphated BAs and UDCA and taurine:glycine conjugated BAs.


Thus the differences in fecal microbiome composition and predicted function in IBS patients and controls are mirrored by differences in the measured metabolome in the two sample types.


Discussion


Here it is shown that the microbiome of patients with IBS is distinct from that of controls and this is reflected in fecal metabolome profiles. However, metagenome and metabolome configurations do not distinguish the so-called clinical subtypes of IBS (IBS-C, -D, -M).


The fecal metabolome correlated well with taxonomic and functional data for the microbiota.


Example 4—Fecal Metabolome Profiling of Ibs Patients and Controls with an Alternative Machine Learning Pipeline

Materials and Methods


Subject recruitment and sample collection were carried out as described in Example 1.


Fecal GC/LC MS: 1 g samples of frozen feces were sent on dry ice to Metabolomic Discoveries (now Metabolon), Potsdam, Germany. For LC-MS, the samples were dried and resuspended to a final concentration of 10 mg per 400 μL before analysis. GC-MS and SCFA analysis were performed using wet samples. Untargeted metabolomics and SCFA analysis was carried out as described previously for urine MS metabolomics.


Bioinformatics analysis of fecal metabolome data: Fecal MS metabolomics data was returned for all IBS subjects (n=80) and all but 2 controls (n=63) as these did not pass QC or no sample was available. 2,933 metabolites were returned from untargeted fecal metabolomics analysis carried out by the service provider of which 753 were identified. Metabolites identified using LC-MS were not normalized, since the fecal samples were already normalized with dry weight (10 mg per 400 μL) during sample preparation. Metabolites identified using GC-MS were normalized with corresponding sample wet weights. Only the identified metabolites were considered for further analyses. Machine learning analysis was carried out as described previously for the urine metabolome. Summary statistics for all datasets were generated using the Wilcoxon rank sum test with q-value adjustment for multiple testing.


Machine learning: An in-house machine learning pipeline was applied to the fecal metabolomic data. The machine learning pipeline used in this example is similar to the machine learning pipeline used in Examples 1 to 3, but comprised additional optimization and validation steps, using a two step approach within a ten-fold cross-validation. Within each validation fold Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO) feature selection was carried out followed by Random Forest (RF) modelling and an optimised model was validated against the cross validation test data which is external to the cross-validation training subset.


The classified fecal metabolome sample profiles were log10 transformed before they were analysed in the machine learning pipeline. The transformed profiles were then used to classify the samples as IBS (80 samples) or Control (63 samples). The classified samples were then analysed in the machine learning pipeline.



FIG. 9 shows the machine learning pipeline used in this example. The classified fecal metabolome sample profiles were first split into a training set and a test set. The training set was then used to generate an optimal lambda (λ) range for use by the LASSO algorithm. The optimal lambda (λ) range was generated using the previously described cross-validated LASSO and using the glmnet package (version 2.0-18). Pre-determination of an optimal lambda (λ) range reduces the computational time to run the pipeline and removes the need for a user to specify the ranges manually


After determination of the lambda (λ) range, the samples were assigned weights based on their class probabilities. The weights assigned to the training samples in this step were used in all subsequent applicable steps.


A LASSO algorithm substantially as described in Examples 1 to 3 was then applied to the weighted training samples. In this example, the LASSO algorithm used the previously calculated optimal lambda (λ) range, and used the Caret (version 6.0-84 in this example) and glmnet (version 2.0-18 in this example) packages, The ROC AUC (receiver operating characteristic, area under curve) metric was calculated using 10-fold internal cross validation, repeated 10 times. The feature coefficients identified by the optimized LASSO algorithm were extracted and features with non-zero coefficients were selected for further analysis. In FIG. 9, N refers to the number of features returned by the LASSO algorithm. If the number of features selected by LASSO was fewer than 5, then all of the features (pre-LASSO) were used to generate the random forest, i.e. the LASSO filtering was ignored by the random forest generator. If the number of features selected by LASSO was greater than or equal to 5, then only those features selected by LASSO were used for generation of the random forest (downstream classifier generation); otherwise all the features are considered for the classifier generation step.


Following feature selection using LASSO, an optimized random forest classifier (with 1500 trees) was generated using the selected features, or all of the features, as determined by N. This optimised random forest classifier can be used to predict the external test fold. Random forest generation was performed using Caret (version 6.0-84) and internal cross validation, by tuning the ‘mtry’ parameter to maximise the ROC AUC metric. For tuning, if the number of selected features is greater than or equal to 5, mtry ranges from 1 to the square root of the number of selected features or else the range is from 1 to 6. The optimized random forest classifier was then applied to the test set and the performance of the classifier was calculated via the AUC, sensitivity, and specificity metrics.


Both LASSO feature selection and RF modelling were performed within a 10-fold cross validation (CV), which generated an internal 10-fold prediction model that predicts the IBS or control classification of samples. This 10-fold cross-validation procedure was repeated ten times and the average AUC, sensitivity and specificity are reported. The optimized model is then used to predict the cross-validation test subset, and final classifier performance metrics are calculated from across the ten folds of the cross-validation (AUC, Sensitivity and Specificity).


Results


Fecal Metabolome is Predictive of IBS


The optimized random forest classifier was investigated for its predictive ability to classify samples as IBS or Control. External validation was 10-fold cross validation. Internal validation was 10-fold cross validation, repeated 10 times.


The performance summary and feature details are shown in Table 13. Features selected by LASSO having coefficients less than zero are associated with IBS, while positive coefficients are associated with Controls. Overall, for 10 folds, the mean ROC AUC was 0.686 (±0.132). Sensitivity, and specificity were 0.737 (±0.181), and 0.476 (±0.122), respectively. Accuracy was observed to be 0.622±0.095.


The classification threshold was also optimized to achieve maximum sensitivity and specificity using pROC package (version 1.15.0) and Youden J score. The obtained optimized values for Sensitivity and Specificity were 0.55, and 0.794, respectively. Thresholds were also optimized such that specificity >=0.9. The optimized values thus obtained for Sensitivity and Specificity were 0.288, and 0.905, respectively, at a threshold equal to 0.689.


The analysis identified 158 metabolites predictive of IBS, which are listed in Table 13. Metabolites with the highest RF feature importance included L-Phenylalanine, Adenosine and MG(20:3(8Z,11Z,14Z)/0:0/0:0). Increased levels of phenylethylamine, which is involved in the key metabolism pathway of phenylalanine, were found in fecal extracts of IBS mice compared with healthy control mice (47), indicating a connection between fecal phenylalanine levels and IBS, which is consistent with the present findings. Other metabolites which were predictive of IBS included the amino acids Lalanine, L-arginine, tyrosine and inosine previously reported as a biomarker of IBS (along with adenosine). The identified metabolites also included dodecanedioic acid, which, as discussed in Example 3, is an indicator of fatty acid oxidation defects (32).


Discussion


Here it is shown that the fecal metabolome profile of patients with IBS is distinct from that of controls. This observation is consistent with the results obtained using a different machine learning pipeline, as described in Example 3.


Example 5—Co-Abundance Analysis of Gene Families with the Alternative Machine Learning Pipeline

Materials and Methods


Subject recruitment and sample collection were carried out as described in Example 1.


Co-abundance clustering: Clusters of co-abundant genes (CAGs) representing metagenomically-defined species variables were identified using gene family abundances. The generation of the gene family abundances is described in detail in Example 1, but for completeness is also detailed below.


Microbiome profiling and metagenomics: Genomic DNA was extracted and amplified from frozen fecal samples (0.25 g) using the method described by Brown et al. (26).


Microbiome profiling and metagenomics—Shotgun sequencing: Genomic DNA was extracted as described above. For shotgun sequencing, 1 μg (concentration>5 ng/μL) of high molecular weight DNA for each sample was sent to GATC Biotech, Germany for sequencing on Illumina HiSeq platform (HiSeq 2500) using 2×250 bp paired-end chemistry. This returned 2,714,158,144 raw reads (2,612,201,598 processed reads) of which 45.6% were mapped to an average of 222,945 gene families per sample with a mean count value of 8,924,302±2,569,353 per sample.


Bioinformatics analysis (16S amplicon sequencing): Miseq 16S sequencing data was returned for 144 subjects. Data generated for 3 samples (2 IBS and 1 control) were removed as the number of reads returned from sequencing was too low for analysis, leaving 141 samples (control: n=63, IBS n=78). Raw amplicon sequence data were merged and the reads trimmed using the flash methodology (27). The USEARCH pipeline was used to generate the OTU table (28). The UPARSE algorithm was used to cluster the sequences into OTUs at 97% similarity (29). UCHIME chimera removal algorithm was used with Chimeraslayer to remove chimeric sequences (30). The Ribosomal Database Project (RDP) taxonomic classifier was used to assign taxonomy to the representative OTU sequences (28) and microbiota compositional (abundance and diversity) information was generated.


Bioinformatics analysis (Shotgun metagenomic sequencing): For shotgun metagenomics, 6 control samples were not sequenced due to data not passing QC or no sample available (control: n=59; IBS n=80). The number of raw read pairs obtained after sequencing, varied from 5,247,013 to 21,280,723 (Mean=9,763,159±2,408,048). Reads were processed in accordance with the Standard Operating Procedure of Human Microbiome Project (HMP) Consortium (31). Metagenomic composition and functional profiles were generated using HUMAnN2 pipeline (32). For each sample, multiple profiles were obtained, including: microbial composition profiles from clade-specific gene information (using MetaPhlAn2), Gene family abundance, Pathway coverage and abundance.


After clusters of co-abundant genes representing metagenomically-defined species variables were identified from the gene family abundances, using the HUMAnN2 pipeline, a co-abundance analysis of the gene families was performed using a modified canopy clustering algorithm (Nielsen et al., 2014) (48). The canopy clustering algorithm was run with default parameters for 139 samples (IBS (80 samples) or Controls (59 samples)) using the relative abundance of 1,706,571 gene families (UniRef90 database) stratified by species using the HUMAnN2 methodology (Franzosa et al., 2018) (32).


The resulting gene family clusters were filtered to keep those where at least 90% of the cluster signal originated from more than three samples and contained more than two gene families. This was in order to remove clusters driven by outliers or with too few values, as recommended by Nielsen et al, 2014 (48). The clusters remaining after filtering were termed co-abundant groups or CAGs.


Abundance Indices of CAGs: The abundance indices of the CAGs were generated by Singular Value Decomposition (SVD) as implemented in Principal Component Analysis (PCA) using the dudi.pca command with default parameters (ade4 package in R. R version 3.5.1). The first principal component was extracted as the index and directionality was corrected by the index being compared to the median CAG gene abundance using the spearman correlation of all values within a CAG. CAGs returning a negative correlation were corrected by inverting the principal component values for that CAG. The principal component values were then scaled by subtracting the minimum value for a CAG from each CAG value.


Assignment of Taxonomy to CAGs: As each CAG is composed of multiple gene families, taxonomy was assigned to a CAG by reporting the most common genera and species associated with the gene families in the CAGs, along with the percentage of the CAG that they composed. For CAGs where a genus or species represented greater than 60% of the gene families, a taxonomy was assigned.


CAG results: After filtering for a minimum of 3 gene families per CAG, the strain level information (as represented by CAGs) within the shotgun dataset consisted of a total of 955 CAGs. The CAGs had a mean of 41.09 and maximum of 3,174 gene families. The distribution of CAGs across samples was sparse, with the mean number of CAGs per sample at 31.86 (3.34% of all 955 CAGs) and the max number of CAGs observed in any sample at 80 (8.38% of CAGs). The CAG cluster profile obtained was used to calculate inter-sample correlation distance based on Kendall correlation. Principal coordinate analysis based on this Beta-diversity metric showed a significant split between IBS and Controls (FIG. 2, PMANOVA p-value <0.001, vegan library), as seen in FIG. 10. No significant split was observed between the IBS subtypes (PMANOVA p-value=0.919).


Machine learning: The in-house machine learning pipeline described in Example 4 was applied to the CAG profiles, following preliminary multivariate analysis.


Results


CAG Cluster Profiles are Predictive of IBS (IBS v Control)


An informative way to reduce the complexity of metagenomic data while increasing biological signal is to assemble the reads into Co-abundant Gene groups or CAGs, representing strain-level variables and commonly referred to as metagenomic species. The optimized random forest classifier, generated using the CAG cluster profiles as input data, was investigated for its predictive ability to classify samples as IBS or Control. External validation was 10 fold CV, while internal validations for optimization, were 10 fold CV repeated 10 times.


Analysis of these strain-level variables significantly differentiated IBS from controls, as shown in FIG. 17.


The performance summary, and feature details are described in table 14. Features selected by LASSO having coefficients less than zero are associated with IBS while positive coefficients are associated with Controls.


Machine learning applied to the metagenomic species (CAGs) dataset produced prediction model for IBS based on 136 predictive features (Table 14). Overall, for 10 folds, the mean ROC AUC was 0.814 (±0.134). Sensitivity, and specificity were 0.875(±0.102), and 0.497 (±0217), respectively. Accuracy was observed to be 0.713±0.134.


The classification threshold was optimized to achieve maximum sensitivity and specificity using pROC package and Youden J score. The obtained optimized values for Sensitivity and Specificity were 0.75, and 0.797, respectively. Thresholds were also optimized such that specificity was equal to or greater than (>=) 0.9. The optimized values thus obtained for Sensitivity and Specificity were 0.3875, and 0.915, respectively, at a threshold equal to 0.791.


Therefore, the analysis identified 136 CAGs predictive of IBS (table 14). Taxonomic assignment of the CAGs was sparse, with the majority of features unclassified, but assigned features were broadly consistent with the species-level analysis. The CAGs to which taxonomy was assigned include those associated with the genera Escherichia, Clostridium and Streptococcus, amongst others. At the species level, predictive CAGs included those associated with Escherichia coli, Streptococcus anginosus, Parabacteroides johnsonii, Streptococcus gordonii, Clostridium bolteae, Turicibacter sanguinis and Paraprevotella xylamphila, amongst others. A number of CAGs associated with individual strains were also identified, including Clostridiales bacterium 1_7_47 FAA, Eubacterium sp 3_1_31, Lachnospiraceae bacterium 5_1_57 FAA and Clostridiaceae bacterium JC118.


Discussion


Here it is shown that the microbiome of patients with IBS is distinct from that of controls, and that machine learning can be applied to co-abundance clustering of genes to reliably detect IBS.


A strain-level microbiome signature for IBS comprising 136 metagenomic species was identified. The separation between the microbiota of IBS and controls by unsupervised analysis exceeds that of earlier reports (10, 12). The limitations of 16S amplicon datasets and the relatively mild disease symptoms may account for failure to identify a microbiome signature in one report (12). Moreover, microbiome alterations were significantly associated with physician-diagnosed IBS, but were less significant in self-reported Rome criteria IBS (36).


Example 6—Stratification of Ibs Subtypes Using Unsupervised Learning

Background


The current approach to stratification of patients into clinical subtypes based on predominant symptoms has significant limitations. This Example uses microbiome profiling to stratify IBS patients into subgroups.


Materials and Methods


Subject recuitment: A total of 142 samples were used for the analyses. Patients were recruited through gastroenterology clinics at Cork University Hospital, advertisements in the hospital, GP practices and shopping centres and emails to university staff. 80 patients were selected with IBS satisfying the Rome III/IV criteria and agreed inclusion/exclusion criteria and 65 healthy control. Not all samples were used for each analysis due to differing availability of sample specific datasets (Table 15). For example, sequencing data from 3 samples were of too poor quality to include with data from the remaining 142 samples and so were removed from the analyses.


Microbiome profiling: The samples were sequenced using 16S rRNA amplicon sequencing as described in Example 1. The resulting table showed abundance measures for each taxa across all 142 samples. If OTUs were present in 30% or less of samples they were filtered from the table.


Machine learning: Unsupervised learning was used to group the samples. A heatmap of the microbiome OTU table was generated along with hierarchical clustering applied using the Ward2 dendrogram and the Canberra distance measure.


Results


Descriptive Analysis of Samples


Of 142 samples that were analysed, 64 samples were healthy controls with the remaining 78 samples being IBS. Out of the 78, a group of 29 was diagnosed as the IBS-C subtype, a group of 20 was diagnosed as the IBS-D subtype and a group of 29 was diagnosed as the IBS-M subtype.


Identification of Subtypes


The hierarchical clustering identified 4 clusters (FIG. 11). The four clusters showed an uneven distribution of IBS and healthy controls. This altered beta diversity between healthy and IBS and within IBS provided the basis for the identification of three IBS subgroups (IBS-1, IBS-2, IBS-3). IBS-1 and IBS-2 subgroups relate to clusters 1 and 2 respectively with the IBS samples that co-cluster with healthy controls (clusters 3 and 4) being grouped into the IBS-3 subgroup. All healthy control samples are considered as a separate group in Examples 7-9.


Discussion


Here it is shown that hierarchical clustering applied to microbiome data may be used to define phenotypically distinct subgroups within the IBS population.


Example 7—Microbiome Profiling and Differential Abundance Analysis (Genus Level) of Ibs Subgroups

Materials and Methods


Subjects: The same subjects were studied as in Example 6. The number of samples analysed in this Example is shown in Table 15.


Analysis of alpha diversity: The same OTU data was used as in Example 6. Observed species (richness) is a measure of diversity defined as the count of unique OTU's within a sample. Statistical analysis was performed using ANOVA.


Analysis of beta diversity: Principal Component Analysis with Canberra distance was used to analyse the differences in diversity of 16S data across the three IBS subgroups. Statistical analysis was performed using Pairwise Permutational MANOVA (adonis function, vegan library in R). The following six pairwise comparisons were made:


1. IBS-1 subgroup vs Healthy (significant).


2. IBS-1 subgroup vs IBS-2 subgroup (significant).


3. IBS-1 subgroup vs IBS-3 subgroup (significant).


4. IBS-2 subgroup vs IBS-3 subgroup (significant).


5. IBS-2 subgroup vs Healthy (significant).


6. IBS-3 subgroup vs Healthy (not significant).


Differential abundance analysis: Statistical analysis was carried out using the DESeq2 pipeline (R library: DESeQ2). Differentially abundant taxa at the genus level were identified for the above six pairwise comparisons.


Results


Differences in Alpha Diversity Across Subgroups


Applying the subgroup stratification of Example 1 to the OTU table and analysing the alpha diversity using the observed species metric within each of the groups revealed significant differences between all 4 groups, as shown in FIG. 12.


Principal Coordinate Analysis of Beta Diversity of 16S Data


An analysis of the beta diversity using Principal Coordinate Analysis with Canberra distance at genus level across the three IBS subgroups, the results of which are shown in FIG. 13, replicated the distinct separation of the groups as observed in the clustering analysis (Example 1). Pairwise Permutational MANOVA testing of all groups indicated that 5 of the 6 pairwise comparisons were significantly different with the IBS-3 subgroup versus Healthy being not significant indicating a lack of a distinct split between the healthy group and IBS-3 subgroup.


The results show that the IBS-3 subgroup can be claimed to have a normal-like microbiota composition as evidenced by its lack of separation from the healthy controls.


The results of Principal Coordinate Analysis for Examples 7-9 are summarised in Table 16.


Differential Abundance Analysis—Genus Level


The differentially abundant genera identified in this study are shown in Table 17. For the comparison of the IBS-1 subgroup to Healthy groups there were in total 23 significant taxa where 6 were increased in abundance (adjusted p-value <0.05). With the IBS-2 subgroup vs Healthy groups there was 13 significant taxa where 6 were increased in abundance (adjusted p-value <0.05) and IBS-3 subgroup group when compared to the healthy group identified only 1 significant taxa (adjusted p-value <0.05) which was increased in abundance (Table 17). Notably, it was observed that Blautia and Eggertella were increased in both altered IBS groups (IBS-1 and IBS-2 subgroups). Butyricoccus, Copproccus and Prevotella were decreased in both altered IBS groups. Veillonella was the only genus to be increased in the Normal-like IBS group (IBS-3 subgroup).


The IBS-1 and IBS-2 subgroups were also compared to the normal-like IBS-3 subgroup. The results are shown in Table 18. As expected the genus level changes in the IBS-1 and IBS-2 subgroups to IBS-3 subgroup was similar to those seen for the IBS-1 and IBS-2 subgroups compared to the healthy controls (Table 17). Like in the comparison to the Healthy group both Blautia and Eggertella have increased in abundance and Prevotella has decreased. Flavonifrator has also increased in abundance across both altered IBS groups when comparing to the normal-like IBS group (IBS-3) which was not the case when comparing to the healthy group.


Discussion


Here it is shown that the IBS subgroups identified in Example 6 have distinct microbiome profiles. A number of differentially abundant genera were identified that are increased or decreased in particular subgroups. This may be informative for future stratification.


Example 8—Metagenomic Profiling and Differential Abundance Analysis (Species Level) of IBS Subgroups

Materials and Methods


Subjects: The same subjects were studied as in Examples 6 and 7. The number of samples analysed in this Example is shown in Table 15.


Metagenome profiling: Samples were sequenced using Shotgun sequencing as described in Example 1. Quality assessment of reads was carried out using FASTQC and MultiQC. The Humann2 pipeline (which includes metaphlan2) was used to determine abundance measures for taxa at the species level. In brief the output files from the humann2 pipeline showing the relative abundance for each taxonomy were merged into a single table of relative abundance values for each taxonomy across all samples. The number of counts associated with each value of relative abundance can be inferred by multiplying each relative abundance value with the total number of reads in the sample which contains each relative abundance value and taking the integer part of the resulting value. The final output was then a count table for species level taxa across all 142 samples. Again, if taxa were present in 30% or less of samples then they were removed from the table.


Analysis of beta diversity: Principal Coordinate Analysis was performed as described in Example 6.


Differential abundance analysis: Statistical analysis was carried out as described in Example 7. Differentially abundant metabolites at the species level were identified for the same six pairwise comparisons.


Results


Principal Coordinate Analysis of Beta Diversity of Metagenomics Data


As shown in FIG. 14, the clustering from Example 6 is retained for the metagenomics dataset. Permutational MANOVA tests performed on the same pairwise comparisons as in the microbiome analysis (Example 7) showed the metagenomic beta diversity of the stratified samples to be the same in terms of significance to that of the microbiome beta diversity (Table 16).


Differential Abundance Analysis—Species Level


As in Example 7, an intersection matrix was used to portray the taxa between groups that had increased or decreased in abundance (Table 19). The matrix easily captured the difference between all the IBS groups showing the dissimilarities and similarities between each IBS group compared to the Healthy group relative to significance in species abundance. The fact that the normal-like IBS group is essentially the same as the healthy group in terms of species abundance is reflected in the absence of any species within the normal-like column of the intersection matrix (Table 19). For the altered IBS groups, Ruminoccus gnavus was increased in abundance in both IBS-1 and IBS-2 subgroups. Three different species of Clostridium have also increased across both altered IBS groups when compared to the Healthy group.


Using the same intersection matrix methodology, it was also invenstigated what species were significantly differentially abundant across the altered IBS groups (IBS-2 and IBS-3) when compared to the normal-like IBS group (IBS-3). The results are shown in Table 20. Notable differences were observed. Firstly, no species was found significantly differentially abundant between the IBS-1 subgroup group and the IBS-3 subgroup group. Secondly, in the IBS-2 subgroup group compared to the IBS-3 subgroup group there were only 4 species which were significantly differentially abundant. Amongst these, Ruminoccus gnavus and a Clostridium species showed significant increases in abundance. The comparison between both altered IBS groups also revealed a low number of significantly differentially abundant species.


Discussion


Notably, the separation of altered IBS groups (IBS-1 and IBS-2) to the normal-like (IBS-3) and healthy subjects that was seen here (FIG. 14) was extremely similar to that observed for the microbiome analysis (Example 7, FIG. 13).


This study also revealed that a number of species are significantly differentially abundant across the IBS subgroups, but not between the IBS-3 group and healthy subjects.


In summary, this study demonstrated that the IBS subgroups identified in Example 6 have distinct metagenomic profiles, which may be informative for future stratification.


Example 9—Metabolomics Profiling and Differential Abundance Analysis of Ibs Subgroups

Materials and Methods


Subjects: The same subjects were studied as in Examples 6-8. The number of samples analysed in this Example is shown in Table 15.


Metabolome profiling: LC/GC-MS was used to measure the quantity of metabolomes for urine and fecal metabolites in each sample, as described in Examples 2 and 3, respectively, except SFCA analysis was not performed. The output measurement is a laser intensity and can be viewed in signal form as a peak on a spectrograph. Results from all samples are collated into a matrix of peak values for each metabolite detected across all 142 samples. Urine peak values were normalised to creatinine values. Faecal peak values were normalised to either dry weight of sample (LC) or wet weight of sample (GC).


Analysis of beta diversity: Principal Coordinate Analysis was performed as described in Example 6.


Results


Principal Coordinate Analysis of Beta Diversity of Fecal and Urine Metabolomics Data


Using the normalised peak value data from the metabolomic results and the stratification from Examples 6-8, the beta diversity between the altered IBS groups, the normal-like IBS group and the Healthy group was determined. The results of Principal Coordinate Analysis for fecal and urine metabolomics data are shown in FIGS. 15 and 16, respectively. With respect to the fecal metabolomics samples, Permutational MANOVA tests of all six pairwise comparisons revealed the separation between groups in terms of significance to be exactly the same as that found previously for both the microbiome samples and the metagenome samples (Table 16). However, with respect to the urine metabolomic samples, the beta diversity analysis displayed different separation between groups in terms of significance, in contrast to other profiles. The Permutational MANOVA results for the separation of groups in the urine metabolomics for pairwise comparisons showed that only the 3 pairwise comparisons of the IBS groups (IBS-1, IBS-2 and IBS-3) to the Healthy were significant in terms of separation (Table 16). Notably, in the urine metabolomic dataset there is a significant separation between the normal-like IBS-3 group and the Healthy group (FIG. 16), whereas the converse result of IBS-3 subgroup and the Healthy subjects not being significantly separated was a characteristic of the microbiome, metagenome (Examples 7 and 8) and faecal metabolomics (FIG. 15) datasets.


Discussion


Here it is shown that the IBS subgroups identified in Example 6 have distinct fecal metabolomic profiles. The results obtained for the urine metabolomics data differed from those obtained for the microbiome, metagenomics and fecal metabolomics data. This may be informative for future stratification.


Example 10—Urine Metabolome Profiling of Ibs Patients and Controls with an Alternative Machine Learning Pipeline

Materials and Methods


Subject recruitment and sample collection were carried out as described in Example 1.


Urine FAIMS: FAIMS analysis was performed using a protocol modified from that of Arasaradnam et al. (37) and described below. Any other appropriate method known in the art for detecting metabolites may be used in the methods of the invention. Frozen (−80° C.) urine samples were thawed overnight at 4° C., 5 mL of each urine sample was aliquoted into a 20 mL glass vial and placed into an ATLAS sampler (Owlstone, UK) attached to the Lonestar FAIMS instrument (Owlstone, UK). The sample was heated to 40° C. and sequentially run three times.


Each sample run had a flow rate over the sample of 500 mL/min of clean dry air.


Further make-up air was added to create a total flow rate of 2.5 L/min. The FAIMS was scanned from 0 to 99% dispersion field in 51 steps, ′+6 V to −6 V compensation voltage in 512 steps and both positive and negative ions were detected to produce an untargeted volatile organic compound (VOC) profile for each sample. The signals for each sample at each DF were smoothed using the Savitzky-Golay filter (window size=9, degree=3). The signals were trimmed based on an optimized cut-off of 0.007 for positive mode and −0.007 for negative mode outputs, to obtain the region of interest, and reduce the baseline noise. Signals were aligned to the trimmed signals at each DF, using crosscorrelation, using the mean signal as reference to make them comparable. Since the initial DFs of the FAIMS signal, and higher DFs were non-informative, signals corresponding to 17th DF till 42nd DF of both, positive, and negative modes were considered. These pre-processing steps were performed using customized programs developed in Python, v. 2.7.11, with relevant packages (Scipy v-1.1, and Numpy v-1.15.2). To further reduce the complexity, and to retain informative data, kurtosis normality tests were performed on each feature vector and features with raw p-value >0.1, were considered, and final profile was generated for various statistical analyses.


Bioinformatics analysis of urine metabolome data (FAIMS): Each urine sample analysed using FAIMS yielded a profile with ca. 52,224 data points. A pooled profile containing these data points for each sample was generated for pre-processing, to reduce the noise, size, and complexity of the data.


Urine GC/LC MS: 5 mL samples of frozen urine were sent on dry ice to Metabolomic Discoveries (now Metabolon), Potsdam, Germany. Untargeted metabolomics analysis was performed using liquid chromatography (LC) and Solid Phase Microextraction (SPME) gas chromatography (GC) and metabolites were identified using electrospray ionization mass spectrometry (ESI-MS). Short chain fatty acids (SCFA) analysis was also performed by LC-tandem mass spectrometry.


For urine metabolomics, the values of metabolites were normalized with reference to urine creatinine levels in each sample.


Bioinformatics analysis of urine metabolome data (MS): Urine MS metabolomics data was returned for all IBS subjects (n=80) and all but 2 controls (n=63) as these did not pass QC or no sample was available. A total of 2,887 metabolites were returned from untargeted urine metabolomics analysis, of which 594 were identified. Only the identified features with peak values normalized by creatinine levels in urine (mg/dl) were considered for further analysis.


Machine learning: An in-house machine learning pipeline was applied to the urine metabolomic data. The machine learning pipeline used in this example is similar to the machine learning pipeline used in Examples 1 to 3, but comprised additional optimization and validation steps, using a two step approach within a ten-fold cross-validation. Within each validation fold Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO) feature selection was carried out followed by Random Forest (RF) modelling and an optimised model was validated against the cross validation test data which is external to the cross-validation training subset.


The classified urine metabolome sample profiles were log 10 transformed before they were analysed in the machine learning pipeline. The transformed profiles were then used to classify the samples as IBS (80 samples) or Control (63 samples). The classified samples were then analysed in the machine learning pipeline.



FIG. 9 shows the machine learning pipeline used in this example. The classified fecal metabolome sample profiles were first split into a training set and a test set. The training set was then used to generate an optimal lambda (λ) range for use by the LASSO algorithm. The optimal lambda (λ) range was generated using the previously described cross-validated LASSO and using the glmnet package (version 2.0-18). Pre-determination of an optimal lambda (λ) range reduces the computational time to run the pipeline and removes the need for a user to specify the ranges manually.


After determination of the lambda (λ) range, the samples were assigned weights based on their class probabilities. The weights assigned to the training samples in this step were used in all subsequent applicable steps.


A LASSO algorithm substantially as described in Examples 1 to 3 was then applied to the weighted training samples. In this example, the LASSO algorithm used the previously calculated optimal lambda (λ) range, and used the Caret (version 6.0-84 in this example) and glmnet (version 2.0-18 in this example) packages, The ROC AUC (receiver operating characteristic, area under curve) metric was calculated using 10-fold internal cross validation, repeated 10 times. The feature coefficients identified by the optimized LASSO algorithm were extracted and features with non-zero coefficients were selected for further analysis. In FIG. 9, N refers to the number of features returned by the LASSO algorithm. If the number of features selected by LASSO was fewer than 5, then all of the features (pre-LASSO) were used to generate the random forest, i.e. the LASSO filtering was ignored by the random forest generator. If the number of features selected by LASSO was greater than or equal to 5, then only those features selected by LASSO were used for generation of the random forest (downstream classifier generation); otherwise all the features are considered for the classifier generation step.


Following feature selection using LASSO, an optimized random forest classifier (with 1500 trees) was generated using the selected features, or all of the features, as determined by N. This optimised random forest classifier can be used to predict the external test fold. Random forest generation was performed using Caret (version 6.0-84) and internal cross validation, by tuning the ‘mtry’ parameter to maximise the ROC AUC metric. For tuning, if the number of selected features is greater than or equal to 5, mtry ranges from 1 to the square root of the number of selected features or else the range is from 1 to 6. The optimized random forest classifier was then applied to the test set and the performance of the classifier was calculated via the AUC, sensitivity, and specificity metrics.


Both LASSO feature selection and RF modelling were performed within a 10-fold cross validation (CV), which generated an internal 10-fold prediction model that predicts the IBS or control classification of samples. This 10-fold cross-validation procedure was repeated ten times and the average AUC, sensitivity and specificity are reported. The optimized model is then used to predict the cross-validation test subset, and final classifier performance metrics are calculated from across the ten folds of the cross-validation (AUC, Sensitivity and Specificity).


Results


Metabolomic analysis was extended its application to all subjects, focusing initially on urine as a non-invasive test sample. Two methods were compared: FAIMS analysis for volatile organics, and combined GC-/LC-MS. The FAIMS technique did not identify discriminatory metabolites directly, but separated samples/subjects by characteristic plumes of ionized metabolites. In unsupervised analysis, FAIMS readily identified urine samples from controls and IBS (FIG. 4a), but could not distinguish among IBS clinical subtypes (FIG. 5). GC/LC-MS analysis of the urine metabolome also separated IBS patients from controls (FIG. 4b) and with greater accuracy than FAIMS (FIGS. 6a and 6b).


Machine learning identified urine metabolomics features that are predictive of IBS (AUC 1.000; sensitivity: 1.000, specificity: 0.97, see Table 21a and 21b). Features that were highly predictive included dietary components such as epicatechin sulfate and medicagenic acid 3-O-b-Dglucuronide but also an acylgylcine (N-undecanoylglycine) and an acylcarnitine (decanoylcarnitine) (Table 21a and 21b). Pairwise comparison of control and IBS urine metabolomes identified 127 differentially abundant features (Table 6). Eighty nine urine metabolites were significantly less abundant in IBS subjects including a number of amino acids such as L-arginine, a precursor for the biosynthesis of nitric oxide which is associated both with mucosal defence and perhaps IBS pathophysiology. Another 38 metabolites were present at significantly higher levels in IBS including an acylgylcine (N-undecanoylglycine) and an acylcarnitine (decanoylcarnitine). Elevated levels of metabolites from these groups are associated with altered fatty acid oxidation/metabolism and disease.


Discussion


Although urine metabolomics was highly discriminatory for IBS, the machine learning analysis showed that the compounds identified were predominantly diet- or medication-associated. This observation is consistent with the results obtained using a different machine learning pipeline, as described in Example 2.


CONCLUSION

The findings of the current study have clinical implications. First, the microbiome and fecal metabolome, and the urine metabolome, offer objective biomarkers for IBS.


Second, the traditional Rome subtyping of IBS is not supported by differences in microbiome and metabolome and it may be time to look for an alternative basis for disease classification.


Third, while the results in no way detract from the concept of an altered brain-gut axis in IBS, they point toward disturbances of the diet-microbiome-metabolome axis which are consistent with the complaints of many patients and should inform the design of future therapeutic interventions in IBS.


The taxa, pathways and metabolites that distinguish IBS subjects from controls identified here may be targeted by a range of microbiota-directed therapies such as fecal transplants, antibiotics, probiotics or live biotherapeutics.


Fourth, hierarchical clustering can be used to identify distinct IBS subtypes with differing microbiomes and fecal metabolomes. Some subgroups have an altered microbiome and fecal metabolome, whilst one subgroup had a normal-like microbiome and fecal metabolome. The identification and characterisation of these subgroups as described herein may be informative for future stratification and treatment.


Current stratification into clinical subtypes of IBS should not form the basis for therapeutic decisions, because the altered microbiota (compared to control subjects) is similar in the subtypes, consistent with alternating between constipation and diarrheal forms in many patients. A more informative stratification would be achieved by fecal microbiota and metabolome profiling. The metagenomic and metabolomic signatures that distinguish IBS subjects from controls identified here may be targeted by these microbiota-directed therapies.


REFERENCES



  • 1. Enck, P. et al Irritable bowel syndrome—dissection of a disease. A 13-steps polemic. Z Gastroenterol. 2017 July; 55(7):679-684.

  • 2. Enck P, Aziz Q, Barbara G, et al. Irritable bowel syndrome. Nat. Rev. Dis. Primers 2016; 2:16014.

  • 3. Soares R L. Irritable bowel syndrome: a clinical review. World J. Gastroenterol. 2014; 20:12144-60.

  • 4. Van Oudenhove L, Aziz Q. The role of psychosocial factors and psychiatric disorders in functional dyspepsia. Nat. Rev. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2013; 10:158-67.

  • 5. Koloski N A, Jones M, Kalantar J, et al. The brain-gut pathway in functional gastrointestinal disorders is bidirectional: a 12-year prospective population-based study. Gut 2012; 61:1284-90.

  • 6. Schwille-Kiuntke J, Mazurak N, Enck P. Systematic review with meta-analysis: post-infectious irritable bowel syndrome after travellers' diarrhoea. Aliment. Pharmacol. Ther. 2015; 41:1029-37.

  • 7. Quigley E M M. The Gut-Brain Axis and the Microbiome: Clues to Pathophysiology and Opportunities for Novel Management Strategies in Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS). J. Clin. Med. 2018; 7.

  • 8. Lacy, B. E. and Patel, N. K. Rome Criteria and a Diagnostic Approach to Irritable Bowel Syndrome. J Clin Med. 2017 Oct. 26; 6(11).

  • 9. Carroll I M, Ringel-Kulka T, Keku T O, et al. Molecular analysis of the luminal- and mucosalassociated intestinal microbiota in diarrhea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome. Am. J. Physiol. Gastrointest. Liver Physiol. 2011; 301:G799-807.

  • 10. Rajilic-Stojanovic M, Biagi E, Heilig H G, et al. Global and Deep Molecular Analysis of Microbiota Signatures in Fecal Samples From Patients With Irritable Bowel Syndrome. Gastroenterology 2011; 141:1792-1801.

  • 11. Jeffery I B, O'Toole P W, Ohman L, et al. An irritable bowel syndrome subtype defined by species-specific alterations in faecal microbiota. Gut 2012; 61:997-1006.

  • 12. Tap J, Derrien M, Tornblom H, et al. Identification of an Intestinal Microbiota Signature Associated With Severity of Irritable Bowel Syndrome. Gastroenterology 2017; 152:111-123.

  • 13. Collins S M. A role for the gut microbiota in IBS. Nat. Rev. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2014; 11:497-505.

  • 14. Ohman L, Simren M. Intestinal microbiota and its role in irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). Curr. Gastroenterol. Rep. 2013; 15:323.

  • 15. Tao Bai, Jing Xia, Yudong Jiang, Huan Cao, Yong Zhao, Lei Zhang, Huan Wang, Jun Song, and Xiaohua Hou. Comparison of the Rome IV and Rome III criteria for IBS diagnosis: A cross-sectional survey. Journal of gastroenterology and hepatology 32.5 (2017), pp. 1018-1025.

  • 16. Magda Guilera, Agustin Balboa, and Fermin Mearin. Bowel habit subtypes and temporal patterns in irritable bowel syndrome: systematic review. The American journal of gastroenterology 100.5 (2005), p. 1174.

  • 17. Drossman D A, Morris C B, Schneck S, et al. International survey of patients with IBS: symptom features and their severity, health status, treatments, and risk taking to achieve clinical benefit. J. Clin. Gastroenterol. 2009; 43:541-50.

  • 18. Marcus J Claesson, Ian B Jeffery, Susana Conde, Susan E Power, Eibhlis M O'connor, Siobhan Cusack, Hugh M B Harris, Mairead Coakley, Bhuvaneswari Lakshminarayanan, Orla O'sullivan, et al. Gut microbiota composition correlates with diet and health in the elderly. Nature 488.7410 (2012), p. 178.

  • 19. Lacy B E, Everhart K K, Weiser K T, et al. IBS patients' willingness to take risks with medications. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 2012; 107:804-9.

  • 20. R. Guevremont, High-field asymmetric waveform ion mobility spectrometry: a new tool for mass spectrometry. J. Chromatogr. A, November 2004: 1058 (1-2): 3-19.

  • 21. Savitzky A., Golay M J E. “Smoothing and Differentiation of Data by Simplified Least Squares Procedures”, Anal. Chem., 36(8), 1964, pages 1627-1639.

  • 22. R. Tibshirani, “Regression Shrinkage and Selection via the Lasso”, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 58(1), 1996, pages 267-288.

  • 23. Jeffery I B, O'Toole P W, Ohman L, Claesson M J, Deane J, Quigley E M, Simren M. 2012. “An irritable bowel syndrome subtype defined by species-specific alterations in fecal microbiota.” Gut 61:997-1006.

  • 24. Zigmond, A. S. and R. P. Snaith, The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatr. Scand., 1983. 67(6): p. 361-70.

  • 25. Power, S. E., et al., Food and nutrient intake of Irish community-dwelling elderly subjects: who is at nutritional risk? J. Nutr. Health Aging., 2014. 18(6): p. 561-72.

  • 26. Brown J R, Flemer B, Joyce S A, et al. Changes in microbiota composition, bile and fatty acid metabolism, in successful faecal microbiota transplantation for Clostridioides difficile infection. BMC Gastroenterol. 2018; 18:131.

  • 27. Magoc T, Salzberg S L. FLASH: fast length adjustment of short reads to improve genome assemblies. Bioinformatics 2011; 27:2957-63.

  • 28. Edgar R C. Search and clustering orders of magnitude faster than BLAST. Bioinformatics 2010; 26:2460-1.

  • 29. Edgar R C. UPARSE: highly accurate OTU sequences from microbial amplicon reads. Nat. Methods 2013; 10:996-8.

  • 30. Edgar R C, Haas B J, Clemente J C, et al. UCHIME improves sensitivity and speed of chimera detection. Bioinformatics 2011; 27:2194-200.

  • 31. Consortium H M P. The Human Microbiome Project Consortium. Structure, function and diversity of the healthy human microbiome. Nature 2012; 486:207-14.

  • 32. Franzosa E A, McIver L J, Rahnavard G, et al. Species-level functional profiling of metagenomes and metatranscriptomes. Nat. Methods 2018; 15:962-968.

  • 33. Flemer B, Warren R D, Barrett M P, et al. The oral microbiota in colorectal cancer is distinctive and predictive. Gut 2018; 67:1454-1463.

  • 34. Core Team R. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. 2017. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.; https://www.R-project.org/.

  • 35. Shankar V, Homer D, Rigsbee L, et al. The networks of human gut microbe-metabolite associations are different between health and irritable bowel syndrome. ISME J. 2015; 9:1899-903.

  • 36. Vich Vila A, Imhann F, Collij V, et al. Gut microbiota composition and functional changes in inflammatory bowel disease and irritable bowel syndrome. Sci. Transl. Med. 2018; 10.

  • 37. Arasaradnam R P, Westenbrink E, McFarlane M J, et al. Differentiating coeliac disease from irritable bowel syndrome by urinary volatile organic compound analysis—a pilot study. PLoSOne 2014; 9:e107312.

  • 38. Flemer B, Warren R D, Barrett M P, et al. The oral microbiota in colorectal cancer is distinctive and predictive. Gut 2018; 67:1454-1463.

  • 39. Neis, E. P., Dejong, C. H. & Rensen, S. S. The role of microbial amino acid metabolism in host metabolism. Nutrients 7, 2930-2946 (2015). Pedregosa F, et al. Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python. Journal of Machine Learning Research 12, 825-2830 (2011).

  • 40. Wallace J L. Nitric oxide in the gastrointestinal tract: opportunities for drug development. Br. J. Pharmacol. 2019; 176:147-154.

  • 41. Hoppel C. The role of carnitine in normal and altered fatty acid metabolism. Am. J. Kidney Dis. 2003; 41:54-12.

  • 42. Liu X, Liu Y, Cheng M, et al. Metabolomic Responses of Human Hepatocytes to Emodin, Aristolochic Acid, and Triptolide: Chemicals Purified from Traditional Chinese Medicines. J. Biochem. Mol. Toxicol. 2015; 29:533-43.

  • 43. Vishwanath V A. Fatty Acid Beta-Oxidation Disorders: A Brief Review. Ann. Neurosci. 2016; 23:51-5.

  • 44. Korman S H, Waterham H R, Gutman A, et al. Novel metabolic and molecular findings in hepatic carnitine palmitoyltransferase I deficiency. Mol. Genet. Metab. 2005; 86:337.

  • 45. Riemsma R, Al M, Corro Ramos I, et al. SeHCAT [tauroselcholic (selenium-75) acid] for the investigation of bile acid malabsorption and measurement of bile acid pool loss: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Technol. Assess. 2013; 17:1-236.

  • 46. Dior M, Delagreverie H, Duboc H, et al. Interplay between bile acid metabolism and microbiota in irritable bowel syndrome. Neurogastroenterol. Motil. 2016; 28:1330-40.

  • 47. Yu L M, Zhao K J, Wang S S, Wang X and Lu B. Gas chromatography/mass spectrometry based metabolomic study in a murine model of irritable bowel syndrome. World J Gastroenterol. 2018. 24(8):894-904. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v24.i8.894.

  • 48. Nielsen, H. B., Almeida, M., Juncker, A. S., Rasmussen, S., Li, J., Sunagawa, S., . . . MetaHIT Consortium. (2014). Identification and assembly of genomes and genetic elements in complex metagenomic samples without using reference genomes. Nature Biotechnology. hops://doi. org/10. 1038/nbt.2939.

  • 49. Blaxter, M.; Mann, J.; Chapman, T.; Thomas, F.; Whitton, C.; Floyd, R.; Abebe, E. (October 2005). “Defining operational taxonomic units using DNA barcode data”. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 360 (1462): 1935-43.



TABLES









TABLE 1





Genus level (16S) Machine learning LASSO and Random


Forest (RF) statistics of genera predictive of IBS




















LASSO

RF

















lambda
AUC
Sens
Spec
mtry
AUC
Sens
Spec







0.074
0.780
0.824
0.501
1
0.835
0.815
0.704
















10-fold Cross Validation

10-fold Cross Validation















Reference


Reference





Prediction
Control
IBS
Prediction
Control
IBS







Control
30.3
14.2
Control
41.7
14.7



IBS
28.7
65.8
IBS
17.3
65.3



Accuracy
(average)
0.687
Accuracy
(average)
0.770
















Rank #
Ranking
Genus
Rank #
Ranking
Genus





1
100.00

Actinomyces

1
100
Lachnospiraceae_noname


2
12.71

Oscillibacter

2
99.02

Oscillibacter



3
3.41

Paraprevotella

3
67.51

Coprococcus



4
3.11
Lachnospiraceae_noname
4
35.29
Erysipelotrichaceae_noname


5
1.49
Erysipelotrichaceae_noname
5
25.79

Paraprevotella



6
0.53

Coprococcus

6
0

Actinomyces






Analysis had 2 classes: Control and IBS and included 139 samples (IBS: n = 80 and Control: n = 59)


Metrics reported are the average values from 10 repeats of 10-fold Cross Validation.


Taxonomy classified using the RDP classfier, database version 2.10.1.













TABLE 2





Identification of predictive features of IBS by Shotgun species Machine learning LASSO and Random Forest (RF) statistics
















LASSO
RF














lambda
AUC
Sens
Spec
mtry
AUC
Sens
Spec





0.04
0.662
0.675
0.516
1
0.878
0.894
0.687











10-fold Cross Validation
10-fold Cross Validation












Reference


Reference




Prediction
Control
IBS
Prediction
Control
IBS





Control
30.5
26
Control
40.5
8.5


IBS
28.5
54
IBS
18.5
71.5


Accuracy
(average)
0.608
Accuracy
(average)
0.806





Rank #
Ranking
Taxon
Rank #
Ranking
Taxon





1
100
Prevotella_buccalis
1
100
Ruminococcus_gnavus


2
25.43
Butyricicoccus_pullicaecorum
2
89.92
Lachnospiraceae_bacterium_3_1_46FAA


3
9.96
Granulicatella_elegans
3
82.31
Coprococcus_catus


4
2.8
Pseudoflavonifractor_capillosus
4
78.74
Lachnospiraceae_bacterium_7_1_58FAA


5
2.5
Clostridium_ramosum
5
77.9
Barnesiella_intestinihominis


6
2.17
Streptococcus_sanguinis
6
74.39
Anaerotruncus_colihominis


7
1.47
Clostridium_citroniae
7
71.53
Eubacterium_eligens


8
1.13
Desulfovibrio_desulfuricans
8
69.19
Lachnospiraceae_bacterium_1_4_56FAA


9
0.76
Haemophilus_pittmaniae
9
64.93
Clostridium_symbiosum


10
0.72
Paraprevotella_clara
10
59.37
Roseburia_inulinivorans


11
0.48
Lachnospiraceae_bacterium_7_1_58FAA
11
54.02
Paraprevotella_clara


12
0.45
Streptococcus_anginosus
12
53.32
Ruminococcus_lactaris


13
0.35
Anaerotruncus_colihominis
13
51.1
Clostridium_citroniae


14
0.29
Lachnospiraceae_bacterium_1_4_56FAA
14
50.26
Lachnospiraceae_bacterium_2_1_58FAA


15
0.24
Clostridium_symbiosum
15
50.2
Clostridium_leptum


16
0.23
Mitsuokella_multacida
16
49.57
Ruminococcus_bromii


17
0.21
Clostridium_nexile
17
47.96
Bacteroides_thetaiotaomicron


18
0.14
Lachnospiraceae_bacterium_3_1_46FAA
18
47.14
Eubacterium_biforme


19
0.13
Lactobacillus_fermentum
19
46.17
Bifidobacterium_adolescentis


20
0.12
Eubacterium_biforme
20
44.94
Parabacteroides_distasonis


21
0.12
Clostridium_leptum
21
42.72
Coprococcus_sp_ART55_1


22
0.11
Bacteroides_pectinophilus
22
37.99
Dialister_invisus


23
0.087
Coprococcus_catus
23
36.52
Bacteroides_faecis


24
0.047
Alistipes_sp_AP11
24
33.42
Butyrivibrio_crossotus


25
0.04
Eubacterium_eligens
25
33
Clostridium_nexile


26
0.037
Roseburia_inulinivorans
26
31.09
Bacteroides_cellulosilyticus


27
0.036
Bacteroides_faecis
27
27.59
Pseudoflavonifractor_capillosus


28
0.034
Barnesiella_intestinihominis
28
27.43
Streptococcus_anginosus


29
0.025
Lachnospiraceae_bacterium_2_1_58FAA
29
25.94
Streptococcus_sanguinis


30
0.024
Bacteroides_thetaiotaomicron
30
21.48
Desulfovibrio_desulfuricans


31
0.0075
Ruminococcus_bromii
31
21.3
Clostridium_ramosum


32
0.0048
Ruminococcus_gnavus
32
20.91
Alistipes_sp_AP11


33
0.0037
Ruminococcus_lactaris
33
16.77
Lactobacillus_fermentum


34
0.0029
Parabacteroides_distasonis
34
9.17
Mitsuokella_multacida


35
0.0026
Butyrivibrio_crossotus
35
7.55
Haemophilus_pittmaniae


36
0.0022
Bacteroides_cellulosilyticus
36
5.71
Bacteroides_pectinophilus


37
0.00096
Bifidobacterium_adolescentis
37
3.29
Prevotella_buccalis


38
0.00056
Bacteroides_sp_1_1_6
38
1.15
Bacteroides_sp_1_1_6


39
0.00049
Dialister_invisus
39
1.04
Granulicatella_elegans


40
0.00048
Coprococcus_sp_ART55_1
40
0
Butyricicoccus_pullicaecorum





Analysis had 2 classes: Control and IBS and included 139 samples (IBS: n = 80 and Control: n = 59)


LASSO feature selection 288 variables













TABLE 3







Shotgun species differentially abundant between the IBS and Control groups















Wilcoxon




Species
IBS (IQR)
Control (IQR)
Statistic
p-value
q-value


















Ruminococcus

gnavus

0.0136
(0-0.187)
0
(0-0)
1209
<0.001
<0.001



Clostridium

bolteae

0.016
(0-0.0873)
0
(0-0.00248)
1189
<0.001
<0.001



Clostridiales

bacterium_1_7_47FAA

0
(0-0.0122)
0
(0-0)
1401
<0.001
<0.001



Anaerotruncus

colihominis

0
(0-0.0266)
0
(0-0)
1457
<0.001
0.00029



Lachnospiraceae

bacterium_1_4_56FAA

0.000465
(0-0.0453)
0
(0-0)
1433
<0.001
0.00029



Flavonifractor

plautii

0.000835
(0-0.0266)
0
(0-0)
1480.5
<0.001
0.00087



Clostridium

clostridioforme

0
(0-0.0209)
0
(0-0)
1612
0.0001
0.00087



Clostridium

hathewayi

0.00177
(0-0.0316)
0
(0-0)
1468
0.000106
0.00087



Clostridium

symbiosum

0.00164
(0-0.0882)
0
(0-0)
1515
0.000201
0.00147



Ruminococcus

torques

0.557
(0.266-1.33)
0.249
(0.107-0.568)
1428
0.000245
0.00161



Alistipes

senegalensis

0
(0-0.016)
0.0155
(0-0.0885)
3027
0.000365
0.00218



Prevotella

copri

0
(0-0)
0
(0-0.596)
2835
0.000607
0.00309



Eggerthella

lenta

0
(0-0.00447)
0
(0-0)
1645.5
0.000612
0.00309



Lachnospiraceae

bacterium_5_1_57FAA

0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
1885
0.00116
0.00546



Lachnospiraceae

bacterium_3_1_46FAA

0.0729
(0.0207-0.2)
0.0212
(0.00171-0.0787)
1534.5
0.00135
0.0059



Clostridium

asparagiforme

0
(0-0.0113)
0
(0-0)
1651
0.00177
0.00705



Barnesiella

intestinihominis

0.558
(0-1.75)
1.41
(0.587-2.35)
2968.5
0.00182
0.00705



Clostridium

citroniae

0.00289
(0-0.0237)
0
(0-0.00399)
1630
0.00194
0.00709



Eubacterium

eligens

0.669
(0.0405-1.27)
1.18
(0.395-2.12)
2947
0.00258
0.00874



Lachnospiraceae

bacterium_7_1_58FAA

0.0273
(0.0102-0.0683)
0.0121
(0.00511-0.0273)
1579.5
0.00266
0.00874



Coprococcus_sp_ART_551

0
(0-0)
0
(0-4.25)
2817.5
0.00376
0.0118



Lachnospiraceae

bacterium_3_1_57FAA_CT1

0.000675
(0-0.0517)
0
(0-0.000522)
1675
0.004
0.0119



Clostridium

ramosum

0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
1927.5
0.00532
0.0152



Coprococcus

catus

0.238
(0.0985-0.426)
0.338
(0.239-0.512)
2877
0.0068
0.0186



Eubacterium

biforme

0
(0-0.37)
0.222
(0-0.86)
2815
0.00721
0.0189



Ruminococcus

lactaris

0
(0-0.488)
0.41
(0-0.99)
2814.5
0.00986
0.0249



Bacteroides

massiliensis

0
(0-0)
0
(0-1.19)
2729
0.0108
0.0253



Lachnospiraceae

bacterium_2_1_58FAA

0.00245
(0-0.0446)
0
(0-0.0101)
1735
0.0111
0.0253



Haemophilus

parainfluenzae

0
(0-0.0112)
0.00638
(0-0.0493)
2788.5
0.0115
0.0253



Clostridium

nexile

0
(0-0.00897)
0
(0-0)
1846.5
0.0119
0.0253



Clostridium

innocuum

0
(0-0.00333)
0
(0-0)
1869.5
0.012
0.0253



Bacteroides

xylanisolvens

0.00587
(0-0.103)
0.0561
(0.00379-0.163)
2807
0.0144
0.0296



Oxalobacter

formigenes

0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
2575
0.0167
0.0332



Alistipes

putredinis

1.29
(0-3.26)
3.05
(0.483-4.23)
2796.5
0.0177
0.0342



Paraprevotella

clara

0
(0-0.014)
0
(0-0.179)
2714
0.0192
0.036



Odoribacter

splanchnicus

0.357
(0-0.687)
0.573
(0.0488-0.883)
2772
0.0217
0.0395



Eubacterium_sp_3_1_31

0
(0-0)
0
(0-0)
1951
0.0266
0.0472





Shotgun compositional analysis performed on 139 samples (IBS: n = 78 and Control: n = 58)


Median abundance % represented as inter-quartile range (IQR)













TABLE 4







Genes associated with pathways differentially abundant between IBS and the Control groups














Pathway
IBS
Control
Wilcoxon
p-
q-


Pathway_Species
names
(IQR)
(IQR)
Statistic
value
value
















PWY_6700_unclassified
queuosine biosynthesis
0.00641
0.0102
3496
0
0




(0.00467-0.0083)
(0.0082-0.0155)


NONMEVIPP_PWY_unclassified
methylerythritol phosphate
0.0124
0.017
3421
0
0.000142



pathway I
(0.00846-0.015)
(0.0138-0.0199)


PWY_5667_unclassified
CDP-diacylglycerol
0.00867
0.0129
3395
0
0.000142



biosynthesis I
(0.00609-0.0115)
(0.00984-0.0159)


PWY_6737_unclassified
starch degradation V
0.0158
0.0221
3398
0
0.000142




(0.00983-0.02)
(0.0166-0.0268)


PWY0_1319_unclassified
CDP-diacylglycerol
0.00867
0.0129
3395
0
0.000142



biosynthesis II
(0.00609-0.0115)
(0.00984-0.0159)


PWY_2942_unclassified
L-lysine biosynthesis III
0.00753
0.0113
3374
0
0.000159




(0.00574-0.00975)
(0.00881-0.014)


PWY_6387_unclassified
UDP-N-acetylmuramoyl-
0.0155
0.022
3376
0
0.000159



pentapeptide biosynthesis I
(0.0115-0.0191)
(0.0168-0.0277)



(meso-diaminopimelate



containing)


PWY_724_unclassified
superpathway of L-lysine, L-
0.00666
0.00967
3369
0
0.000159



threonine and L-methionine
(0.00519-0.00858)
(0.00778-0.0117)



biosynthesis II


PWY_6386_unclassified
UDP-N-acetylmuramoyl-
0.016
0.0227
3360
0
0.000166



pentapeptide biosynthesis II
(0.0119-0.0197)
(0.0174-0.0286)



(lysine-containing)


PWY_6703_unclassified
preQ0 biosynthesis
0.00304
0.00503
3357
0
0.000166




(0.00198-0.00418)
(0.00351-0.00691)


PWY_5097_unclassified
L-lysine biosynthesis VI
0.00973
0.014
3340
0
0.000219




(0.00701-0.0127)
(0.0107-0.0175)


PWY0_1296_Clostridium_bolteae
purine ribonucleosides
0
0
1467
0
0.00024



degradation
(0-0.0000507)
(0-0)


UNINTEGRATED_unclassified
UNINTEGRATED
8.68
10.6
3328
0
0.00024




(6.59-9.76)
(9.11-11.8)


PWY_7187_unclassified
pyrimidine
0.00302
0.00453
3323
0
0.000249



deoxyribonucleotides de novo
(0.00241-0.00404)
(0.0035-0.00555)



biosynthesis II


PWY_6124_unclassified
inosine-5′-phosphate
0.00091
0.00153
3318
0
0.000258



biosynthesis II
(0.000715-0.0013)
(0.00111-0.00211)


PEPTIDOGLYCANSYN_PWY_unclassified
peptidoglycan biosynthesis I
0.0132
0.0179
3305
0
0.000305



(meso-diaminopimelate
(0.00956-0.0165)
(0.014-0.0252)



containing)


PWY_5686_unclassified
UMP biosynthesis
0.0146
0.0198
3302
0
0.000305




(0.0108-0.0187)
(0.0161-0.0242)


PWY_6151_unclassified
S-adenosyl-L-methionine
0.0121
0.0159
3299
0
0.000305



cycle I
(0.00814-0.0148)
(0.0129-0.0189)


PWY_7219_unclassified
adenosine ribonucleotides de
0.0197
0.0308
3300
0
0.000305



novo biosynthesis
(0.0155-0.0268)
(0.021-0.0373)


UNINTEGRATED_Ruminococcus_gnavus
UNINTEGRATED
0
0
1431.5
0
0.000326




(0-0.21)
(0-0)


ANAGLYCOLYSIS_PWY_unclassified
glycolysis III (from glucose)
0.00221
0.00375
3285.5
0
0.000365




(0.00115-0.00326)
(0.00288-0.00472)


COA_PWY_1_unclassified
coenzyme A biosynthesis I
0.0129
0.0179
3273
0
0.000431




(0.00896-0.016)
(0.0131-0.0211)


PWY_6123_unclassified
inosine-5′-phosphate
0.00117
0.00198
3274
0
0.000431



biosynthesis I
(0.000849-0.00167)
(0.0014-0.00266)


PWY_5686_Lachnospiraceae_bacterium_7_1_58FAA
UMP biosynthesis
0
0
1490
0
0.000471




(0-0.0000914)
(0-0)


ASPASN_PWY_unclassified
superpathway of L-aspartate
0.000953
0.00134
3245
0
0.000492



and L-asparagine biosynthesis
(0.000508-0.0012)
(0.000972-0.00189)


COA_PWY_1_Lachnospiraceae_bacterium_7_1_58FAA
coenzyme A biosynthesis I
0
0
1511
0
0.000492




(0-0.000138)
(0-0)


HISDEG_PWY_unclassified
L-histidine degradation I
0.00142
0.00363
3239
0
0.000492




(0.000609-0.00296)
(0.00176-0.00524)


PWY_6121_unclassified
5-aminoimidazole
0.0133
0.0182
3248
0
0.000492



ribonucleotide biosynthesis I
(0.00989-0.0166)
(0.0137-0.0221)


PWY_6122_unclassified
5-aminoimidazole
0.0137
0.0189
3240
0
0.000492



ribonucleotide biosynthesis II
(0.0103-0.0177)
(0.0139-0.0227)


PWY_6277_unclassified
superpathway of 5-
0.0137
0.0189
3240
0
0.000492



aminoimidazole ribonucleotide
(0.0103-0.0177)
(0.0139-0.0227)



biosynthesis


PWY_6737_Ruminococcus_gnavus
starch degradation V
0
0
1571
0
0.000492




(0-0.0000431)
(0-0)


PWY_7111_Lachnospiraceae_bacterium_7_1_58FAA
pyruvate fermentation to
0.0000524
0
1336
0
0.000492



isobutanol (engineered)
(0-0.000133)
(0-0.000026)


PWY_7219_Lachnospiraceae_bacterium_7_1_58FAA
adenosine ribonucleotides de
0.0000374
0
1372
0
0.000492



novo biosynthesis
(0-0.000151)
(0-0)


PWY_7219_Ruminococcus_gnavus
adenosine ribonucleotides de
0
0
1529.5
0
0.000492



novo biosynthesis
(0-0.0000285)
(0-0)


PWY_7221_unclassified
guanosine ribonucleotides de
0.0135
0.0179
3256
0
0.000492



novo biosynthesis
(0.00938-0.0172)
(0.0143-0.0237)


PWY0_1296_Ruminococcus_gnavus
purine ribonucleosides
0
0
1600
0
0.000492



degradation
(0-0.0000432)
(0-0)


THRESYN_PWY_unclassified
superpathway of L-threonine
0.00446
0.00613
3257
0
0.000492



biosynthesis
(0.00339-0.00534)
(0.00445-0.00756)


TRNA_CHARGING_PWY_unclassified
tRNA charging
0.0138
0.0199
3239
0
0.000492




(0.0111-0.0192)
(0.0143-0.0263)


UNINTEGRATED_Clostridium_bolteae
UNINTEGRATED
0
0
1435
0
0.000492




(0-0.359)
(0-0)


VALSYN_PWY_Lachnospiraceae_bacterium_7_1_58FAA
L-valine biosynthesis
0.0000524
0
1336
0
0.000492




(0-0.000133)
(0-0.000026)


PWY_841_unclassified
superpathway of purine
0.0018
0.00305
3237
0
0.000499



nucleotides de novo
(0.00142-0.00242)
(0.00178-0.00397)



biosynthesis I


PWY_2942_Lachnospiraceae_bacterium_7_1_58FAA
L-lysine biosynthesis III
0
0
1524
0
0.000521




(0-0.0000645)
(0-0)


PWY_5973_unclassified
cis-vaccenate biosynthesis
0.00195
0.00338
3231.5
0
0.000521




(0.000762-0.00314)
(0.00249-0.00421)


PWY_7221_Lachnospiraceae_bacterium_7_1_58FAA
guanosine ribonucleotides de
0
0
1475
0
0.000521



novo biosynthesis
(0-0.0000568)
(0-0)


DENOVOPURINE2_PWY_unclassified
superpathway of purine
0.00181
0.00318
3225
0
0.000576



nucleotides de novo
(0.00153-0.0026)
(0.00192-0.00433)



biosynthesis II


PWY_6545_unclassified
pyrimidine
0.00126
0.00221
3222
0
0.000596



deoxyribonucleotides de novo
(0.000884-0.00184)
(0.00158-0.00312)



biosynthesis III


PWY0_1296_unclassified
purine ribonucleosides
0.0113
0.0152
3220
0
0.000596



degradation
(0.00861-0.0148)
(0.0117-0.0209)


PWY0_166_unclassified
superpathway of pyrimidine
0.00237
0.00396
3221
0
0.000596



deoxyribonucleotides de novo
(0.00171-0.00372)
(0.00313-0.0053)



biosynthesis (E. coli)


PWY_7663_unclassified
gondoate biosynthesis
0.00177
0.00284
3202
0
0.000826



(anaerobic)
(0.000653-0.00263)
(0.00208-0.00353)


PWY_5695_unclassified
urate biosynthesis/inosine 5′-
0.00353
0.00623
3199
0
0.000857



phosphate degradation
(0.00208-0.00572)
(0.00364-0.00997)


NONMEVIPP_PWY_Ruminococcus_torques
methylerythritol phosphate
0.000113
0
1405.5
0
0.00113



pathway I
(0-0.00033)
(0-0.000079)


PWY_3001_unclassified
superpathway of L-isoleucine
0.00515
0.00742
3180
0
0.00118



biosynthesis I
(0.00409-0.0064)
(0.00549-0.0085)


PANTOSYN_PWY_unclassified
pantothenate and coenzyme A
0.0028
0.00417
3169
0
0.00142



biosynthesis I
(0.00173-0.00405)
(0.00311-0.00545)


PWY_6386_Lachnospiraceae_bacterium_7_1_58FAA
UDP-N-acetylmuramoyl-
0
0
1582
0
0.00145



pentapeptide biosynthesis II
(0-0.0000798)
(0-0)



(lysine-containing)


PWY_6387_Lachnospiraceae_bacterium_7_1_58FAA
UDP-N-acetylmuramoyl-
0
0
1582
0
0.00145



pentapeptide biosynthesis I
(0-0.0000712)
(0-0)



(meso-diaminopimelate



containing)


PWY_7219_Clostridium_bolteae
adenosine ribonucleotides de
0
0
1568
0
0.00145



novo biosynthesis
(0-0.0000501)
(0-0)


PWY_6122_Ruminococcus_gnavus
5-aminoimidazole
0
0
1687.5
0
0.00154



ribonucleotide biosynthesis II
(0-0.0000227)
(0-0)


PWY_6277_Ruminococcus_gnavus
superpathway of 5-
0
0
1687.5
0
0.00154



aminoimidazole ribonucleotide
(0-0.0000227)
(0-0)



biosynthesis


PWY_6737_Clostridium_clostridioforme
starch degradation V
0
0
1685.5
0
0.00154




(0-0.000027)
(0-0)


UNINTEGRATED_Lachnospiraceae_bacterium_1_4_56FAA
UNINTEGRATED
0
0
1566.5
0
0.00154




(0-0.0687)
(0-0)


PWY_5188_Lachnospiraceae_bacterium_7_1_58FAA
tetrapyrrole biosynthesis I
0
0
1554
0
0.00155



(from glutamate)
(0-0.0000684)
(0-0)


CALVIN_PWY_unclassified
Calvin-Benson-Bassham cycle
0.00666
0.00836
3152
0
0.00166




(0.00482-0.00804)
(0.00703-0.0101)


PWY_4984_Lachnospiraceae_bacterium_7_1_58FAA
urea cycle
0
0
1510
0
0.00172




(0-0.0000923)
(0-0)


PWY_7184_unclassified
pyrimidine
0.00137
0.00233
3149
0
0.00172



deoxyribonucleotides de novo
(0.000978-0.00222)
(0.00168-0.00388)



biosynthesis I


PWY_7199_unclassified
pyrimidine
0.00137
0.00215
3147
0
0.00174



deoxyribonucleosides salvage
(0.000839-0.0022)
(0.00147-0.00285)


UNINTEGRATED_Lachnospiraceae_bacterium_2_1_58FAA
UNINTEGRATED
0
0
1667
0.00011
0.00185




(0-0.0361)
(0-0)


PANTO_PWY_Ruminococcus_gnavus
phosphopantothenate
0
0
1642.5
0.00012
0.00193



biosynthesis I
(0-0.0000557)
(0-0)


PWY_6737_Clostridium_bolteae
starch degradation V
0
0
1651
0.00012
0.00193




(0-0.0000318)
(0-0)


PWY_6151_Ruminococcus_gnavus
S-adenosyl-L-methionine
0
0
1712
0.00012
0.00198



cycle I
(0-0.0000345)
(0-0)


PWY_6609_Ruminococcus_gnavus
adenine and adenosine salvage
0
0
1718
0.00014
0.00232



III
(0-0.0000122)
(0-0)


PEPTIDOGLYCANSYN_PWY_Lachnospiraceae_bacterium_7_1_58FAA
peptidoglycan biosynthesis I
0
0
1629
0.00015
0.00243



(meso-diaminopimelate
(0-0.0000774)
(0-0)



containing)


PWY_7219_Clostridium_symbiosum
adenosine ribonucleotides de
0
0
1608.5
0.00016
0.00248



novo biosynthesis
(0-0.0000445)
(0-0)


PWY_6122_Clostridium_clostridioforme
5-aminoimidazole
0
0
1769
0.00016
0.00249



ribonucleotide biosynthesis II
(0-0)
(0-0)


PWY_6277_Clostridium_clostridioforme
superpathway of 5-
0
0
1769
0.00016
0.00249



aminoimidazole ribonucleotide
(0-0)
(0-0)



biosynthesis


UNINTEGRATED_Lachnospiraceae_bacterium_3_1_46FAA
UNINTEGRATED
0.062
0
1481
0.00019
0.00284




(0-0.202)
(0-0.0573)


PWY_7219_Lachnospiraceae_bacterium_3_1_46FAA
adenosine ribonucleotides de
0.0000183
0
1515.5
0.0002
0.00304



novo biosynthesis
(0-0.000202)
(0-0)


PWY_6125_unclassified
superpathway of guanosine
0.0022
0.00331
3105
0.00021
0.00309



nucleotides de novo
(0.00171-0.00324)
(0.00255-0.00535)



biosynthesis II


PWY_5667_Lachnospiraceae_bacterium_7_1_58FAA
CDP-diacylglycerol
0
0
1598.5
0.00023
0.00325



biosynthesis I
(0-0.0000801)
(0-0)


PWY0_1319_Lachnospiraceae_bacterium_7_1_58FAA
CDP-diacylglycerol
0
0
1598.5
0.00023
0.00325



biosynthesis II
(0-0.0000801)
(0-0)


CENTFERM_PWY_unclassified
pyruvate fermentation to
0
0.000128
3033
0.00026
0.00361



butanoate
(0-0.000114)
(0-0.000282)


NONMEVIPP_PWY_Lachnospiraceae_bacterium_3_1_46FAA
methylerythritol phosphate
0
0
1587
0.00026
0.00361



pathway I
(0-0.000137)
(0-0)


PWY_6590_unclassified
superpathway of Clostridium
0
0.000161
3034
0.00026
0.00361



acetobutylicum acidogenic
(0-0.000145)
(0-0.000354)



fermentation


PWY_7220_Clostridiales_bacterium_1_7_47FAA
adenosine
0
0
1798
0.00027
0.00361



deoxyribonucleotides de novo
(0-0)
(0-0)



biosynthesis II


PWY_7222_Clostridiales_bacterium_1_7_47FAA
guanosine
0
0
1798
0.00027
0.00361



deoxyribonucleotides de novo
(0-0)
(0-0)



biosynthesis II


PWY_7219_Clostridium_clostridioforme
adenosine ribonucleotides de
0
0
1723
0.00029
0.0038



novo biosynthesis
(0-0.00002)
(0-0)


UNINTEGRATED_Clostridium_clostridioforme
UNINTEGRATED
0
0
1702.5
0.00034
0.00441




(0-0.238)
(0-0)


UNINTEGRATED_Prevotella_copri
UNINTEGRATED
0
0
2854
0.00034
0.00441




(0-0)
(0-0.318)


PWY_7221_Ruminococcus_gnavus
guanosine ribonucleotides de
0
0
1771
0.00034
0.00442



novo biosynthesis
(0-0)
(0-0)


PWY_6386_Ruminococcus_gnavus
UDP-N-acetylmuramoyl-
0
0
1772
0.00035
0.00447



pentapeptide biosynthesis II
(0-0)
(0-0)



(lysine-containing)


PWY_6387_Ruminococcus_gnavus
UDP-N-acetylmuramoyl-
0
0
1773
0.00036
0.00447



pentapeptide biosynthesis I
(0-0)
(0-0)



(meso-diaminopimelate



containing)


PWY_6737_Lachnospiraceae_bacterium_3_1_46FAA
starch degradation V
0
0
1569.5
0.00036
0.00447




(0-0.000114)
(0-0)


PWY0_1296_Clostridium_clostridioforme
purine ribonucleosides
0
0
1773
0.00036
0.00447



degradation
(0-0)
(0-0)


PWY_7219_Prevotella_copri
adenosine ribonucleotides de
0
0
2850
0.00037
0.00448



novo biosynthesis
(0-0)
(0-0.00058)


PWY_5667_Ruminococcus_gnavus
CDP-diacylglycerol
0
0
1744
0.00038
0.00453



biosynthesis I
(0-0.0000191)
(0-0)


PWY_7111_Clostridium_bolteae
pyruvate fermentation to
0
0
1660.5
0.00038
0.00453



isobutanol (engineered)
(0-0.0000345)
(0-0)


PWY0_1319_Ruminococcus_gnavus
CDP-diacylglycerol
0
0
1744
0.00038
0.00453



biosynthesis II
(0-0.0000191)
(0-0)


NONOXIPENT_PWY_Clostridium_bolteae
pentose phosphate pathway
0
0
1717
0.00039
0.00456



(non-oxidative branch)
(0-0.0000225)
(0-0)


PWY_7229_unclassified
superpathway of adenosine
0.00617
0.00829
3063
0.00043
0.00492



nucleotides de novo
(0.00471-0.00799)
(0.00609-0.0109)



biosynthesis I


UNINTEGRATED_Lachnospiraceae_bacterium_7_1_58FAA
UNINTEGRATED
0.157
0
1502
0.00043
0.00492




(0-0.239)
(0-0.155)


PWY_6737_Lachnospiraceae_bacterium_2_1_58FAA
starch degradation V
0
0
1827
0.00044
0.00498




(0-0)
(0-0)


PWY_6122_Clostridium_bolteae
5-aminoimidazole
0
0
1751
0.00046
0.00511



ribonucleotide biosynthesis II
(0-0.0000142)
(0-0)


PWY_6277_Clostridium_bolteae
superpathway of 5-
0
0
1751
0.00046
0.00511



aminoimidazole ribonucleotide
(0-0.0000142)
(0-0)



biosynthesis


PANTO_PWY_unclassified
phosphopantothenate
0.00787
0.00981
3058
0.00047
0.00512



biosynthesis I
(0.00518-0.0101)
(0.00729-0.0139)


THISYNARA_PWY_unclassified
superpathway of thiamin
0.000524
0.000835
3053
0.0005
0.00551



diphosphate biosynthesis III
(0.000233-0.000888)
(0.000431-0.00134)



(eukaryotes)


PWY0_1296_Lachnospiraceae_bacterium_3_1_46FAA
purine ribonucleosides
0
0
1601.5
0.00057
0.00615



degradation
(0-0.000154)
(0-0)


PWY_6121_Ruminococcus_gnavus
5-aminoimidazole
0
0
1802.5
0.00061
0.00642



ribonucleotide biosynthesis I
(0-0)
(0-0)


PWY_7221_Clostridium_clostridioforme
guanosine ribonucleotides de
0
0
1802.5
0.00061
0.00642



novo biosynthesis
(0-0)
(0-0)


PWY_2942_Ruminococcus_gnavus
L-lysine biosynthesis III
0
0
1772
0.00061
0.00645




(0-0)
(0-0)


PWY_6897_Escherichia_coli
thiamin salvage II
0
0
1598.5
0.00063
0.00655




(0-0.000205)
(0-0)


UNINTEGRATED_Clostridiales_bacterium_1_7_47FAA
UNINTEGRATED
0
0
1773
0.00063
0.00655




(0-0)
(0-0)


NONMEVIPP_PWY_Lachnospiraceae_bacterium_7_1_58FAA
methylerythritol phosphate
0
0
1682
0.0007
0.00689



pathway I
(0-0.0000615)
(0-0)


PEPTIDOGLYCANSYN_PWY_Lachnospiraceae_bacterium_3_1_46FAA
peptidoglycan biosynthesis I
0
0
1635
0.00069
0.00689



(meso-diaminopimelate
(0-0.000136)
(0-0)



containing)


PWY_6121_Clostridium_bolteae
5-aminoimidazole
0
0
1806.5
0.00068
0.00689



ribonucleotide biosynthesis I
(0-0)
(0-0)


PWY_6163_Lachnospiraceae_bacterium_3_1_46FAA
chorismate biosynthesis from
0
0
1636
0.0007
0.00689



3-dehydroquinate
(0-0.000137)
(0-0)


PWY_6700_Prevotella_copri
queuosine biosynthesis
0
0
2815
0.00069
0.00689




(0-0)
(0-0.000255)


PWY_7221_Prevotella_copri
guanosine ribonucleotides de
0
0
2814
0.0007
0.00689



novo biosynthesis
(0-0)
(0-0.000402)


PWY_5097_Prevotella_copri
L-lysine biosynthesis VI
0
0
2813
0.00072
0.00692




(0-0)
(0-0.000589)


PWY_6121_Clostridium_clostridioforme
5-aminoimidazole
0
0
1856
0.00072
0.00692



ribonucleotide biosynthesis I
(0-0)
(0-0)


ARO_PWY_unclassified
chorismate biosynthesis I
0.0121
0.0144
3030
0.00073
0.00696




(0.00844-0.0155)
(0.0125-0.018)


PWY_2942_Prevotella_copri
L-lysine biosynthesis III
0
0
2812
0.00074
0.00696




(0-0)
(0-0.000514)


ANAEROFRUCAT_PWY_unclassified
homolactic fermentation
0.000931
0.00178
3026
0.00077
0.00703




(0.000346-0.00226)
(0.00105-0.00325)


PWY_6122_Ruminococcus_torques
5-aminoimidazole
0.0000587
0
1531.5
0.00078
0.00703



ribonucleotide biosynthesis II
(0-0.000253)
(0-0.0000671)


PWY_6277_Ruminococcus_torques
superpathway of 5-
0.0000587
0
1531.5
0.00078
0.00703



aminoimidazole ribonucleotide
(0-0.000253)
(0-0.0000671)



biosynthesis


PWY_7111_Clostridium_symbiosum
pyruvate fermentation to
0
0
1715
0.00079
0.00703



isobutanol (engineered)
(0-0.0000329)
(0-0)


PWY_7111_Lachnospiraceae_bacterium_1_4_56FAA
pyruvate fermentation to
0
0
1754.5
0.00079
0.00703



isobutanol (engineered)
(0-0.0000173)
(0-0)


VALSYN_PWY_Clostridium_symbiosum
L-valine biosynthesis
0
0
1715
0.00079
0.00703




(0-0.0000329)
(0-0)


VALSYN_PWY_Lachnospiraceae_bacterium_1_4_56FAA
L-valine biosynthesis
0
0
1754.5
0.00079
0.00703




(0-0.0000173)
(0-0)


PANTO_PWY_Lachnospiraceae_bacterium_2_1_58FAA
phosphopantothenate
0
0
1783
0.00081
0.00721



biosynthesis I
(0-0)
(0-0)


PANTO_PWY_Lachnospiraceae_bacterium_3_1_46FAA
phosphopantothenate
0
0
1603
0.00086
0.00757



biosynthesis I
(0-0.000224)
(0-0)


PWY_1042_Alistipes_senegalensis
glycolysis IV (plant cytosol)
0
0
2807.5
0.00095
0.00776




(0-0)
(0-0.0000773)


PWY_1042_unclassified
glycolysis IV (plant cytosol)
0.00674
0.00932
3015
0.00093
0.00776




(0.00521-0.0103)
(0.00716-0.0114)


PWY_5686_Ruminococcus_gnavus
UMP biosynthesis
0
0
1829
0.00093
0.00776




(0-0)
(0-0)


PWY_6386_Lachnospiraceae_bacterium_3_1_46FAA
UDP-N-acetylmuramoyl-
0
0
1641
0.00093
0.00776



pentapeptide biosynthesis II
(0-0.000134)
(0-0)



(lysine-containing)


PWY_6387_Lachnospiraceae_bacterium_3_1_46FAA
UDP-N-acetylmuramoyl-
0
0
1642
0.00095
0.00776



pentapeptide biosynthesis I
(0-0.000125)
(0-0)



(meso-diaminopimelate



containing)


PWY_6608_unclassified
guanosine nucleotides
0.00112
0.0016
3015
0.00093
0.00776



degradation III
(0.000637-0.00162)
(0.00113-0.00218)


PWY_6897_unclassified
thiamin salvage II
0.000728
0.00191
3015
0.00091
0.00776




(0.000211-0.00193)
(0.000663-0.00348)


PWY_7219_Lachnospiraceae_bacterium_2_1_58FAA
adenosine ribonucleotides de
0
0
1830
0.00095
0.00776



novo biosynthesis
(0-0)
(0-0)


PWY0_1296_Clostridiales_bacterium_1_7_47FAA
purine ribonucleosides
0
0
1830
0.00095
0.00776



degradation
(0-0)
(0-0)


PYRIDNUCSYN_PWY_Alistipes_senegalensis
NAD biosynthesis I (from
0
0
2822
0.00093
0.00776



aspartate)
(0-0)
(0-0.0000477)


PEPTIDOGLYCANSYN_PWY_Ruminococcus_gnavus
peptidoglycan biosynthesis I
0
0
1831
0.00098
0.00788



(meso-diaminopimelate
(0-0)
(0-0)



containing)


PWY_5097_Ruminococcus_gnavus
L-lysine biosynthesis VI
0
0
1800
0.00098
0.00788




(0-0)
(0-0)


HISDEG_PWY_Clostridium_symbiosum
L-histidine degradation I
0
0
1727
0.00102
0.00819




(0-0.0000378)
(0-0)


PWY_6737_Clostridium_nexile
starch degradation V
0
0
1833
0.00103
0.00819




(0-0)
(0-0)


PWY_7111_Lachnospiraceae_bacterium_3_1_46FAA
pyruvate fermentation to
0
0
1630
0.00106
0.00821



isobutanol (engineered)
(0-0.000163)
(0-0)


UNINTEGRATED_Anaerotruncuscoli_hominis
UNINTEGRATED
0
0
1735
0.00104
0.00821




(0-0.0845)
(0-0)


VALSYN_PWY_Lachnospiraceae_bacterium_3_1_46FAA
L-valine biosynthesis
0
0
1630
0.00106
0.00821




(0-0.000163)
(0-0)


COMPLETE_ARO_PWY_unclassified
superpathway of aromatic
0.0113
0.014
3006
0.00107
0.00826



amino acid biosynthesis
(0.00793-0.0146)
(0.0121-0.0171)


PWY_6126_unclassified
superpathway of adenosine
0.00376
0.0063
3005
0.00109
0.00833



nucleotides de novo
(0.00249-0.00626)
(0.00407-0.00855)



biosynthesis II


PWY_7221_Clostridium_symbiosum
guanosine ribonucleotides de
0
0
1805
0.00111
0.00847



novo biosynthesis
(0-0)
(0-0)


SULFATE_CYS_PWY_unclassified
superpathway of sulfate
0
0.000348
2955
0.00112
0.00851



assimilation and cysteine
(0-0.000316)
(0-0.000681)



biosynthesis


COA_PWY_1_Ruminococcus_gnavus
coenzyme A biosynthesis I
0
0
1885
0.00116
0.00869




(0-0)
(0-0)


PWY_7221_Lachnospiraceae_bacterium_2_1_58FAA
guanosine ribonucleotides de
0
0
1885
0.00116
0.00869



novo biosynthesis
(0-0)
(0-0)


UNINTEGRATED_Flavonifractor_plautii
UNINTEGRATED
0
0
1708
0.0012
0.00892




(0-0.0595)
(0-0)


GLUCONEO_PWY_unclassified
gluconeogenesis I
0
0
2878
0.00121
0.00894




(0-0)
(0-0.000509)


PEPTIDOGLYCANSYN_PWY_Dorea_formicigenerans
peptidoglycan biosynthesis I
0.000118
0.0000523
1538.5
0.00127
0.00919



(meso-diaminopimelate
(0.0000391-0.000188)
(0-0.0000868)



containing)


PWY_5345_unclassified
superpathway of L-methionine
0
0.000278
2907
0.00125
0.00919



biosynthesis (by
(0-0.000269)
(0-0.000587)



sulfhydrylation)


PWY_6151_Prevotella_copri
S-adenosyl-L-methionine
0
0
2780
0.00127
0.00919



cycle I
(0-0)
(0-0.000419)


COA_PWY_unclassified
coenzyme A biosynthesis I
0.00195
0.00274
2993
0.00131
0.00939




(0.00102-0.00281)
(0.00193-0.00357)


PWY_5676_unclassified
acetyl-CoA fermentation to
0
0.000349
2955
0.00132
0.00942



butanoate II
(0-0.000384)
(0-0.000738)


PWY_6163_unclassified
chorismate biosynthesis from
0.0125
0.0148
2992
0.00133
0.00942



3-dehydroquinate
(0.00817-0.0161)
(0.0126-0.0183)


PWY_6121_Ruminococcus_torques
5-aminoimidazole
0.0000675
0
1569.5
0.00137
0.00968



ribonucleotide biosynthesis I
(0-0.000275)
(0-0.0000799)


PWY_1042_Lachnospiraceae_bacterium_3_1_46FAA
glycolysis IV (plant cytosol)
0
0
1692
0.00139
0.00972




(0-0.000148)
(0-0)


PWY_1269_Alistipes_senegalensis
CMP-3-deoxy-D-manno-
0
0
2813.5
0.00143
0.00996



octulosonate biosynthesis I
(0-0)
(0-0.0000637)


ARO_PWY_Lachnospiraceae_bacterium_3_1_46FAA
chorismate biosynthesis I
0
0
1694
0.00144
0.00998




(0-0.000143)
(0-0)


PWY_6386_Dorea_formicigenerans
UDP-N-acetylmuramoyl-
0.000127
0.0000649
1544.5
0.00147
0.0101



pentapeptide biosynthesis II
(0.0000421-0.0002)
(0-0.0001)



(lysine-containing)


PWY6163_Clostridium_symbiosum
chorismate biosynthesis from
0
0
1858.5
0.00153
0.0105



3-dehydroquinate
(0-0)
(0-0)


COA_PWY_1_Lachnospiraceae_bacterium_3_1_46FAA
coenzyme A biosynthesis I
0
0
1729
0.00163
0.011




(0-0.000126)
(0-0)


PWY_4242_unclassified
pantothenate and coenzyme A
0.00153
0.00235
2979
0.00162
0.011



biosynthesis III
(0.000733-0.00238)
(0.00155-0.003)


PWY_5690_unclassified
TCA cycle II (plants and
0.000228
0.000308
2976
0.00166
0.011



fungi)
(0.0000986-0.000334)
(0.000183-0.000568)


PWY_7219_Lachnospiraceae_bacterium_1_4_56FAA
adenosine ribonucleotides de
0
0
1861.5
0.00166
0.011



novo biosynthesis
(0-0)
(0-0)


PWY0_1296_Eubacterium_eligens
purine ribonucleosides
0.000272
0.00049
2976.5
0.00163
0.011



degradation
(0-0.000601)
(0.000165-0.00121)


DTDPRHAMSYN_PWY_Coprococcus_catus
dTDP-L-rhamnose
0
0.0000813
2941
0.0017
0.0112



biosynthesis I
(0-0.0000999)
(0-0.000126)


PWY_7219_Alistipes_senegalensis
adenosine ribonucleotides de
0
0
2841
0.00172
0.0113



novo biosynthesis
(0-0)
(0-0.0000724)


PWY_6122_Flavonifractor_plautii
5-aminoimidazole
0
0
1745.5
0.00175
0.0114



ribonucleotide biosynthesis II
(0-0.0000315)
(0-0)



superpathway of 5-


PWY_6277_Flavonifractor_plautii
aminoimidazole ribonucleotide
0
0
1745.5
0.00175
0.0114



biosynthesis
(0-0.0000315)
(0-0)


PWY_6703_Barnesiella_intestinihominis
preQ0 biosynthesis
0.0000794
0.000364
2960
0.00177
0.0114



thiamin formation from
(0-0.000487)
(0.000113-0.000656)


PWY_7357_Escherichia_coli
pyrithiamine and oxythiamine
0.0000172
0
1634.5
0.0018
0.0115



(yeast)
(0-0.000274)
(0-0.00002)



pyrimidine


PWY_7197_unclassified
deoxyribonucleotide
0.00157
0.0021
2971
0.00182
0.0116



phosphorylation
(0.00108-0.00214)
(0.00148-0.00331)


PWY_7221_Lachnospiraceae_bacterium_3_1_46FAA
guanosine ribonucleotides de
0
0
1678
0.00185
0.0117



novo biosynthesis
(0-0.000128)
(0-0)


NONOXIPENT_PWY_Ruminococcus_gnavus
pentose phosphate pathway
0
0
1836
0.00189
0.0118



(non-oxidative branch)
(0-0)
(0-0)


PWY_6122_Lachnospiraceae_bacterium_3_1_57FAA_CT1
5-aminoimidazole
0
0
1756
0.0019
0.0118



ribonucleotide biosynthesis II
(0-0.0000249)
(0-0)



superpathway of 5-


PWY_6277_Lachnospiraceae_bacterium_3_1_57FAA_CT1
aminoimidazole ribonucleotide
0
0
1756
0.0019
0.0118



biosynthesis
(0-0.0000249)
(0-0)


PWY_6527_unclassified
stachyose degradation
0.00523
0.00717
2969
0.00188
0.0118




(0.00393-0.0076)
(0.00534-0.0099)


COBALSYN_PWY_unclassified
adenosylcobalamin salvage
0.0009
0.00144
2967
0.00193
0.0119



from cobinamide I
(0.000478-0.00157)
(0.000936-0.00204)


PWY_7111_Clostridiales_bacterium_1_7_47FAA
pyruvate fermentation to
0
0
1838
0.00199
0.0121



isobutanol (engineered)
(0-0)
(0-0)


UNINTEGRATED_Clostridium_symbiosum
UNINTEGRATED
0
0
1705
0.00197
0.0121




(0-0.174)
(0-0)


PWY_5667_Ruminococcus_torques
CDP-diacylglycerol
0.000305
0.000163
1562
0.00207
0.0125



biosynthesis I
(0.00014-0.000741)
(0.0000809-0.000322)


PWY0_1319_Ruminococcus_torques
CDP-diacylglycerol
0.000305
0.000163
1562
0.00207
0.0125



biosynthesis II
(0.00014-0.000741)
(0.0000809-0.000322)


PWY_6121_Lachnospiraceae_bacterium_3_1_46FAA
5-aminoimidazole
0
0
1709.5
0.00214
0.0128



ribonucleotide biosynthesis I
(0-0.000138)
(0-0)


COMPLETE_ARO_PWY_Lachnospiraceae_bacterium_3_1_46FAA
superpathway of aromatic
0
0
1721
0.00218
0.0129



amino acid biosynthesis
(0-0.000136)
(0-0)


PWY_7228_unclassified
superpathway of guanosine
0.00256
0.00372
2959
0.00218
0.0129



nucleotides de novo
(0.00191-0.00381)
(0.00261-0.00549)



biosynthesis I


PWY_7383_unclassified
anaerobic energy metabolism
0.00124
0.00178
2959
0.00218
0.0129



(invertebrates, cytosol)
(0.000886-0.00209)
(0.00137-0.0024)


BRANCHED_CHAIN_AA_SYN_PWY_unclassified
superpathway of branched
0.0073
0.0096
2957
0.00224
0.0131



amino acid biosynthesis
(0.00558-0.0099)
(0.00716-0.0114)


PWY_7111_Clostridium_hathewayi
pyruvate fermentation to
0
0
1808
0.00224
0.0131



isobutanol (engineered)
(0-0.000012)
(0-0)


SO4ASSIM_PWY_unclassified
sulfate reduction I
0
0.000167
2911
0.00228
0.0133



(assimilatory)
(0-0.000189)
(0-0.000471)


PWY_5667_Lachnospiraceae_bacterium_3_1_46FAA
CDP-diacylglycerol
0
0
1691
0.00234
0.0134



biosynthesis I
(0-0.000123)
(0-0)


PWY_6121_Flavonifractor_plautii
5-aminoimidazole
0
0
1787
0.00235
0.0134



ribonucleotide biosynthesis I
(0-0.0000305)
(0-0)


PWY0_1319_Lachnospiraceae_bacterium_3_1_46FAA
CDP-diacylglycerol
0
0
1691
0.00234
0.0134



biosynthesis II
(0-0.000123)
(0-0)


UNINTEGRATED_Clostridium_asparagiforme
UNINTEGRATED
0
0
1772.5
0.00232
0.0134




(0-0.0534)
(0-0)


PWY_6387_Dorea_formicigenerans
UDP-N-acetylmuramoyl-
0.000117
0.0000518
1577.5
0.00242
0.0137



pentapeptide biosynthesis I
(0.0000381-0.000188)
(0-0.000099)



(meso-diaminopimelate



containing)


HISTSYN_PWY_Bifidobacterium_longum
L-histidine biosynthesis
0
0
1666.5
0.00245
0.0139




(0-0.000348)
(0-0)


PWY_5686_Prevotella_copri
UMP biosynthesis
0
0
2741
0.00251
0.014




(0-0)
(0-0.000261)


PWY_6163_Clostridium_bolteae
chorismate biosynthesis from
0
0
1888
0.00251
0.014



3-dehydroquinate
(0-0)
(0-0)


PWY_7219_Clostridiales_bacterium_1_7_47FAA
adenosine ribonucleotides de
0
0
1888
0.00251
0.014



novo biosynthesis
(0-0)
(0-0)


PWY0_1296_Lachnospiraceae_bacterium_2_1_58FAA
purine ribonucleosides
0
0
1889
0.00258
0.0143



degradation
(0-0)
(0-0)


ANAGLYCOLYSIS_PWY_Alistipessenega_lensis
glycolysis III (from glucose)
0
0
2699
0.00274
0.0144




(0-0)
(0-0.0000535)


P162_PWY_unclassified
L-glutamate degradation V
0
0.000101
2878
0.00276
0.0144



(via hydroxyglutarate)
(0-0.000097)
(0-0.000248)


PWY_5667_Clostridium_symbiosum
CDP-diacylglycerol
0
0
1892
0.00279
0.0144



biosynthesis I
(0-0)
(0-0)


PWY_6122_Lachnospiraceae_bacterium_3_1_46FAA
5-aminoimidazole
0
0
1685
0.00279
0.0144



ribonucleotide biosynthesis II
(0-0.000152)
(0-0)


PWY_6151_Coprococcus_sp_ART55_1
S-adenosyl-L-methionine
0
0
2831
0.0028
0.0144



cycle I
(0-0)
(0-0.00132)


PWY_6163_Clostridium_clostridioforme
chorismate biosynthesis from
0
0
1892
0.00279
0.0144



3-dehydroquinate
(0-0)
(0-0)


PWY_6277_Lachnospiraceae_bacterium_3_1_46FAA
superpathway of 5-
0
0
1685
0.00279
0.0144



aminoimidazole ribonucleotide
(0-0.000152)
(0-0)



biosynthesis


PWY_6703_Ruminococcus_lactaris
preQ0 biosynthesis
0
0.000313
2896
0.0027
0.0144




(0-0.000472)
(0-0.00112)


PWY_7111_Eubacterium_eligens
pyruvate fermentation to
0.000291
0.0006
2944
0.00266
0.0144



isobutanol (engineered)
(0.0000056-0.000699)
(0.000222-0.00138)


PWY_7220_unclassified
adenosine
0.00178
0.00306
2943
0.00275
0.0144



deoxyribonucleotides de novo
(0.00117-0.00316)
(0.00187-0.00451)



biosynthesis II


PWY_7222_unclassified
guanosine
0.00178
0.00306
2943
0.00275
0.0144



deoxyribonucleotides de novo
(0.00117-0.00316)
(0.00187-0.00451)



biosynthesis II


PWY0_1297_Ruminococcus_gnavus
superpathway of purine
0
0
1890
0.00265
0.0144



deoxyribonucleosides
(0-0)
(0-0)



degradation


PWY0_1319_Clostridium_symbiosum
CDP-diacylglycerol
0
0
1892
0.00279
0.0144



biosynthesis II
(0-0)
(0-0)


UNINTEGRATED_Clostridium_hathewayi
UNINTEGRATED
0
0
1755
0.00272
0.0144




(0-0.135)
(0-0)


VALSYN_PWY_Eubacterium_eligens
L-valine biosynthesis
0.000291
0.0006
2944
0.00266
0.0144




(0.0000056-0.000699)
(0.000222-0.00138)


PWY_6163_Ruminococcus_gnavus
chorismate biosynthesis from
0
0
1894
0.00294
0.0151



3-dehydroquinate
(0-0)
(0-0)


PWY_7237_Clostridium_symbiosum
myo-, chiro- and scillo-inositol
0
0
1805
0.00294
0.0151



degradation
(0-0.0000168)
(0-0)


PWY_7221_Eubacterium_eligens
guanosine ribonucleotides de
0.000313
0.00064
2934
0.003
0.0153



novo biosynthesis
(0-0.000718)
(0.000165-0.00139)


PWY_7111_Ruminococcus_gnavus
pyruvate fermentation to
0
0
1807
0.00307
0.0155



isobutanol (engineered)
(0-0.000012)
(0-0)


PWY_7219_Eubacterium_eligens
adenosine ribonucleotides de
0.000359
0.000821
2933.5
0.00307
0.0155



novo biosynthesis
(0-0.000874)
(0.000196-0.00177)


UNINTEGRATED_Alistipes_senegalensis
UNINTEGRATED
0
0
2823
0.00321
0.0161




(0-0)
(0-0.0557)


PWY_7456_Coprococcus_sp_ART55_1
mannan degradation
0
0
2822
0.00327
0.0163




(0-0)
(0-0.0017)


PWY_5667_Clostridium_bolteae
CDP-diacylglycerol
0
0
1842
0.00333
0.0165



biosynthesis I
(0-0)
(0-0)


PWY_6609_Alistipes_senegalensis
adenine and adenosine salvage
0
0
2720
0.00335
0.0165



III
(0-0)
(0-0.0000493)


PWY01319_Clostridium_bolteae
CDP-diacylglycerol
0
0
1842
0.00333
0.0165



biosynthesis II
(0-0)
(0-0)


DTDPRHAMSYN_PWY_Eggerthella_lenta
dTDP-L-rhamnose
0
0
1901
0.00354
0.0168



biosynthesis I
(0-0)
(0-0)


GALACTUROCAT_PWY_unclassified
D-galacturonate degradation I
0.000718
0.000953
2926
0.00351
0.0168




(0.000477-0.000989)
(0.000665-0.00121)


PANTO_PWY_Coprococcus_sp_ART55_1
phosphopantothenate
0
0
2818
0.00349
0.0168



biosynthesis I
(0-0)
(0-0.00103)


PWY_5659_Coprococcus_sp_ART55_1
GDP-mannose biosynthesis
0
0
2820.5
0.00357
0.0168




(0-0)
(0-0.00163)


PWY_6151_Barnesiella_intestinihominis
S-adenosyl-L-methionine
0.000125
0.000331
2915
0.00349
0.0168



cycle I
(0-0.000411)
(0.000128-0.0006)


PWY_6151_Eubacterium_eligens
S-adenosyl-L-methionine
0.000375
0.000622
2921
0.00356
0.0168



cycle I
(0-0.000799)
(0.000203-0.00149)


PWY_6305_unclassified
putrescine biosynthesis IV
0.00134
0.00181
2927
0.00346
0.0168




(0.000913-0.00206)
(0.00136-0.00253)


PWY_7219_Coprococcus_sp_ART55_1
adenosine ribonucleotides de
0
0
2821.5
0.00352
0.0168



novo biosynthesis
(0-0)
(0-0.00158)


PWY_7219_Flavonifractor_plautii
adenosine ribonucleotides de
0
0
1791.5
0.00342
0.0168



novo biosynthesis
(0-0.0000552)
(0-0)


PWY_7221_Ruminococcus_torques
guanosine ribonucleotides de
0.0000312
0
1648
0.00344
0.0168



novo biosynthesis
(0-0.000251)
(0-0.0000344)


TRPSYN_PWY_Coprococcus_sp_ART55_1
L-tryptophan biosynthesis
0
0
2822.5
0.00346
0.0168




(0-0)
(0-0.00129)


HSERMETANA_PWY_unclassified
L-methionine biosynthesis III
0.000828
0.00133
2923
0.00366
0.017




(0.000622-0.00151)
(0.000792-0.00222)


NONMEVIPP_PWY_Lachnospiraceae_bacterium_1_1_57FAA
methylerythritol phosphate
0
0
1837.5
0.00361
0.017



pathway I
(0-0)
(0-0)


PWY_5484_unclassified
glycolysis II (from fructose 6-
0.000523
0.00113
2923
0.00363
0.017



phosphate)
(0.000135-0.00178)
(0.000569-0.00222)


PWY_621_Coprococcus_sp_ART55_1
sucrose degradation III
0
0
2818.5
0.0037
0.0171



(sucrose invertase)
(0-0)
(0-0.00264)


UNINTEGRATED_Coprococcus_sp_ART55_1
UNINTEGRATED
0
0
2816.5
0.00382
0.0176




(0-0)
(0-0.923)


PWY_2942_Coprococcus_sp_ART55_1
L-lysine biosynthesis III
0
0
2814.5
0.00395
0.0182




(0-0)
(0-0.00118)


GLYCOGENSYNTH_PWY_Coprococcus_sp_ART55_1
glycogen biosynthesis I (from
0
0
2813.5
0.00402
0.0183



ADP-D-Glucose)
(0-0)
(0-0.00155)


THRESYN_PWY_Coprococcus_sp_ART55_1
superpathway of L-threonine
0
0
2813.5
0.00402
0.0183



biosynthesis
(0-0)
(0-0.00116)


COA_PWY_1_Clostridiales_bacterium_1_7_47FAA
coenzyme A biosynthesis I
0
0
1917.5
0.0041
0.0184




(0-0)
(0-0)


COA_PWY_Clostridiales_bacterium_1_7_47FAA
coenzyme A biosynthesis I
0
0
1918.5
0.00421
0.0184




(0-0)
(0-0)


GALACT_GLUCUROCAT_PWY_unclassified
superpathway of hexuronide
0.000628
0.000997
2912.5
0.00423
0.0184



and hexuronate degradation
(0.000439-0.00109)
(0.000653-0.00132)


PWY_3001_Coprococcus_sp_ART55_1
superpathway of L-isoleucine
0
0
2811.5
0.00415
0.0184



biosynthesis I
(0-0)
(0-0.00107)


PWY_5667_Clostridium_clostridioforme
CDP-diacylglycerol
0
0
1918.5
0.00421
0.0184



biosynthesis I
(0-0)
(0-0)


PWY_6123_Coprococcus_sp_ART55_1
inosine-5′-phosphate
0
0
2811.5
0.00415
0.0184



biosynthesis I
(0-0)
(0-0.0012)


PWY_7111_Coprococcus_sp_ART55_1
pyruvate fermentation to
0
0
2810.5
0.00422
0.0184



isobutanol (engineered)
(0-0)
(0-0.00099)


PWY_7111_Lachnospiraceae_bacterium_1_1_57FAA
pyruvate fermentation to
0
0
1789
0.00417
0.0184



isobutanol (engineered)
(0-0.0000348)
(0-0)


PWY_7208_Coprococcus_sp_ART55_1
superpathway of pyrimidine
0
0
2811.5
0.00415
0.0184



nucleobases salvage
(0-0)
(0-0.00111)


PWY01319_Clostridium_clostridioforme
CDP-diacylglycerol
0
0
1918.5
0.00421
0.0184



biosynthesis II
(0-0)
(0-0)


UDPNAGSYN_PWY_Coprococcus_sp_ART55_1
UDP-N-acetyl-D-glucosamine
0
0
2810.5
0.00422
0.0184



biosynthesis I
(0-0)
(0-0.00137)


VALSYN_PWY_Lachnospiraceae_bacterium_1_1_57FAA
L-valine biosynthesis
0
0
1789
0.00417
0.0184




(0-0.0000348)
(0-0)


PWY_5097_Coprococcus_sp_ART55_1
L-lysine biosynthesis VI
0
0
2809.5
0.00429
0.0185




(0-0)
(0-0.0012)


PWY_6700_Coprococcus_sp_ART55_1
queuosine biosynthesis
0
0
2809.5
0.00429
0.0185




(0-0)
(0-0.00117)


PWY_6527_Coprococcus_sp_ART55_1
stachyose degradation
0
0
2808.5
0.00436
0.0186




(0-0)
(0-0.00172)


PWY_6737_Clostridium_hathewayi
starch degradation V
0
0
1880
0.00437
0.0186




(0-0)
(0-0)


PWY0_1296_Clostridium_asparagiforme
purine ribonucleosides
0
0
1919.5
0.00432
0.0186



degradation
(0-0)
(0-0)


PWY_5104_Coprococcus_sp_ART55_1
L-isoleucine biosynthesis IV
0
0
2807.5
0.00443
0.0187




(0-0)
(0-0.0012)


PWY_6122_Lachnospiraceae_bacterium_2_1_58FAA
5-aminoimidazole
0
0
1920.5
0.00444
0.0187



ribonucleotide biosynthesis II
(0-0)
(0-0)


PWY_6277_Lachnospiraceae_bacterium_2_1_58FAA
superpathway of 5-
0
0
1920.5
0.00444
0.0187



aminoimidazole ribonucleotide
(0-0)
(0-0)



biosynthesis


BRANCHED_CHAIN_AA_SYN_PWY_Coprococcus_sp_ART55_1
superpathway of branched
0
0
2806.5
0.00451
0.0189



amino acid biosynthesis
(0-0)
(0-0.00108)


PWY_5103_Coprococcus_sp_ART55_1
L-isoleucine biosynthesis III
0
0
2806.5
0.00451
0.0189




(0-0)
(0-0.000978)


ILEUSYN_PWY_Coprococcus_sp_ART55_1
L-isoleucine biosynthesis I
0
0
2804.5
0.00466
0.0193



(from threonine)
(0-0)
(0-0.00114)


PYRIDNUCSYN_PWY_Coprococcus_sp_ART55_1
NAD biosynthesis I (from
0
0
2804.5
0.00466
0.0193



aspartate)
(0-0)
(0-0.00108)


VALSYN_PWY_Coprococcus_sp_ART55_1
L-valine biosynthesis
0
0
2804.5
0.00466
0.0193




(0-0)
(0-0.00114)


PWY_6124_Coprococcus_sp_ART55_1
inosine-5′-phosphate
0
0
2803.5
0.00473
0.0195



biosynthesis II
(0-0)
(0-0.00113)


PWY0_1297_Clostridiales_bacterium_1_7_47FAA
superpathway of purine
0
0
1923.5
0.0048
0.0197



deoxyribonucleosides
(0-0)
(0-0)



degradation


NONOXIPENT_PWY_Eubacterium_eligens
pentose phosphate pathway
0.000394
0.000617
2899
0.00486
0.0199



(non-oxidative branch)
(0-0.000819)
(0.000177-0.00142)


GLYCOGENSYNTH_PWY_Eubacterium_biforme
glycogen biosynthesis I (from
0
0.000125
2840
0.00497
0.0202



ADP-D-Glucose)
(0-0.000268)
(0-0.000507)


PWY_6737_Clostridium_symbiosum
starch degradation V
0
0
1845
0.00501
0.0202




(0-0)
(0-0)


UNINTEGRATED_Eubacterium_eligens
UNINTEGRATED
0.192
0.324
2900
0.00496
0.0202




(0.0259-0.367)
(0.12-0.706)


VALSYN_PWY_Clostridium_bolteae
L-valine biosynthesis
0
0
1823.5
0.00498
0.0202




(0-0.0000142)
(0-0)


PWY_7111_unclassified
pyruvate fermentation to
0.0115
0.0136
2899
0.0051
0.0205



isobutanol (engineered)
(0.00851-0.0145)
(0.0108-0.0164)


PWY_5667_Ruminococcus_obeum
CDP-diacylglycerol
0.0000317
0.0000943
2881
0.00517
0.0206



biosynthesis I
(0-0.000122)
(0.0000231-0.00024)


PWY_7219_Barnesiella_intestinihominis
adenosine ribonucleotides de
0.000173
0.000512
2894
0.00513
0.0206



novo biosynthesis
(0-0.000674)
(0.000192-0.000716)


PWY0_1319_Ruminococcus_obeum
CDP-diacylglycerol
0.0000317
0.0000943
2881
0.00517
0.0206



biosynthesis II
(0-0.000122)
(0.0000231-0.00024)


ILEUSYN_PWY_unclassified
L-isoleucine biosynthesis I
0.0117
0.0138
2897
0.00524
0.0207



(from threonine)
(0.00851-0.0145)
(0.0115-0.0164)


VALSYN_PWY_unclassified
L-valine biosynthesis
0.0117
0.0138
2897
0.00524
0.0207




(0.00851-0.0145)
(0.0115-0.0164)


PWY_1042_Ruminococcus_obeum
glycolysis IV (plant cytosol)
0
0
2796.5
0.0053
0.0209




(0-0)
(0-0.000149)


PWY_7221_Lachnospiraceae_bacterium_1_4_56FAA
guanosine ribonucleotides de
0
0
1927.5
0.00532
0.0209



novo biosynthesis
(0-0)
(0-0)


PWY0_1298_unclassified
superpathway of pyrimidine
0.000285
0.000382
2895.5
0.00535
0.0209



deoxyribonucleosides
(0.000138-0.00042)
(0.000236-0.000607)



degradation


PWY_4984_Flavonifractor_plautii
urea cycle
0
0
1823
0.00561
0.0219




(0-0.0000361)
(0-0)


X1CMET2_PWY_Bacteroides_massiliensis
N10-formyl-tetrahydrofolate
0
0
2741
0.00562
0.0219



biosynthesis
(0-0)
(0-0.00036)


PWY_7111_Barnesiella_intestinihominis
pyruvate fermentation to
0.000125
0.00033
2886
0.00584
0.0225



isobutanol (engineered)
(0-0.000436)
(0.000123-0.000561)


VALSYN_PWY_Barnesiella_intestinihominis
L-valine biosynthesis
0.000125
0.00033
2886
0.00584
0.0225




(0-0.000436)
(0.000123-0.000561)


PWY_5103_unclassified
L-isoleucine biosynthesis III
0.00655
0.00852
2888
0.00592
0.0228




(0.00495-0.00942)
(0.00635-0.0104)


PWY_6471_unclassified
peptidoglycan biosynthesis IV
0
0
1903
0.00604
0.0231



(Enterococcus faecium)
(0-0)
(0-0)


PWY0_1296_Eubacterium_biforme
purine ribonucleosides
0
0.000114
2824.5
0.00604
0.0231



degradation
(0-0.000317)
(0-0.000641)


SALVADEHYPOX_PWY_unclassified
adenosine nucleotides
0.00109
0.00141
2886
0.00608
0.0232



degradation II
(0.000787-0.00145)
(0.00112-0.00192)


PWY_6737_Dorea_formicigenerans
starch degradation V
0.000204
0.000116
1640
0.00619
0.0235




(0.0000983-0.000285)
(0.0000639-0.000195)


PWY_6121_Lachnospiraceae_bacterium_1_1_57FAA
5-aminoimidazole
0
0
1829
0.00629
0.0238



ribonucleotide biosynthesis I
(0-0.0000328)
(0-0)


PWY7111_Flavonifractor_plautii
pyruvate fermentation to
0
0
1817
0.00632
0.0238



isobutanol (engineered)
(0-0.0000355)
(0-0)


VALSYN_PWY_Flavonifractor_plautii
L-valine biosynthesis
0
0
1817
0.00632
0.0238




(0-0.0000355)
(0-0)


PWY_7357_Ruminococcus_obeum
thiamin formation from
0.0000515
0.000128
2869.5
0.00645
0.0242



pyrithiamine and oxythiamine
(0-0.000208)
(0.0000665-0.000336)



(yeast)


PANTO_PWY_Ruminococcus_torques
phosphopantothenate
0.000375
0.000285
1644
0.00658
0.0245



biosynthesis I
(0.000178-0.0007)
(0.000106-0.000385)


PWY_1042_Barnesiella_intestinihominis
glycolysis IV (plant cytosol)
0.000203
0.000417
2875
0.00656
0.0245




(0-0.000564)
(0.000167-0.000662)


ARO_PWY_Clostridium_bolteae
chorismate biosynthesis I
0
0
1947
0.00667
0.0246




(0-0)
(0-0)


COMPLETE_ARO_PWY_Clostridium_bolteae
superpathway of aromatic
0
0
1947
0.00667
0.0246



amino acid biosynthesis
(0-0)
(0-0)


PWY_6121_Eubacterium_biforme
5-aminoimidazole
0
0.000154
2820
0.0067
0.0246



ribonucleotide biosynthesis I
(0-0.000322)
(0-0.000682)


PWY_7219_Anaerotruncus_colihominis
adenosine ribonucleotides de
0
0
1907
0.00663
0.0246



novo biosynthesis
(0-0)
(0-0)


PWY_5686_Barnesiella_intestinihominis
UMP biosynthesis
0.000113
0.000344
2871
0.00674
0.0247




(0-0.000461)
(0.00011-0.000565)


PWY_6527_Faecalibacterium_prausnitzii
stachyose degradation
0
0
2765
0.0069
0.0252




(0-0)
(0-0.000995)


PWY_1042_Lachnospiraceae_bacterium_1_1_57FAA
glycolysis IV (plant cytosol)
0
0
1910
0.0071
0.0258




(0-0)
(0-0)


PWY_7111_Clostridium_clostridioforme
pyruvate fermentation to
0
0
1920
0.00724
0.0261



isobutanol (engineered)
(0-0)
(0-0)


PWY66_422_Eubacterium_biforme
D-galactose degradation V
0
0.000163
2815
0.00721
0.0261



(Leloir pathway)
(0-0.000342)
(0-0.000623)


VALSYN_PWY_Clostridium_clostridioforme
L-valine biosynthesis
0
0
1920
0.00724
0.0261



UDP-N-acetylmuramoyl-
(0-0)
(0-0)


PWY_6386_Lachnospiraceae_bacterium_1_1_57FAA
pentapeptide biosynthesis II
0
0
1864
0.00739
0.0264



(lysine-containing)
(0-0)
(0-0)0.0000949


PWY0_1296_Coprococcus_catus
purine ribonucleosides
0.0000464

2866
0.0074
0.0264



degradation
(0-0.000124)
(0.0000532-0.000137)


PWY66_422_unclassified
D-galactose degradation V
0.00592
0.0069
2871
0.00742
0.0264



(Leloir pathway)
(0.00417-0.00827)
(0.0057-0.00939)


UNINTEGRATED_Barnesiella_intestinihominis
UNINTEGRATED
0.162
0.368
2868.5
0.0074
0.0264




(0-0.485)
(0.163-0.537)


PWY_241_unclassified
C4 photosynthetic carbon
0
0
2742.5
0.00759
0.0266



assimilation cycle, NADP-ME
(0-0)
(0-0.000143)



type


PWY_6317_unclassified
galactose degradation I (Leloir
0.00592
0.0069
2870
0.00752
0.0266



pathway)
(0.00417-0.00827)
(0.0057-0.00939)


PWY_6387_Lachnospiraceae_bacterium_1_1_57FAA
UDP-N-acetylmuramoyl-
0
0
1865
0.00754
0.0266



pentapeptide biosynthesis I
(0-0)
(0-0)



(meso-diaminopimelate



containing)


PWY_7111_Lachnospiraceae_bacterium_2_1_58FAA
pyruvate fermentation to
0
0
1952
0.00759
0.0266



isobutanol (engineered)
(0-0)
(0-0)


VALSYN_PWY_Clostridium_hathewayi
L-valine biosynthesis
0
0
1887.5
0.00755
0.0266




(0-0)
(0-0)


PWY_4981_unclassified
L-proline biosynthesis II (from
0.00162
0.00283
2867
0.00782
0.0273



arginine)
(0.000595-0.00345)
(0.00117-0.0045)


PWY_7111_Ruminococcus_lactaris
pyruvate fermentation to
0
0.000125
2826.5
0.00798
0.0278



isobutanol (engineered)
(0-0.000202)
(0-0.000338)


PEPTIDOGLYCANSYN_PWY_Lachnospiraceae_bacterium_1_1_57FAA
peptidoglycan biosynthesis I
0
0
1891.5
0.00822
0.0284



(meso-diaminopimelate
(0-0)
(0-0)



containing)


PWY_6122_Eubacterium_biforme
5-aminoimidazole
0
0.000167
2805
0.00833
0.0284



ribonucleotide biosynthesis II
(0-0.000389)
(0-0.000642)


PWY_6277_Eubacterium_biforme
superpathway of 5-
0
0.000167
2805
0.00833
0.0284



aminoimidazole ribonucleotide
(0-0.000389)
(0-0.000642)



biosynthesis


PWY_6608_Odoribacter_splanchnicus
guanosine nucleotides
0.0000571
0.000171
2845
0.00823
0.0284



degradation III
(0-0.000193)
(0-0.000303)


PWY_6609_Lachnospiraceae_bacterium_2_1_58FAA
adenine and adenosine salvage
0
0
1926
0.00833
0.0284



III
(0-0)
(0-0)


PWY_7219_Bacteroides_massiliensis
adenosine ribonucleotides de
0
0
2742
0.00821
0.0284



novo biosynthesis
(0-0)
(0-0.00056)


PWY_7221_Barnesiella_intestinihominis
guanosine ribonucleotides de
0.0000759
0.000342
2856
0.00834
0.0284



novo biosynthesis
(0-0.000478)
(0.000114-0.000576)


PWY_7221_Flavonifractor_plautii
guanosine ribonucleotides de
0
0
1851.5
0.00856
0.0291



novo biosynthesis
(0-0.0000288)
(0-0)


NONOXIPENT_PWY_Ruminococcus_lactaris
pentose phosphate pathway
0
0
2742
0.00878
0.0292



(non-oxidative branch)
(0-0)
(0-0.000296)


PWY_3841_Bacteroides_massiliensis
folate transformations II
0
0
2730
0.00867
0.0292




(0-0)
(0-0.000393)


PWY_5667_Barnesiella_intestinihominis
CDP-diacylglycerol
0.00013
0.000316
2852
0.00878
0.0292



biosynthesis I
(0-0.000513)
(0.000143-0.000605)


PWY_6609_Eubacterium_biforme
adenine and adenosine salvage
0
0.000121
2799.5
0.00871
0.0292



III
(0-0.000335)
(0-0.00067)


PWY_7219_Clostridium_hathewayi
adenosine ribonucleotides de
0
0
1872
0.00867
0.0292



novo biosynthesis
(0-0)
(0-0)



thiamin formation from


PWY_7357_Eubacterium_biforme
pyrithiamine and oxythiamine
0
0
2706
0.00867
0.0292



(yeast)
(0-0)
(0-0.000193)


PWY0_1319_Barnesiella_intestinihominis
CDP-diacylglycerol
0.00013
0.000316
2852
0.00878
0.0292



biosynthesis II
(0-0.000513)
(0.000143-0.000605)



superpathway of thiamin


THISYNARA_PWY_Ruminococcus_obeum
diphosphate biosynthesis III
0
0.000078
2833
0.00881
0.0292



(eukaryotes)
(0-0.0000872)
(0-0.000176)


PWY_7219_Lachnospiraceae_bacterium_1_1_57FAA
adenosine ribonucleotides de
0
0
1814
0.00884
0.0293



novo biosynthesis
(0-0.0000818)
(0-0)


PANTO_PWY_Eggerthella_lenta
phosphopantothenate
0
0
1881
0.00902
0.0297



biosynthesis I
(0-0)
(0-0)


PWY_5121_unclassified
superpathway of
0
0
2657
0.00899
0.0297



geranylgeranyl diphosphate
(0-0)
(0-0.000128)



biosynthesis II (via MEP)


PWY_7219_Ruminococcus_torques
adenosine ribonucleotides de
0.000353
0.000225
1669
0.00912
0.0299



novo biosynthesis
(0.000193-0.000936)
(0.000127-0.000465)


PWY_7219_Paraprevotella_clara
adenosine ribonucleotides de
0
0
2758
0.00918
0.03



novo biosynthesis
(0-0.0000432)
(0-0.000387)


VALSYN_PWY_Dorea_formicigenerans
L-valine biosynthesis
0.000131
0.0000863
1671
0.00929
0.0303




(0.0000661-0.0002)
(0.0000473-0.000133)


PWY_6122_Lachnospiraceae_bacterium_1_1_57FAA
5-aminoimidazole
0
0
1828
0.00943
0.0306



ribonucleotide biosynthesis II
(0-0.0000438)
(0-0)


PWY_6277_Lachnospiraceae_bacterium_1_1_57FAA
superpathway of 5-
0
0
1828
0.00943
0.0306



aminoimidazole ribonucleotide
(0-0.0000438)
(0-0)



biosynthesis


PWY_5097_Barnesiella_intestinihominis
L-lysine biosynthesis VI
0.000202
0.000436
2846
0.00961
0.0311




(0-0.000581)
(0.000171-0.000668)


PWY_2723_Escherichia_coli
trehalose degradation V
0
0
1781.5
0.00986
0.0317




(0-0.0000739)
(0-0)


PYRIDNUCSYN_PWY_unclassified
NAD biosynthesis I (from
0.00198
0.00236
2849
0.00986
0.0317



aspartate)
(0.00123-0.00265)
(0.0017-0.00321)


PWY_7219_Eubacterium_biforme
adenosine ribonucleotides de
0
0.000158
2792
0.01
0.0321



novo biosynthesis
(0-0.000456)
(0-0.000928)


PWY_6151_Eubacterium_biforme
S-adenosyl-L-methionine
0
0.000196
2790
0.0103
0.0329



cycle I
(0-0.000483)
(0-0.0007)


UNINTEGRATED_Eubacterium_biforme
UNINTEGRATED
0
0.11
2790
0.0103
0.0329




(0-0.192)
(0-0.235)


PWY_7357_unclassified
thiamin formation from
0.00307
0.00454
2845
0.0104
0.033



pyrithiamine and oxythiamine
(0.00178-0.00543)
(0.00291-0.00637)



(yeast)


PWY_5188_Coprococcus_catus
tetrapyrrole biosynthesis I
0
0.000028
2794.5
0.0106
0.0336



(from glutamate)
(0-0.0000326)
(0-0.0000766)


PWY_5686_Ruminococcus_obeum
UMP biosynthesis
0.0000767
0.000124
2838
0.0108
0.034




(0-0.000177)
(0.0000616-0.000249)


PWY_7111_Clostridium_asparagiforme
pyruvate fermentation to
0
0
1890
0.0108
0.034



isobutanol (engineered)
(0-0)
(0-0)


DTDPRHAMSYN_PWY_Eubacterium_biforme
dTDP-L-rhamnose
0
0.0000106
2759
0.011
0.0346



biosynthesis I
(0-0.0000352)
(0-0.000117)


PWY_1042_Eggerthella_lenta
glycolysis IV (plant cytosol)
0
0
1939
0.0112
0.0351




(0-0)
(0-0)


PWY_6700_Paraprevotella_clara
queuosine biosynthesis
0
0
2726.5
0.0112
0.0351




(0-0)
(0-0.000342)


UNINTEGRATED_Clostridium_citroniae
UNINTEGRATED
0
0
1795
0.0115
0.0358




(0-0.0845)
(0-0)


ARO_PWY_Dorea_formicigenerans
chorismate biosynthesis I
0.0001
0.0000586
1701
0.0115
0.0359




(0-0.000171)
(0-0.0000962)


PWY_6122_Eubacterium_eligens
5-aminoimidazole
0.000314
0.000572
2833
0.0117
0.0362



ribonucleotide biosynthesis II
(0-0.000728)
(0.00017-0.0012)


PWY_6277_Eubacterium_eligens
superpathway of 5-
0.000314
0.000572
2833
0.0117
0.0362



aminoimidazole ribonucleotide
(0-0.000728)
(0.00017-0.0012)



biosynthesis


PWY_6737_Roseburia_inulinivorans
starch degradation V
0.000516
0.000276
1690
0.0117
0.0362




(0.0000853-0.00175)
(0.0000219-0.000721)


PANTO_PWY_Bacteroides_xylanisolvens
phosphopantothenate
0
0.0000913
2797.5
0.0118
0.0365



biosynthesis I
(0-0.00015)
(0-0.000371)


PWY_2942_Eggerthella_lenta
L-lysine biosynthesis III
0
0
1917
0.0119
0.0365




(0-0)
(0-0)


PWY_6151_Bacteroides_massiliensis
S-adenosyl-L-methionine
0
0
2714.5
0.0119
0.0365



cycle I
(0-0)
(0-0.0004)


COA_PWY_1_Ruminococcus_torques
coenzyme A biosynthesis I
0.000285
0.000164
1693
0.0121
0.0366




(0.000109-0.000644)
(0.0000489-0.000362)


PWY_5686_Eubacterium_biforme
UMP biosynthesis
0
0.000118
2779
0.012
0.0366




(0-0.000297)
(0-0.000531)


PWY_6386_Ruminococcus_torques
UDP-N-acetylmuramoyl-
0.000366
0.00023
1691
0.012
0.0366



pentapeptide biosynthesis II
(0.000152-0.000861)
(0.0000872-0.000405)



(lysine-containing)


GLYCOLYSIS_unclassified
glycolysis I (from glucose 6-
0.000572
0.00128
2832
0.0122
0.0368



phosphate)
(0.000142-0.00214)
(0.000583-0.00265)


ARO_PWY_Lachnospiraceae_bacterium_1_1_57FAA
chorismate biosynthesis I
0
0
1920
0.0127
0.0379




(0-0)
(0-0)


NONMEVIPP_PWY_Paraprevotella_clara
methylerythritol phosphate
0
0
2718.5
0.0127
0.0379



pathway I
(0-0)
(0-0.000313)


PWY_2942_Flavonifractor_plautii
L-lysine biosynthesis III
0
0
1898
0.0126
0.0379




(0-0)
(0-0)


PWY_6163_Lachnospiraceae_bacterium_1_1_57FAA
chorismate biosynthesis from
0
0
1898
0.0126
0.0379



3-dehydroquinate
(0-0)
(0-0)


PWY_7219_Eggerthella_lenta
adenosine ribonucleotides de
0
0
1898
0.0126
0.0379



novo biosynthesis
(0-0)
(0-0)


PWY_6121_Eubacterium_eligens
5-aminoimidazole
0.000339
0.000526
2825.5
0.0128
0.0382



ribonucleotide biosynthesis I
(0-0.00074)
(0.000181-0.00124)


TCA_unclassified
TCA cycle I (prokaryotic)
0.0000488
0.000173
2802
0.0128
0.0382




(0-0.000226)
(0-0.000483)


PWY_5695_Lachnospiraceae_bacterium_3_1_57FAA_CT1
urate biosynthesis/inosine 5′-
0
0
1946
0.0131
0.0385



phosphate degradation
(0-0)
(0-0)


PWY_6387_Barnesiella_intestinihominis
UDP-N-acetylmuramoyl-
0.000121
0.000347
2818
0.0131
0.0385



pentapeptide biosynthesis I
(0-0.000453)
(0.000104-0.000553)



(meso-diaminopimelate



containing)


PWY_6936_Eubacterium_biforme
seleno-amino acid biosynthesis
0
0.0000634
2761
0.0131
0.0385




(0-0.00025)
(0-0.000465)


UNINTEGRATED_Roseburia_hominis
UNINTEGRATED
0.23
0.303
2825.5
0.013
0.0385




(0.155-0.33)
(0.227-0.417)


PWY_2942_Bacteroides_massiliensis
L-lysine biosynthesis III
0
0
2707.5
0.0133
0.0391




(0-0)
(0-0.000345)


ARGININE_SYN4_PWY_unclassified
L-ornithine de novo
0
0.0000637
2772.5
0.0135
0.0395



biosynthesis
(0-0.000111)
(0-0.000168)


PWY_5100_Eubacterium_biforme
pyruvate fermentation to
0
0.000138
2768
0.0135
0.0395



acetate and lactate II
(0-0.000376)
(0-0.000697)


PWY_6527_Lachnospiraceae_bacterium_3_1_57FAA_CT1
stachyose degradation
0
0
1902
0.0136
0.0396



superpathway of &beta;-D-
(0-0)
(0-0)


GLUCUROCAT_PWY_unclassified
glucuronide and D-glucuronate
0.000751
0.00107
2822.5
0.0137
0.0397



degradation
(0.000425-0.0012)
(0.000643-0.00137)


PWY_6609_Coprococcus_catus
adenine and adenosine salvage
0.0000683
0.000126
2816.5
0.0137
0.0397



III
(0-0.000172)
(0.0000688-0.000197)


PWY_6737_Clostridium_asparagiforme
starch degradation V
0
0
1931.5
0.0137
0.0397




(0-0)
(0-0)


UNINTEGRATED_Bacteroides_massiliensis
UNINTEGRATED
0
0
2712
0.014
0.0404



peptidoglycan biosynthesis I
(0-0)
(0-0.428)


PEPTIDOGLYCANSYN_PWY_Barnesiella_intestinihominis
(meso-diaminopimelate
0.000123
0.000352
2811
0.0143
0.0405



containing)
(0-0.000469)
(0.0000938-0.000593)


PWY_5667_Ruminococcus_lactaris
CDP-diacylglycerol
0
0.0000533
2768.5
0.0143
0.0405



biosynthesis I
(0-0.000104)
(0-0.00028)



UDP-N-acetylmuramoyl-


PWY_6386_Barnesiella_intestinihominis
pentapeptide biosynthesis II
0.000133
0.000362
2811
0.0143
0.0405



(lysine-containing)
(0-0.000464)
(0.000117-0.000573)


PWY_6700_Barnesiella_intestinihominis
queuosine biosynthesis
0.000178
0.000401
2813.5
0.0142
0.0405




(0-0.000563)
(0.000155-0.00058)


PWY_7282_Bacteroides_fragilis
4-amino-2-methyl-5-
0
0
1852
0.0142
0.0405



phosphomethylpyrimidine
(0-0.000108)
(0-0)



biosynthesis (yeast)


PWY0_1319_Ruminococcus_lactaris
CDP-diacylglycerol
0
0.0000533
2768.5
0.0143
0.0405



biosynthesis II
(0-0.000104)
(0-0.00028)


PWY66_399_unclassified
gluconeogenesis III
0.000175
0.000336
2803
0.0142
0.0405




(0-0.00044)
(0-0.000942)


PANTO_PWY_Paraprevotella_clara
phosphopantothenate
0
0
2728
0.0144
0.0406



biosynthesis I
(0-0.0000509)
(0-0.000372)


PANTO_PWY_Lachnospiraceae_bacterium_1_1_57FAA
phosphopantothenate
0
0
1830
0.0144
0.0407



biosynthesis I
(0-0.0000863)
(0-0)


PWY_5667_Clostridium_nexile
CDP-diacylglycerol
0
0
1960
0.0147
0.0412



biosynthesis I
(0-0)
(0-0)


PWY0_1319_Clostridium_nexile
CDP-diacylglycerol
0
0
1960
0.0147
0.0412



biosynthesis II
(0-0)
(0-0)


PWY_2942_Barnesiella_intestinihominis
L-lysine biosynthesis III
0.00013
0.000425
2809
0.0149
0.0414




(0-0.000585)
(0.000138-0.000612)


PWY_5855_Escherichia_coli
ubiquinol-7 biosynthesis
0
0
1802.5
0.0151
0.0414



(prokaryotic)
(0-0.000103)
(0-0)


PWY_5856_Escherichia_coli
ubiquinol-9 biosynthesis
0
0
1802.5
0.0151
0.0414



(prokaryotic)
(0-0.000103)
(0-0)


PWY_5857_Escherichia_coli
ubiquinol-10 biosynthesis
0
0
1802.5
0.0151
0.0414



(prokaryotic)
(0-0.000103)
(0-0)


PWY_6708_Escherichia_coli
ubiquinol-8 biosynthesis
0
0
1802.5
0.0151
0.0414



(prokaryotic)
(0-0.000103)
(0-0)


PWY_6737_Lachnospiraceae_bacterium_7_1_58FAA
starch degradation V
0
0
1893.5
0.0148
0.0414




(0-0)
(0-0)


PWY_7111_Clostridium_citroniae
pyruvate fermentation to
0
0
1961
0.015
0.0414



isobutanol (engineered)
(0-0)
(0-0)


VALSYN_PWY_Clostridium_citroniae
L-valine biosynthesis
0
0
1961
0.015
0.0414




(0-0)
(0-0)


HISTSYN_PWY_Lachnospiraceae_bacterium_7_1_58FAA
L-histidine biosynthesis
0
0
1936.5
0.0152
0.0416




(0-0)
(0-0)


ARGSYN_PWY_Escherichia_coli
L-arginine biosynthesis I (via
0
0
1839
0.0155
0.0425



L-ornithine)
(0-0.000139)
(0-0)


CALVIN_PWY_Ruminococcus_torques
Calvin-Benson-Bassham cycle
0.0000569
0
1755
0.0157
0.0428




(0-0.000357)
(0-0.0000924)


PANTO_PWY_Barnesiella_intestinihominis
phosphopantothenate
0.000134
0.000375
2805
0.0157
0.0428



biosynthesis I
(0-0.000584)
(0.0000885-0.000625)


PWY_7221_Bacteroides_massiliensis
guanosine ribonucleotides de
0
0
2696.5
0.0158
0.0429



novo biosynthesis
(0-0)
(0-0.000451)


UBISYN_PWY_Escherichia_coli
superpathway of ubiquinol-8
0
0
1813
0.0159
0.0431



biosynthesis (prokaryotic)
(0-0.000111)
(0-0)


PWY_6125_Eggerthella_lenta
superpathway of guanosine
0
0
1964
0.0161
0.0434



nucleotides de novo
(0-0)
(0-0)



biosynthesis II


PWY_6737_Lachnospiraceae_bacterium_1_1_57FAA
starch degradation V
0
0
1845.5
0.0161
0.0434




(0-0.0000376)
(0-0)


PWY0_1296_Roseburia_inulinivorans
purine ribonucleosides
0.000235
0.000104
1720
0.0163
0.0439



degradation
(0.0000364-0.000771)
(0-0.000394)


PWY0_162_unclassified
superpathway of pyrimidine
0.00204
0.00306
2808
0.0164
0.044



ribonucleotides de novo
(0.00166-0.00355)
(0.00191-0.00456)



biosynthesis


PWY_5188_Flavonifractor_plautii
tetrapyrrole biosynthesis I
0
0
1900.5
0.0168
0.0449



(from glutamate)
(0-0)
(0-0)


PWY_6609_Eggerthella_lenta
adenine and adenosine salvage
0
0
1941.5
0.0168
0.0449



III
(0-0)
(0-0)


UNINTEGRATED_Lachnospiraceae_bacterium_3_1_57FAA_CT1
UNINTEGRATED
0
0
1840.5
0.017
0.0453




(0-0.164)
(0-0)


PWY_4981_Eggerthella_lenta
L-proline biosynthesis II (from
0
0
1921
0.0172
0.0456



arginine)
(0-0)
(0-0)


PWY0_1586_Eggerthella_lenta
peptidoglycan maturation
0
0
1921
0.0172
0.0456



(meso-diaminopimelate
(0-0)
(0-0)



containing)


PWY_5667_Eubacterium_eligens
CDP-diacylglycerol
0.000143
0.000286
2797
0.0173
0.0457



biosynthesis I
(0-0.00054)
(0.0000566-0.000829)


PWY0_1319_Eubacterium_eligens
CDP-diacylglycerol
0.000143
0.000286
2797
0.0173
0.0457



biosynthesis II
(0-0.00054)
(0.0000566-0.000829)


PWY_5097_Paraprevotella_clara
L-lysine biosynthesis VI
0
0
2708
0.0175
0.0459




(0-0)
(0-0.000309)


PWY_6163_Flavonifractor_plautii
chorismate biosynthesis from
0
0
1943.5
0.0175
0.0459



3-dehydroquinate
(0-0)
(0-0)


PWY0_1296_Clostridium_hathewayi
purine ribonucleosides
0
0
1922
0.0175
0.0459



degradation
(0-0)
(0-0)


COA_PWY_1_Roseburia_inulinivorans
coenzyme A biosynthesis I
0.00024
0.0000936
1732.5
0.0176
0.046




(0-0.000831)
(0-0.000258)


PEPTIDOGLYCANSYN_PWY_Flavonifractor_plautii
peptidoglycan biosynthesis I
0
0
1969
0.0179
0.0466



(meso-diaminopimelate
(0-0)
(0-0)



containing)


PWY_5097_Roseburia_hominis
L-lysine biosynthesis VI
0
0.0000777
2767
0.018
0.0466




(0-0.000114)
(0-0.000217)


PWY_6386_Flavonifractor_plautii
UDP-N-acetylmuramoyl-
0
0
1969
0.0179
0.0466



pentapeptide biosynthesis II
(0-0)
(0-0)



(lysine-containing)


PWY_6387_Flavonifractor_plautii
UDP-N-acetylmuramoyl-
0
0
1969
0.0179
0.0466



pentapeptide biosynthesis I
(0-0)
(0-0)



(meso-diaminopimelate



containing)


UNINTEGRATED_Eggerthella_lenta
UNINTEGRATED
0
0
1904.5
0.0181
0.0467




(0-0)
(0-0)


PWY_6700_Bacteroides_massiliensis
queuosine biosynthesis
0
0
2683
0.0182
0.0471




(0-0)
(0-0.000379)


ENTBACSYN_PWY_Escherichia_coli
enterobactin biosynthesis
0
0
1816.5
0.0185
0.0472




(0-0.000363)
(0-0)


PWY_5667_Bacteroides_xylanisolvens
CDP-diacylglycerol
0
0.0000409
2747
0.0185
0.0472



biosynthesis I
(0-0.00008)
(0-0.000238)


PWY_6936_Eubacterium_ventriosum
seleno-amino acid biosynthesis
0
0
1796
0.0185
0.0472




(0-0.000117)
(0-0.0000282)


PWY0_1319_Bacteroides_xylanisolvens
CDP-diacylglycerol
0
0.0000409
2747
0.0185
0.0472



biosynthesis II
(0-0.00008)
(0-0.000238)


ILEUSYN_PWY_Dorea_formicigenerans
L-isoleucine biosynthesis I
0.000123
0.0000638
1737
0.0186
0.0474



(from threonine)
(0-0.0002)
(0-0.000127)


PWY_6151_Ruminococcus_lactaris
S-adenosyl-L-methionine
0
0.000105
2756
0.0186
0.0474



cycle I
(0-0.000141)
(0-0.000277)


COMPLETE_ARO_PWY_Lachnospiraceae_bacterium_1_1_57FAA
superpathway of aromatic
0
0
1947.5
0.019
0.0482



amino acid biosynthesis
(0-0)
(0-0)


PWY_6703_Bacteroides_massiliensis
preQ0 biosynthesis
0
0
2671
0.0193
0.0488




(0-0)
(0-0.000264)


PWY_7111_Bacteroides_massiliensis
pyruvate fermentation to
0
0
2679
0.0194
0.0488



isobutanol (engineered)
(0-0)
(0-0.00032)


VALSYN_PWY_Bacteroides_massiliensis
L-valine biosynthesis
0
0
2679
0.0194
0.0488




(0-0)
(0-0.00032)


VALSYN_PWY_Ruminococcus_lactaris
L-valine biosynthesis
0
0.0000852
2755
0.0193
0.0488




(0-0.000131)
(0-0.000222)


PWY_5505_unclassified
L-glutamate and L-glutamine
0
0
2614.5
0.0198
0.0493



biosynthesis
(0-0)
(0-0.0000582)


PWY_5667_Paraprevotella_clara
CDP-diacylglycerol
0
0
2703
0.0197
0.0493



biosynthesis I
(0-0.0000281)
(0-0.000278)


PWY_5695_Roseburia_inulinivorans
urate biosynthesis/inosine 5′-
0.00028
0.000136
1737.5
0.0199
0.0493



phosphate degradation
(0.00005-0.000871)
(0-0.000359)


PWY_6122_Eggerthella_lenta
5-aminoimidazole
0
0
1916
0.0199
0.0493



ribonucleotide biosynthesis II
(0-0)
(0-0)


PWY_6277_Eggerthella_lenta
superpathway of 5-
0
0
1916
0.0199
0.0493



aminoimidazole ribonucleotide
(0-0)
(0-0)



biosynthesis


PWY_7221_Lachnospiraceae_bacterium_3_1_57FAA_CT1
guanosine ribonucleotides de
0
0
1929
0.02
0.0493



novo biosynthesis
(0-0)
(0-0)


PWY0_1319_Paraprevotella_clara
CDP-diacylglycerol
0
0
2703
0.0197
0.0493



biosynthesis II
(0-0.0000281)
(0-0.000278)


UNINTEGRATED_Clostridium_nexile
UNINTEGRATED
0
0
1898
0.0198
0.0493




(0-0.14)
(0-0)


UNINTEGRATED_Paraprevotella_clara
UNINTEGRATED
0
0
2705
0.02
0.0493




(0-0.0495)
(0-0.292)


PANTO_PWY_Ruminococcus_lactaris
phosphopantothenate
0
0.000092
2738
0.0202
0.0496



biosynthesis I
(0-0.000108)
(0-0.000242)


PWY_5097_Bacteroides_massiliensis
L-lysine biosynthesis VI
0
0
2684
0.0202
0.0496




(0-0)
(0-0.000376)





Shotgun functional analysis performed on 139 samples (IBS: n = 78 and Control: n = 58)


Median abundance % represented as inter-quartile range (IQR)













TABLE 5





Urine MS metabolomic Machine learning LASSO and Random Forest


(RF) statistics of urine metabolites predictive of IBS




















LASSO

RF

















lambda
AUC
Sens
Spec
mtry
AUC
Sens
Spec







0.050
1
0.978
1
1
0.999
0.988
1.000
















10-fold Cross Validation

10-fold Cross Validation















Reference


Reference





Prediction
Control
IBS
Prediction
Control
IBS







Control
64
1.8
Control
64
1



IBS
 0
78.2
IBS
 0
79



Accuracy
(average)
0.9875
Accuracy
(average)
0.9931
















Rank #
Ranking
Metabolite
Rank #
Ranking
Metabolite





1
100.00
A 80987
1
100
A 80987


2
60.15
Ala-Leu-Trp-Gly
2
89.74
Ala-Leu-Trp-Gly


3
38.02
Medicagenic acid 3-O-b-D-glucuronide
3
86.81
Medicagenic acid 3-O-b-D-glucuronide


4
1.95
(−)-Epigallocatechin sulfate
4
0.00
(−)-Epigallocatechin sulfate





Analysis had 2 classes: Control and IBS and included 144 samples (IBS: n = 80 and Control: n = 64)


Metrics reported are the average values from 10 repeats of 10-fold Cross Validation.













TABLE 6







urine metabolites significantly differentially abundant between IBS patients and non-IBS patients














IBS
Control

Wilcoxon




Metabolite
(A.U.)
(A.U.)
Log2FC
Statistic
p-value
q-value
















N-Undecanoylglycine
212.2
16.5
3.686
28
<0.001
<0.001


Gamma-glutamyl-Cysteine
614.2
84.8
2.856
410
<0.001
<0.001


Alloathyriol
1.5
453.1
−8.265
4101
<0.001
<0.001


Trp-Ala-Pro
6.1
0.2
4.646
763.5
<0.001
<0.001


A 80987
730.8
0.1
12.885
0
<0.001
<0.001


Medicagenic acid 3-O-b-D-
475.4
12.8
5.212
0
<0.001
<0.001


glucuronide


Ala-Leu-Trp-Gly
420.3
120.5
1.802
83
<0.001
<0.001


Butoctamide hydrogen succinate
319
3.1
6.677
423
<0.001
<0.001


(−)-Epicatechin sulfate
274
209.8
0.385
506
<0.001
<0.001


1,4,5-Trimethyl-naphtalene
15.2
0
8.739
658.5
<0.001
<0.001


Tricetin 3′-methyl ether 7,5′-
0.6
22.5
−5.156
4094
<0.001
<0.001


diglucuronide


Torasemide
0.5
38.2
−6.289
4023
<0.001
<0.001


(−)-Epigallocatechin sulfate
129.1
165.2
−0.356
3826
<0.001
<0.001


Dodecanedioylcarnitine
61.9
9.7
2.679
1054
<0.001
<0.001


1,6,7-Trimethylnaphthalene
17.2
0.1
7.234
1082.5
<0.001
<0.001


Tetrahydrodipicolinate
1.8
71.6
−5.324
3671
<0.001
<0.001


Sumiki's acid
84667.1
58728.8
0.528
1181
<0.001
<0.001


Silicic acid
4
734.3
−7.527
3556
<0.001
<0.001


Delphinidin 3-(6″-O-4-malyl-
0.2
16.2
−6.341
3548
<0.001
<0.001


glucosyl)-5-glucoside


L-Arginine
0
13.7
−8.547
3540
<0.001
<0.001


Leucyl-Methionine
9.5
60.7
−2.682
3526
<0.001
<0.001


Phe-Gly-Gly-Ser
420
359.6
0.224
1250
<0.001
<0.001


Gln-Met-Pro-Ser
179.8
272.8
−0.601
3507
<0.001
<0.001


Creatinine
729604.9
752607.5
−0.045
3500
<0.001
<0.001


Ala-Asn-Cys-Gly
177.5
229.7
−0.372
3431
<0.001
<0.001


2-hydroxy-2-(hydroxymethyl)-2H-
508.8
256
0.991
1329
<0.001
<0.001


pyran-3(6H)-one


Thiethylperazine
38
9.7
1.974
1365
<0.001
<0.001


5-((2-iodoacetamido)ethyl)-1-
627.5
257.7
1.284
1366.5
<0.001
<0.001


aminonapthalene sulfate


dCTP
379
323.1
0.231
1390
<0.001
<0.001


Isoleucyl-Proline
10391.2
12988.5
−0.322
3362
<0.001
<0.001


3,4-Methylenesebacic acid
452826.1
482052
−0.09
3344
<0.001
<0.001


Dimethylallylpyrophosphate/Isopentenyl
15680
9743.9
0.686
1425
<0.001
<0.001


pyrophosphate


(4-Hydroxybenzoyl)choline
68.6
112.2
−0.711
3329
<0.001
<0.001


Diazoxide
145.7
212
−0.541
3318
<0.001
<0.001


3,5-Di-O-galloyl-1,4-
638.5
539.3
0.243
1458
<0.001
<0.001


galactarolactone


2-Hydroxypyridine
37.8
164.2
−2.121
3300
<0.001
<0.001


Decanoylcamitine
152.9
46.7
1.71
1463
<0.001
<0.001


Asp-Met-Asp-Pro
894.5
744.1
0.266
1473
<0.001
<0.001


3-Methyldioxyindole
203
326
−0.683
3250
0.00022
0.00161


(1S,3R,4S)-3,4-
749.3
1010.2
−0.431
3244
0.000243
0.00173


Dihydroxy cyclohexane-1-


carboxylate


Ala-Lys-Phe-Cys
47.3
107.7
−1.186
3238
0.000269
0.00187


3-Indolehydracrylic acid
972.6
1898.6
−0.965
3216
0.000385
0.00261


[FA (18:0)] N-(9Z-octadecenoyl)-
197
178.2
0.145
1545
0.000404
0.00267


taurine


Ferulic acid 4-sulfate
1569
3452.2
−1.138
3174
0.000746
0.00482


Urea
188415
198969.2
−0.079
3172
0.000769
0.00487


N-Carboxyacetyl-D-phenylalanine
307.4
438.4
−0.512
3166
0.000843
0.00522


4-Methoxyphenylethanol sulfate
476.3
889.1
−0.9
3155
0.000996
0.00604


UDP-4-dehydro-6-deoxy-D-glucose
192.4
171.7
0.164
1606
0.00104
0.00606


Linalyl formate
20.8
30.6
−0.555
3153
0.00103
0.00606


Demethyloleuropein
9.1
21.5
−1.233
3148
0.00111
0.0063


5′-Guanosyl-methylene-triphosphate
337.4
428.7
−0.346
3140
0.00125
0.00683


Allyl nonanoate
18.4
24
−0.385
3140
0.00125
0.00683


2-Phenylethyl octanoate
67.9
184.7
−1.444
3132
0.0014
0.00754


beta-Cellobiose
163.4
117.1
0.48
1628
0.00145
0.00762


D-Galactopyranosyl-(1−>3)-D-
271.6
756.8
−1.479
3125
0.00156
0.00805


galactopyranosyl-(1−>3)-L-arabinose


Cys-Phe-Phe-Gln
41.1
62
−0.593
3114
0.00182
0.00927


Hippuric acid
89463.1
125800
−0.492
3108
0.00199
0.00993


Cys-Pro-Pro-Tyr
51.1
73.6
−0.527
3098
0.00229
0.0112


Met-Met-Thr-Trp
112
151.5
−0.436
3085
0.00275
0.0132


methylphosphonate
476.1
515.7
−0.115
3084
0.00279
0.0132


3′-Sialyllactosamine
84.8
129.1
−0.606
3082
0.00287
0.0134


2,4,6-Octatriynoic acid
1438.5
1703.3
−0.244
3079
0.00299
0.0137


Delphinidin 3-O-3″,6″-O-
229.7
164.6
0.481
1681
0.00307
0.0139


dimalonylglucoside


L-Valine
8240.3
7936.7
0.054
1685
0.00325
0.0142


Met-Met-Cys
192.1
163.5
0.233
1685
0.00325
0.0142


Cysteinyl-Cysteine
14357
11017.4
0.382
1687
0.00334
0.0144


(all-E)-1,8,10-Heptadecatriene-4,6-
378
788.6
−1.061
3068
0.00348
0.0145


diyne-3,12-diol


L-Lysine
135.9
76.8
0.823
1689
0.00343
0.0145


Pivaloylcarnitine
1262.9
1788
−0.502
3059
0.00393
0.0159


Lenticin
113
217.8
−0.946
3059
0.00393
0.0159


Phenol glucuronide
405.7
287.8
0.495
1701
0.00403
0.0159


Tyrosyl-Cysteine
957.9
802.2
0.256
1705
0.00426
0.0159


Osmundalin
533.8
317.1
0.751
1703
0.00414
0.0159


Tetrahydroaldosterone-3-glucuronide
781.6
975.4
−0.32
3054
0.0042
0.0159


N-Methylpyridinium
3882.3
13043
−1.748
3055
0.00414
0.0159


L-prolyl-L-proline
3080.2
5296.2
−0.782
3056
0.00409
0.0159


Glutarylcamitine
698.7
864.8
−0.308
3042
0.00492
0.018


[FA (15:4)] 6,8,10,12-
2303.5
3781
−0.715
3042
0.00492
0.018


pentadecatetraenal


Methyl bisnorbiotinyl ketone
2259.7
1986.7
0.186
1720
0.00519
0.0187


Acetoin
1239.3
785.6
0.658
1726
0.00561
0.02


LysoPC(18:2(9Z,12Z))
0.8
48.3
−5.859
3029
0.00584
0.0205


Hexyl 2-furoate
17
24.7
−0.537
3021
0.00647
0.0225


N-carbamoyl-L-glutamate
331.9
423.8
−0.353
3018
0.00673
0.0231


L-Homoserine
4000.7
5333.1
−0.415
3012
0.00726
0.0246


L-Asparagine
300
384.8
−0.359
3011
0.00736
0.0246


Tiglylcarnitine
314.5
762.4
−1.278
3008
0.00764
0.025


Thymine
110
76.8
0.519
1751
0.00774
0.025


3-hydroxypyridine
271.4
556.5
−1.036
3007
0.00774
0.025


Menadiol disuccinate
793.6
2024.6
−1.351
3005
0.00793
0.0254


9-Decenoylcamitine
1951.1
2609.8
−0.42
2996
0.00888
0.0275


Pyrocatechol sulfate
27377.5
40427.9
−0.562
2996
0.00888
0.0275


sedoheptulose anhydride
4159
10851.9
−1.384
2995
0.00899
0.0275


(+)-gamma-Hydroxy-L-
272.2
398.3
−0.549
2997
0.00877
0.0275


homoarginine


Thioridazine
884.1
1048.3
−0.246
2984
0.0103
0.0312


Cys-Glu-Glu-Glu
37.3
56.8
−0.609
2977
0.0112
0.0329


Marmesin rutinoside
17.8
36.1
−1.025
2977
0.0112
0.0329


L-Serine
991.6
1146.2
−0.209
2978
0.0111
0.0329


L-Urobilinogen
8.5
139.7
−4.035
2976
0.0113
0.033


Isobutyrylglycine
2274.1
2694.4
−0.245
2974
0.0116
0.0334


S-Adenosylhomocysteine
135.5
454.5
−1.746
2968
0.0125
0.0356


2,3-dioctanoylglyceramide
887.1
1277.1
−0.526
2966
0.0128
0.0357


3-Methoxy-4-hydroxyphenylglycol
0.5
10.7
−4.335
2966.5
0.0127
0.0357


glucuronide


sulfoethylcysteine
5602.3
8425.3
−0.589
2965
0.013
0.0358


Hydroxyphenylacetylglycine
460.1
568.5
−0.305
2962
0.0134
0.0367


Pyrroline hydroxycarboxylic acid
13972.6
16170.5
−0.211
2961
0.0136
0.0368


1-(alpha-Methyl-4-(2-
131.6
259.6
−0.98
2956
0.0144
0.0383


methylpropyl)benzeneacetate)-beta-


D-Glucopyranuronic acid


2-Methylbutylacetate
1958.5
2726.3
−0.477
2956
0.0144
0.0383


N1-Methyl-4-pyridone-3-
6162.4
9041.6
−0.553
2955
0.0146
0.0384


carboxamide


Cortolone-3-glucuronide
520.3
620.8
−0.255
2953
0.0149
0.039


Asn-Cys-Gly
255.4
231
0.145
1813
0.0164
0.0413


N6,N6,N6-Trimethyl-L-lysine
2282.7
2591.3
−0.183
2946
0.0162
0.0413


Benzylamine
66.3
218.7
−1.722
2947
0.016
0.0413


5-Hydroxy-L-tryptophan
177.9
218.1
−0.294
2945
0.0164
0.0413


Armillaric acid
25
44.5
−0.833
2941
0.0172
0.0429


Leucine/Isoleucine
979.3
1135.6
−0.214
2939
0.0176
0.0435


2-Butylbenzothiazole
441.4
381.3
0.211
1821
0.018
0.0441


D-Sedoheptulose 7-phosphate
297.5
497.5
−0.742
2936
0.0182
0.0442


[Fv Dimethoxy,methyl(9:1)] (2S)-
651.1
1201.2
−0.883
2935
0.0184
0.0444


5,7-Dimethoxy-3′,4′-


methylenedioxyflavanone


Oxoadipic acid
487.5
617.2
−0.341
2934
0.0186
0.0445


Thr-Cys-Cys
2325.9
2798.8
−0.267
2933
0.0188
0.0446


Creatine
4511
15140.7
−1.747
2930
0.0195
0.0458


Hydroxybutyrylcarnitine
156.7
259.7
−0.729
2929
0.0197
0.0459


5′-Dehydroadenosine
168.5
106.9
0.656
1833
0.0206
0.0462


Phe-Thr-Val
47.6
82.5
−0.793
2925
0.0206
0.0462


dUDP
149.3
319.2
−1.096
2925
0.0206
0.0462


L-Glutamine
616.2
706.6
−0.197
2926
0.0204
0.0462


Kaempferol 3-(2″,3″-diacetyl-4″-p-
32.8
113.1
−1.788
2927
0.0201
0.0462


coumaroylrhamnoside)





Metabolomic analysis performed on 139 samples (IBS: n = 78 and Control: n = 61)


Median concentration represented as arbitary unit (A.U.)


Log2FC, log2 fold change between the groups













TABLE 7





Fecal MS metabolomic Machine learning LASSO and Random Forest (RF) statistics for diagnosing IBS





















LASSO

RF


















lambda
AUC
Sens
Spec
mtry
AUC
Sens
Spec







0.051
1
0.700
0.475
1
0.862
0.821
0.647












10-fold Cross Validation for Training Set
10-fold Cross Validation for Training Set












Reference


Reference




Prediction
Control
IBS
Prediction
Control
IBS





Control
29.9
24
Control
40.5
14.4


IBS
33.1
56
IBS
22.5
65.6


Accuracy
(average)
0.601
Accuracy
(average)
0.742















Rank #
Ranking
Metabolite
Rank #
Ranking
Metabolite





1
100.00
3-deoxy-D-galactose
1
100
3-deoxy-D-galactose


2
97.93
Tyrosine
2
86.3
Tyrosine


3
51.16
I-Urobilin
3
80.8
I-Urobilin


4
0.13
Adenosine
4
80.0
Adenosine


5
0.09
Glu-Ile-Ile-Phe
5
78.9
Glu-Ile-Ile-Phe


6
0.06
3,6-Dimethoxy-19-norpregna-
6
77.1
3,6-Dimethoxy-19-norpregna-




l,3,5,7,9-pentaen-20-one


l,3,5,7,9-pentaen-20-one


7
0.04
2-Phenylpropionate
7
62.9
2-Phenylpropionate


8
0.04
MG(20:3(8Z,11Z,14Z)/0:0/0:0)
8
61.9
MG(20:3(8Z,11Z,14Z)/0:0/0:0)


9
0.03
1,2,3-Tris(1-ethoxyethoxy)propane
9
60.4
1,2,3-Tris(1-ethoxyethoxy)propane


10
0.03
Staphyloxanthin
10
60.3
Staphyloxanthin


11
0.02
Hexoses
11
59.0
Hexoses


12
0.02
20-hydroxy-E4-neuroprostane
12
58.2
20-hydroxy-E4-neuroprostane


13
0.02
Nonyl acetate
13
56.7
Nonyl acetate


14
0.01
3-Feruloyl-1,5-quinolactone
14
56.2
3-Feruloyl-1,5-quinolactone


15
0.01
trans-2-Heptenal
15
53.0
trans-2-Heptenal


16
0.01
Pyridoxamine
16
48.9
Pyridoxamine


17
0.01
L-Arginine
17
46.3
L-Arginine


18
0.01
Dodecanedioic acid
18
44.9
Dodecanedioic acid


19
0.01
Ursodeoxycholic acid
19
43.5
Ursodeoxycholic acid


20
0.003
1-(Malonylamino)cyclopropanecarboxylic acid
20
43.5
1-(Malonylamino)cyclopropanecarboxylic acid


21
0.002
Cortisone
21
42.5
Cortisone


22
0.002
9,10,13-Trihydroxystearic acid
22
42.4
9,10,13-Trihydroxystearic acid


23
0.002
Glu-Ala-Gln-Ser
23
36.6
Glu-Ala-Gln-Ser


24
0.002
Quasiprotopanaxatriol
24
36.3
Quasiprotopanaxatriol


25
0.001
N-Methylindolo[3,2-b]-5alpha-cholest-2-ene
25
35.3
N-Methylindolo[3,2-b]-5alpha-cholest-2-ene


26
0.001
PG(20:0/22:1(11Z))
26
34.4
PG(20:0/22:1(11Z))


27
0.001
(−)-Epigallocatechin
27
34.3
(−)-Epigallocatechin


28
0.001
2-Methyl-3-ketovaleric acid
28
30.8
2-Methyl-3-ketovaleric acid


29
0.001
Secoeremopetasitolide B
29
30.4
Secoeremopetasitolide B


30
0.001
PC(20:1(11Z)/P-16:0)
30
28.7
PC(20:1(11Z)/P-16:0)


31
0.001
Glu-Asp-Asp
31
26.3
Glu-Asp-Asp


32
0.001
N5-acetyl-N5-hydroxy-L-ornithine acid
32
23.9
N5-acetyl-N5-hydroxy-L-ornithine acid


33
0.001
Silicic acid
33
22.7
Silicic acid


34
0.0005
(1xi,3xi)-1,2,3,4-Tetrahydro-1-methyl-beta-
34
22.2
(1xi,3xi)-1,2,3,4-Tetrahydro-1-methyl-beta-




carboline-3-carboxylic acid


carboline-3-carboxylic acid


35
0.0004
PS(36:5)
35
21.9
PS(36:5)


36
0.0002
Chorismate
36
17.6
Chorismate


37
0.0002
Isoamyl isovalerate
37
17.5
Isoamyl isovalerate


38
0.0002
PA(O-36:4)
38
12.5
PA(O-36:4)


39
0.0001
PE(P-28:0)
39
8.0
PE(P-28:0)


40
0.00001
gamma-Glutamyl-S-methylcysteinyl-beta-
40
0
gamma-Glutamyl-S-methylcysteinyl-beta-




alanine


alanine





Analysis had 2 classes: Control and IBS and included 143 samples (IBS: n = 80 and Control: n = 63)


753 predictors were used in the model


No test set













TABLE 8







Fecal metabolites differentially abundant between the IBS and Control groups














IBS
Control

Wilcoxon




Metabolite
(A.U.)
(A.U.)
Log2FC
Statistic
p-value
q-value
















2-Phenylpropionate
1323182.1
3247921.9
−1.296
3374
0
0.00505


3-Buten-1-amine
280286.1
167168.2
0.746
1388
0
0.00505


Adenosine
125862.8
222491.1
−0.822
3340
0
0.00505


I-Urobilin
2129046.3
508459.2
2.066
1444
0
0.00505


2,3-Epoxymenaquinone
245989.6
547357.5
−1.154
3313
0
0.00505


[FA (22:5)] 4,7,10,13,16-Docosapentaynoic
516717.6
1051721
−1.025
3309
0
0.00505


acid


3,6-Dimethoxy-19-norpregna-1,3,5,7,9-
961706.2
2013326.2
−1.066
3298
0
0.00505


pentaen-20-one


Cucurbitacin S
1617422.3
812194.6
0.994
1462
0.0001
0.00505


N-Heptanoylglycine
581244.7
1189914.8
−1.034
3296
0.0001
0.00505


11-Deoxocucurbitacin I
1509367.4
1026985.6
0.556
1478
0.000132
0.00599


Staphyloxanthin
125908.3
208397.6
−0.727
3264
0.000174
0.00716


Piperidine
536820.9
366827.8
0.549
1501
0.000196
0.00722


Leu-Ser-Ser-Tyr
194085.5
88714.9
1.129
1509
0.000224
0.00722


L-Urobilin
31844915.4
58134193.3
−0.868
3249
0.000224
0.00722


L-Phenylalanine
2052003.6
1343878.1
0.611
1513
0.000239
0.00722


Ala-Leu-Trp-Pro
323939
638393.1
−0.979
3238
0.000269
0.0074


3-Feruloyl-1,5-quinolactone
524541.4
876281.8
−0.74
3236
0.000278
0.0074


PG(P-16:0/14:0)
426308.9
798780.6
−0.906
3223
0.000343
0.00832


3-deoxy-D-galactose
226693.6
145983.2
0.635
1536
0.000349
0.00832


MG(20:3(8Z,11Z,14Z)/0:0/0:0)
89430.2
214373.1
−1.261
3215
0.000391
0.00857


Mesobilirubinogen
696662.3
251218.8
1.472
1544
0.000397
0.00857


L-Alanine
1429957.1
1081997.7
0.402
1548
0.000424
0.00872


Tyrosine
533603.6
368180.1
0.535
1564
0.000546
0.0106


PG(O-30:1)
140723.9
291063.6
−1.048
3192
0.000564
0.0106


beta-Pinene
171.8
276.9
−0.689
3187
0.00061
0.011


2,4,8-Eicosatrienoic acid isobutylamide
53648.9
167764.9
−1.645
3170.5
0.000787
0.0135


Glutarylglycine
1561150.4
2367236.8
−0.601
3169
0.000805
0.0135


[PR] gamma-Carotene/beta,psi-Carotene
39594.5
55014.4
−0.475
3155
0.000996
0.0161


Neuromedin B (1-3)
1195664.8
414438.1
1.529
1610
0.00111
0.0173


Heptane-1-thiol
435910.8
336879.8
0.372
1613
0.00116
0.0174


Violaxanthin
688839.8
991237.9
−0.525
3143
0.00119
0.0174


Isolimonene
6.8
19
−1.492
3138
0.00128
0.0182


Ile-Lys-Cys-Gly
422439.2
241750.4
0.805
1625
0.00138
0.0187


His-Met-Val-Val
377162.4
223544.7
0.755
1626
0.0014
0.0187


Allyl caprylate
9.6
7.7
0.326
1632
0.00153
0.0196


Hydroxyprolyl-Tryptophan
323127
123183.6
1.391
1633
0.00156
0.0196


Dodecanedioic acid
671845.4
956268.6
−0.509
3122
0.00162
0.0199


2-O-Benzoyl-D-glucose
220717.8
469968.1
−1.09
3119
0.0017
0.0199


2-Ethylsuberic acid
384419
749840
−0.964
3118
0.00172
0.0199


D-Urobilin
1792754.5
301418.7
2.572
1641.5
0.00176
0.0199


20-hydroxy-E4-neuroprostane
125388
208519
−0.734
3113
0.00185
0.02


PG(O-31:1)
525453.8
924227.6
−0.815
3113
0.00185
0.02


Anigorufone
754382
1783246.9
−1.241
3110
0.00193
0.0203


Nonyl acetate
13.1
8.2
0.677
1658
0.00223
0.0229


L-Arginine
32851.3
72856.2
−1.149
3095
0.00239
0.0239


PG(P-32:1)
164475.2
226435.7
−0.461
3094
0.00242
0.0239


Glu-Ala-Gln-Ser
375851.9
273805.4
0.457
1668
0.00256
0.0247


PG(31:0)
160964.6
277244.2
−0.784
3087
0.00267
0.0252


Cucurbitacin I
793831.5
470668
0.754
1683
0.00316
0.0275


Arg-Lys-Phe-Val
479994
2477823.7
−2.368
3075
0.00316
0.0275


Genipinic acid
269618.2
535154
−0.989
3072.5
0.00327
0.0275


Hexoses
63587.8
102387.4
−0.687
3072.5
0.00327
0.0275


Lys-Phe-Phe-Phe
144955.5
76014.5
0.931
1686
0.00329
0.0275


PI(41:2)
523352.3
289816
0.853
1686
0.00329
0.0275


D-galactal
236791
433511.6
−0.872
3071
0.00334
0.0275


Traumatic acid
235655
352893.3
−0.583
3066
0.00357
0.0287


Adenine
312165.1
445818.4
−0.514
3065
0.00362
0.0287


PC(22:2(13Z,16Z)/15:0)
249100.9
131882.9
0.917
1695
0.00372
0.0287


2-Phenylethyl beta-D-glucopyranoside
330200
576025.7
−0.803
3061
0.00382
0.0287


PG(37:2)
208672.4
309558.5
−0.569
3060
0.00387
0.0287


Glycerol tributanoate
1818865.6
790191.7
1.203
1699
0.00393
0.0287


Arg-Leu-Pro-Arg
1113239.6
805486.6
0.467
1699
0.00393
0.0287


2-O-p-Coumaroyl-D-glucose
177559.4
309984.6
−0.804
3057
0.00403
0.029


3,4-Dihydroxyphenyllactic acid methyl ester
172842.1
321573.9
−0.896
3055
0.00414
0.0293


PG(P-28:0)
70315.5
138650.1
−0.98
3054
0.0042
0.0293


PG(34:0)
80115.9
135649.9
−0.76
3050
0.00443
0.0298


L-Lysine
391680.5
290959.3
0.429
1710
0.00455
0.0298


Ribitol
139100.6
308432.9
−1.149
3048
0.00455
0.0298


LysoPE(18:2(9Z,12Z)/0:0)
41861
70972.6
−0.762
3048
0.00455
0.0298


PA(20:4(5Z,8Z,11Z,14Z)e/2:0)
117279.2
179176
−0.611
3046
0.00467
0.0298


5-Dehydroshikimate
270282
486194.1
−0.847
3046
0.00467
0.0298


Threoninyl-Isoleucine
302458.5
194748
0.635
1715
0.00486
0.0301


L-Methionine
296185.5
228939.8
0.372
1717
0.00499
0.0301


PS(26:0))
3551762.1
1704565.8
1.059
1717
0.00499
0.0301


alpha-Pinene
92.1
215.6
−1.227
3041
0.00499
0.0301


Fenchene
12.1
26.4
−1.124
3039
0.00512
0.0305


Glu-Ile-Ile-Phe
171216.3
125559
0.447
1721
0.00526
0.0305


Gln-Phe-Phe-Phe
367594.4
170906.7
1.105
1721
0.00526
0.0305


Ursodeoxycholic acid
12666176
6449124.1
0.974
1726
0.00561
0.0318


PC(34:2)
112528.4
208697.3
−0.891
3032
0.00561
0.0318


3,17-Androstanediol glucuronide
469180.9
755540.9
−0.687
3031
0.00569
0.0318


Pyridoxamine
56652.2
41022
0.466
1730.5
0.00595
0.0324


[ST hydrox] (25R)-3alpha,7alpha-dihydroxy-
319975.1
229268.9
0.481
1732
0.00607
0.0324


5beta-cholestan-27-oyl taurine


PA(42:2)
1782124.8
686161.8
1.377
1732
0.00607
0.0324


[FA (16:0)] 2-bromo-hexadecanal
515055.9
256899.2
1.004
1733
0.00615
0.0324


3,6-Dihydro-4-(4-methyl-3-pentenyl)-1,2-
479922.9
701686.5
−0.548
3025
0.00615
0.0324


dithiin


3-Methylcrotonylglycine
161596.9
287502.4
−0.831
3024
0.00623
0.0324


xi-7-Hydroxyhexadecanedioic acid
48647.5
70410.5
−0.533
3020
0.00656
0.0337


Camphene
7.7
17.7
−1.192
3017
0.00681
0.0345


2-Hydroxy-3-carboxy-6-oxo-7-methylocta-
375469
560318.7
−0.578
3014
0.00708
0.0345


2,4-dienoate


7C-aglycone
1658154.1
2581551
−0.639
3014
0.00708
0.0345


1-(3-Aminopropyl)-4-aminobutanal
1007823.6
194401.6
2.374
1744
0.00708
0.0345


Benzyl isobutyrate
79.6
152.6
−0.938
3014
0.00708
0.0345


(S)-(E)-8-(3,6-Dimethyl-2-heptenyl)-4′,5,7-
213117.3
551116.6
−1.371
3010
0.00745
0.0346


trihydroxyflavanone


1,3-di-(5Z,8Z,11Z,14Z,17Z-
100264.5
212921.2
−1.087
3010
0.00745
0.0346


eicosapentaenoyl)-2-hydroxy-glycerol (d5)


SM(d18:0/18:0)
80949.8
49417.7
0.712
1748
0.00745
0.0346


L-Homoserine
292067.7
226802.4
0.365
1749
0.00754
0.0346


17beta-(Acetylthio)estra-1,3,5 (10)-trien-3-ol
630945.8
1067932
−0.759
3009
0.00754
0.0346


acetate


[ST (2:0)] 5beta-Chola-3,11-dien-24-oic
695679.3
320859.8
1.116
1750
0.00764
0.0346


Acid


PG(33:2)
75974.9
50361.9
0.593
1750
0.00764
0.0346


PE(22:4(7Z,10Z,13Z,16Z)/P-16:0)
81995.8
100782
−0.298
3006
0.00783
0.0351


Protoporphyrinogen IX
255656.7
187102.1
0.45
1756
0.00824
0.0366


alpha-Tocopherol succinate
47245.3
108160.8
−1.195
3001
0.00834
0.0367


Methyl (9Z)-6′-oxo-6,5′-diapo-6-carotenoate
899831
218922.6
2.039
1760
0.00866
0.037


PG(16:1(9Z)/16:1(9Z))
103173.2
74458
0.471
1760
0.00866
0.037


PC(o-22:1(13Z)/20:4(8Z,11Z,14Z,17Z))
52447
106165.5
−1.017
2998
0.00866
0.037


PG(31:2)
136942.9
86564.2
0.662
1761
0.00877
0.0371


alpha-phellandrene
61.7
199.1
−1.69
2992
0.00933
0.0391


[PS (12:0/13:0)] 1-dodecanoyl-2-tridecanoyl-
7612945.4
10637361.3
−0.483
2991
0.00945
0.0393


sn-glycero-3-phosphoserine (ammonium salt)


Glu-Asp-Asp
340635.1
461045.6
−0.437
2989
0.00968
0.0399


PG(33:1)
215737.5
257078.3
−0.253
2984
0.0103
0.0416


PA(O-20:0/22:6(4Z,7Z,10Z,13Z,16Z,19Z))
235161.1
348850.6
−0.569
2984
0.0103
0.0416


[FA oxo(19:0)] 18-oxo-nonadecanoic acid
191012.9
264717.7
−0.471
2979
0.0109
0.0438


PG(16:1(9Z)/18:0)
714625.3
987020.3
−0.466
2978
0.0111
0.0438


Leu-Val
450170.2
278770.9
0.691
1781
0.0112
0.0438


demethylmenaquinone-6
576044.2
696566.9
−0.274
2977
0.0112
0.0438


PC(o-16:1(9Z)/14:1(9Z))
400429.2
269886.5
0.569
1782
0.0113
0.0439


PG(P-32:0)
306573.5
512926.2
−0.743
2974
0.0116
0.0444


(24E)-3beta,15alpha,22S-Triacetoxylanosta-
390549.4
641541.7
−0.716
2973
0.0118
0.0444


7,9(11),24-trien-26-oic acid


PA(33:5)
2066319.8
1269332.8
0.703
1785
0.0118
0.0444


LysoPC(0:0/18:0)
210818
418649.1
−0.99
2970
0.0122
0.0457


Ile-Arg-Ile
56540.6
70311.6
−0.314
2968
0.0125
0.0464


Lauryl acetate
3.3
4.8
−0.525
2967
0.0126
0.0466


Glu-Glu-Gly-Tyr
292531
208064.8
0.492
1793
0.013
0.0473


3-(Methylthio)-1-propanol
215.9
162
0.414
1794
0.0131
0.0475


(−)-(E)-1-(4-Hydroxyphenyl)-7-phenyl-6-
1827847.9
2763203.9
−0.596
2962
0.0134
0.0479


hepten-3-ol


Dimethyl benzyl carbinyl butyrate
5.4
12.7
−1.232
2962
0.0134
0.0479


Methyl 2,3-dihydro-3,5-dihydroxy-2-oxo-3-
1058511.5
1884600.2
−0.832
2960
0.0137
0.0486


indoleacetic acid





Metabolomic analysis performed on 139 samples (IBS: n = 78 and Control: n = 61)


Median concentration represented as arbitary unit (A.U.)


Log2FC, log2 fold change between the groups













TABLE 9a







Wilcox Rank Sum Statistical analysis is bile acids (BAs) between the subgroups of IBS, as defined by the Rome Criteria
















Primary
Secondary
Sulfated

Conjugated



Subgroup
Total BAs
BAs
BAs
BAs
UDCA
BAs
Tauro/glyco
























Control
7.11
(0.285)
5.038
(4.446)
94.962
(4.446)
8.336
(6.14)
47.186
(22.212)
13.374
(9.323)
1.932
(1.521)


IBS-C
7.22
(0.322)
5.216
(4.271)
94.784
(4.271)
9.028
(9.923)
55.094
(21.022)
14.244
(12.293)
2.247
(2.568)


IBS-D
7.37
(0.31) *
3.593
(4.117)
96.407
(4.117)
4.126
(3.507) *
67.022
(15.419) **
7.719
(6.03) *
1.77
(1.649)


IBS-M
7.18
(0.345)
4.127
(3.121)
95.873
(3.121)
9.603
(10.878)
51.007
(22.764)
13.73
(11.995)
2.624
(3.051)





Statistical analysis was performed on 139 samples (IBS: n = 78 and Control: n = 61)


Significance after p value adjustment (Benjamini-Hochberg), was observed only in Control vs IBS-D.


* p-adj < 0.05,


** p-adj < 0.01.


Total bile acids are represented as mean of log10 values.


Others bile acid categories are presented as a percentage of the total bile acids.


Taur/Glyco ratio was calculated as ratio of taurine- and glyco-conjugated BAs (without log10 transformation).













TABLE 9b







Spearman correlation analysis between bile acids (Bas) and secondary BA synthesis pathways













Pathway
Total BAs
Primary BAs
Secondary BAs
Sulfated BAs
UDCA
Conjugated BAs
















ursodeoxycholate biosynthesis (PWY_7588)
0.258*
0.007
0.26*
−0.113
0.298**
−0.133


glycocholate metabolism (PWY_6518)
0.362**
−0.045
0.37**
−0.125
0.42**
−0.156





Statistical analysis was performed on 135 samples (IBS: n = 78 and Control: n = 57)


Significance after p value adjustment (Benjamini-Hochberg), was observed only in Control vs IBS-D.


* p-adj < 0.05,


** p-adj < 0.01.


Total bile acids are represented as mean of log10 values.


Others bile acid categories are presented as a percentage of the total bile acids (without Log10 transformation).













TABLE 10







Descriptive statistics of control and IBS subjects studied












Control (n = 65)
IBS (n = 80)

















Age range, years |mean)
19-65
(45)
17-66
|39)











Sex |male/female)
16/49
15/65



BMI Class, n |%)













Normal
25
(58)
31
|39)



Obese Class I
11
(17)
14
|18)



Obese Class II
3
(5)
5
(6)



Obese Class III
1
(2)
3
(4)



Overweight
21
(22)
22
|22)



Underweight
3
(3)
3
(4)











HADS: Anxiety, n |%)















Normal |0-10)
59
(91)
58
|73)



Abnormal |11-21)
6
(9)
22
|28)











HADS: Depression, n (%)















Normal |0-10)
64
(98)
70
|88)



Abnormal |11-21)
1
(2)
10
|13)











Bristol Stool Score, n (%)















Normal
54
(83)
18
|23)



Constipated
8
(12)
22
|28)



Diarrhoea
3
(5)
42
|50)











IBS subtype, n |%)














IBS-C

30
|38)



IBS-D
N/A
21
|36)



IBS-M

29
|36)













SeHCAT assayed, n (%)
9
(14)
46
|56)











Dietary group |FFQ), n |%)















Omnivore
63
(97)
74
|93)



Vegetarian
1
(2)
2
(3)



Pescatarian
1
(2)
1
(1)



Gluten-free
0
(0)
4
(5)











Drinks alcohol, n |%)















Current
54
(83)
57
|71)



Previous
0
(0)
1
(1)



Never
10
(15)
22
|28)











Smoker, n (%)















Current
10*
(15)
14*
|18)



Previous
13
(20)
18
|23)



Never
42
(65)
48
|60)







*1 subject in each group smoked e-cigarettes



N/A, not applicable













TABLE 11





16S OTU Machine learning LASSO and Random Forest (RF) statistics




















LASSO

RF

















lambda
AUC
Sens
Spec
mtry
AUC
Sens
Spec







0.1
0.757
0.883
0.469
1
0.851
0.924
0.542
















Ten-fold cross-validation

Ten-fold cross-validation















Reference


Reference





Prediction
IBS
Healthy
Prediction
IBS
Healthy







IBS
68.8
34.0
IBS
72.1
29.3



Healthy
 9.2
30.0
Healthy
 5.9
34.7



Accuracy
(average)
0.6958
Accuracy
(average)
0.7521

















RF Ranking








Rank #
Ranking
Phylum
Class
Order
Family
Genus





1
100
Firmicutes
Clostridia
Clostridiales
Lachnospiraceae


2
87.5
Firmicutes


3
82.1
Firmicutes
Clostridia
Clostridiales
Ruminococcaceae

Butyricicoccus



4
66.3
Firmicutes
Clostridia
Clostridiales
Lachnospiraceae


5
62.4
Firmicutes
Clostridia
Clostridiales


6
57.2
Firmicutes
Clostridia
Clostridiales
Ruminococcaceae


7
43.7
Firmicutes
Clostridia
Clostridiales
Ruminococcaceae


8
30.8
Firmicutes


9
15.1
Firmicutes
Clostridia
Clostridiales
Ruminococcaceae


10
0
Firmicutes
Clostridia
Clostridiales
Lachnospiraceae





Analysis had 2 classes: Control and IBS and included 139 samples (IBS: n = 80 and Control: n = 59) Coriobacteriaceae


Metrics reported are the average values from 10 repeats of 10-fold Cross Validation.


Taxonomy classified using the RDP classfier, database version 2.10.1.













TABLE 12







16S OTU Machine learning LASSO and Random Forest (RF) statistics sequence information














Rank









#
Ranking
Phylym
Class
Order
Family
Genus
Sequence

















 1
100

Firmicutes


Clostridia


Clostridiales


Lachno-


CCTACGGGGGGCAGCAGTGGGGAATATTG








spiraceae


CACAATGGGGGAAACCCTGATGCAGCGAC









GCCGCGTGAGTGAAGAAGTATTTCGGTAT









GTAAAGCTCTATCAGCAGGGAAGAAAATG









ACGGTACCTGACTAAGAAGCCCCGGCTAA









CTACGTGGCCAGCAGCCGCGGTAATACGT









AGGGGGCAAGCGTTATCCGGATTTACTGG









GTGTAAAGGGAGCGTAGGTGGTATGGCAA









GTCAGAGGTGAAAACCCAGGGCTTAACCT









TGGGATTGCCTTTGAAACTGTCAGACTAG









AGTGCAGGAGGGGTAAGTGGAATTCCTAG









TGTAGCGGTGAAATGCGTAGATATTAGGA









GGAACACCAGTGGCGAAGGCGGCTTACTG









GACTGTAACTGACACTGAGGCTCGAAAGC









GTGGGGAGCAAACAGGATTAGATACCCGA









GTAGTC (SEQ ID No: 1)





 2
87.5

Firmicutes





CCTACGGGGGGCTGCAGTGGGGAATATTG









GGCAATGGAGGAAACTCTGACCCAGCAAC









GCCGCGTGGAGGAAGAAGTTTTCGGATCG









TAAACTCCTGTCCTTGGAGACGAGTAGAA









GACGGTATCCAAGGAGGAAGCCCCGGCTA









ACTACGTGCCAGCAGCCGCGGTAATACGT









AGGGGGCAAGCGTTGTCCGGAATAATTGG









GCGTAAAGGGCGCGTAGGCGGCTCGGTAA









GTCTGGAGTGAAAGTCCTGCTTTTAAGGT









GGGAATTGCTTTGGATACTGTCGGGCTTG









AGTGCAGGAGAGGTTAGTGGAATTCCCAG









TGTAGCGGTGAAATGCGTAGAGATTGGGA









GGAACACCAGTGGCGAAGGCGACTAACTG









GACTGTAACTGACGCTGAGGCGCGAAAGT









GTGGGGAGCAAACAGGATTAGATACCCCA









GTAGTC (SEQ ID No: 2)





 3
82.1

Firmicutes


Clostridia


Clostridiales


Ruminoco-


Buty-

CCTACGGGGGGCTGCAGTGGGGAATATTG








ccaceae


ricico-

CGCAATGGGGGAAACCCTGACGCAGCAAC









ccus

GCCGCGTGATTGAAGAAGGCCTTCGGGTT









GTAAAGATCTTTAATCAGGGACGAAACAT









GACGGTACCTGAAGAATAAGCTCCGGCTA









ACTACGTGCCAGCAGCCGCGGTAATACGT









AGGGAGCAAGCGTTATCCGGATTTACTGG









GTGTAAAGGGCGCGCAGGCGGGCCGGCAA









GTTGGAAGTGAAATCCGGGGGCTTAACCC









CCGAACTGCTTTCAAAACTGCTGGTCTTG









AGTGATGGAGAGGCAGGCGGAATTCCGTG









TGTAGCGGTGAAATGCGTAGATATACGGA









GGAACACCAGTGGCGAAGGCGGCCTGCTG









GACATTAACTGACGCTGAGGCGCGAAAGC









GTGGGGAGCAAACAGGATTAGATACCCCT









GTAGTC (SEQ ID No: 3)





 4
66.3

Firmicutes


Clostridia


Clostridiales


Lachno-


CCTACGGGTGGCTGCAGTGGGGAATATTG








spiraceae


CACAATGGGGGAAACCCTGATGCAGCAAC









GCCGCGTGAGTGAAGAAGTATTTCGGTAT









GTAAAGCTCTATCAGCAGGAAAGAAAATG









ACGGTACCTGACTAAGAAGCCCCGGCTAA









CTACGTGCCAGCAGCCGCGGTAATACGTA









GGGGGCAAGCGTTATCCGGATTTACTGGG









TGTAAAGGGAGCGTAGACGGTGAGGCAAG









TCTGAAGTGAAATGCCGGGGCTCAACCCC









GGAACTGCTTTGGAAACTGTCGTACTAGA









GTGTCGGAGGGGTAAGCGGAATTCCTAGT









GTAGCGGTGAAATGCGTAGATATTAGGAG









GAACACCAGTGGCGAAGGCGGCTTGCTGG









ACTGTAACTGACACTGAGGCTCGAAAGCG









TGGGGAGCAAACAGGATTAGATACCCTTG









TAGTC (SEQ ID No: 4)





 5
62.4

Firmicutes


Clostridia


Clostridiales



CCTACGGGGGGCAGCAGTCGGGAATATTG









CGCAATGGAGGAAACTCTGACGCAGTGAC









GCCGCGTATAGGAAGAAGGTTTTCGGATT









GTAAACTATTGTCGTTAGGGAAGATACAA









GACAGTACCTAAGGAGGAAGCTCCGGCTA









ACTACGTGCCAGCAGCCGCGGTAATACGT









AGGGAGCAAGCGTTATCCGGATTTATTGG









GTGTAAAGGGTGCGTAGACGGGACAACAA









GTTAGTTGTGAAATCCCTCGGCTTAACTG









AGGAACTGCAACTAAAACTATTGTTCTTG









AGTGTTGGAGAGGAAAGTGGAATTCCTAG









TGTAGCGGTGAAATGCGTAGATATTAGGA









GGAACACCGGTGGCGAAGGCGACTTTCTG









GACAATAACTGACGTTGAGGCACGAAAGT









GTGGGGAGCAAACAGGATTAGATACCCCA









GTAGTC (SEQ ID No: 5)





 6
57.2

Firmicutes


Clostridia


Clostridiales


Ruminoco-


CCTACGGGGGGCTGCAGTGGGGAATATTG








ccaceae


GGCAATGGGCGAAAGCCTGACCCAGCAAC









GCCGCGTGAAGGAAGAAGGTCTTCGGATT









GTAAACTTCTTTTATGAGGGACGAAGGAA









GTGACGGTACCTCATGAATAAGCCACGGC









TAACTACGTGCCAGCAGCCGCGGTAATAC









GTAGGTGGCAAGCGTTGTCCGGATTTACT









GGGTGTAAAGGGCGCGTAGGCGGGATGGC









AAGTCAGATGTGAAATCCATGGGCTCAAC









CCATGAACTGCATTTGAAACTGTCGTTCT









TGAGTATCGGAGAGGCAAGCGGAATTCCT









AGTGTAGCGGTGAAATGCGTAGATATTAG









GAGGAACACCAGTGGCGAAGGCGGCTTGC









TGGACGACAACTGACGCTGAGGCGCGAAA









GCGTGGGGAGCAAACAGGATTAGATACCC









CTGTAGTC (SEQ ID No: 6)





 7
43.7

Firmicutes


Clostridia


Clostridiales


Ruminoco-


CCTACGGGGGGCTGCAGTGGGGGATATTG








ccaceae


CACAATGGGGGAAACCCTGATGCAGCAAC









GCCGCGTGAGGGAAGAAGGTTTTCGGATT









GTAAACCTCTGTCCTCAGGGAAGATAATG









ACGGTACCTGAGGAGGAAGCTCCGGCTAA









CTACGTGCCAGCAGCCGCGGTAATACGTA









GGGAGCAAGCGTTGTCCGGATTTACTGGG









TGTAAAGGGTGCGTAGGCGGGATATCAAG









TCAGACGTGAAATCCATCGGCTTAACTGA









TGAACTGCGTTTGAAACTGGTATTCTTGA









GTGAGTCAGAGGCAGGCGGAATTCCCGGT









GTAGCGGTGAAATGCGTAGAGATCGGGAG









GAACACCAGTGGCGAAGGCGGCCTGCTGG









GGCTTAACTGACGCTGAGGCACGAAAGCG









TGGGGAGCAAACAGGATTAGATACCCGAG









TAGTC (SEQ ID No: 7)





 8
30.8

Firmicutes





CCTACGGGGGGCTGCAGTGGGGAATATTG









GGCAATGGAGGGAACTCTGACCCAGCAAT









GCCGCGTGAGTGAAGAAGGTTTTCGGATT









GTAAAACTCTTTAAGCAGGGACGAAGAAA









GTGACGGTACCTGCAGAATAAGCATCGGC









TAACTACGTGCCAGCAGCCGCGGTAATAC









GTAGGATGCAAGCGTTATCCGGAATGACT









GGGCGTAAAGGGTGCGTAGGCGGTAAATC









AAGTTGGCAGCGTAATTCCGGGGCTTAAC









TCCGGAACTACTGCCAAAACTGGTGAACT









AGAGTGTGTCAGGGGTAAGTGGAATTCCT









AGTGTAGCGGTGGAATGCGTAGATATTAG









GAGGAACACCGGAGGCGAAAGCGACTTAC









TGGGGCACAACTGACGCTGAGGCACGAAA









GCGTGGGGAGCAAACAGGATTAGATACCC









CGGTAGTC (SEQ ID No: 8)





 9
15.1

Firmicutes


Clostridia


Clostridiales


Ruminoco-


CCTACGGGAGGCAGCAGTGGGGGATATTG








ccaceae


CACAATGGAGGAAACTCTGATGCAGCAAC









GCCGCGTGAGGGAAGAAGGATTTCGGTTT









GTAAACCTCTGTCTTCGGTGACGAAATGA









CGGTAGCCGAGGAGGAAGCTCCGGCTAAC









TACGTGCCAGCAGCCGCGGTAATACGTAG









GGAGCAAGCGTTGTCCGGAATTACTGGGT









GTAAAGGGTGCGTAGGTGGGACTGCAAGT









CAGGTGTGAAAACGGTCGGCTCAACCGAT









CGCCTGCACTTGAAACTGTGGTTCTTGAG









TGAAGTAGAGGTAGGCGGAATTCCCGGTG









TAGCGGTGAAATGCGTAGAGATCGGGAGG









AACACCAGTGGCGAAGGCGGCCTACTGGG









CTTTAACTGACGCTGAGGCACGAAAGCAT









GGGTAGCAAACAGGATTAGATACCCCGGT









AGTC (SEQ ID No: 9)





10
0

Firmicutes


Clostridia


Clostridiales


Lachno-


CCTACGGGGGGCTGCAGTGGGGAATATTG








spiraceae


CACAATGGGGGAAACCCTGATGCAGCGAC









GCCGCGTGAGCGAAGAAGTATTTCGGTAT









GTAAAGCTCTATCAGCAGGGAAGATAATG









ACGGTACCTGACTAAGAAGCCCCGGCTAA









ATACGTGCCAGCAGCCGCGGTAATACGTA









GGGAGCAAGCGTTATCCGGATTTATTGGG









TGTAAAGGGTGCGTAGACGGGACAACAAG









TTAGTTGTGAAATCCCTCGGCTTAACTGA









GGAACTGCAACTAAAACTATTGTTCTTGA









GTGTTGGAGAGGAAAGTGGAATTCCTAGT









GTAGCGGTGAAATGCGTAGATATTAGGAG









GAACACCGGTGGCGAAGGCGGCCTACTGG









GCACCAACTGACGCTGAGGCTCGAAAGTG









TGGGTAGCAAACAGGATTAGATACCCTAG









TAGTC (SEQ ID No: 10)
















TABLE 13





Fecal Metabolomics Machine learning with alternative pipeline is predictive of IBS versus Control



















LASSO Optimisation
Random Forest Optimisation
Model Performance





AUC
0.683 (0.139)
0.909 (0.084)
0.686 (0.132)


Sensitivity
0.624 (0.177)
0.903 (0.108)
0.737 (0.181)


Specificity
0.608 (0.202)
0.706 (0.188)
0.476 (0.122)










10-fold Cross Validation












Predicted IBS
Predicted Control







IBS
59
21



Control
33
30














Rank


Random Forest


#
Metabolite ID
LASSO coefficients
feature importance





1
L-Phenylalanine
−0.788
88.34


2
Adenosine
0.345
78.31


3
MG(20:3(8Z, 11Z, 14Z)/0:0/0:0)
0.33
64.62


4
L-Alanine
−0.752
56.24


5
3,6-Dimethoxy-19-norpregna-1,3,5,7,9-pentaen-20-one
0.292
53.14


6
Glu-Ile-Ile-Phe
−0.569
49.57


7
Glu-Ala-Gln-Ser
−0.948
48.99


8
2,4,8-Eicosatrienoic acid isobutylamide
0.179
43.67


9
Piperidine
−0.161
38.43


10
Staphyloxanthin
0.251
37.03


11
beta-Carotinal
0.368
35.35


12
Hexoses
0.107
35.21


13
Ile-Arg-Ile
0.663
35.06


14
11-Deoxocucurbitacin I
−0.141
34.94


15
1-(Malonylamino)cyclopropanecarboxylic acid
0.353
31.96


16
PG(37:2)
0.908
31.75


17
[PR] gamma-Carotene/beta.psi-Carotene
0.122
31.31


18
20-hydroxy-E4-neuroprostane
0.126
29.99


19
Ethylphenyl acetate
0.185
29.86


20
Dodecanedioic acid
0.089
28.24


21
Ile-Lys-Cys-Gly
−0.12
27.87


22
Tuberoside
0.873
27.39


23
D-galactal
0.223
26.84


24
3,6-Dihydro-4-(4-methyl-3-pentenyl)-1,2-dithiin
0.146
21.83


25
demethylmenaquinone-6
0.079
20.51


26
L-Arginine
0.071
20.33


27
PC(o-16:1(9Z)/14:1(9Z))
−0.09
19.9


28
Mesobilirubinogen
−0.155
19.84


29
Traumatic acid
0.172
19.82


30
alpha-Tocopherol succinate
0.123
18.74


31
3-Methylcrotonylglycine
0.182
18.39


32
(S)-(E)-8-(3,6-Dimethyl-2-heptenyl)-4′,5,7-trihydroxyflavanone
0.072
18.03


33
xi-7-Hydroxyhexadecanedioic acid
0.031
17.96


34
beta-Pinene
0.025
16.94


35
Leu-Ser-Ser-Tyr
−0.041
16.69


36
Orotic acid
−0.143
16.59


37
Heptane-1-thiol
−0.047
15.82


38
Glu-Asp-Asp
0.038
15.43


39
LysoPE(18:2(9Z,12Z)/0:0)
0.02
15.28


40
LysoPE(22:0/0:0)
0.282
15.14


41
Creatine
0.209
15.03


42
Inosine
0.027
13.46


43
SM(d32:2)
−0.077
13.19


44
Arg-Leu-Val-Cys
0.043
12.52


45
PS(O-18:0/15:0)
−0.229
12.45


46
Pyridoxamine
−0.105
11.89


47
N-Heptanoylglycine
0.045
11.53


48
Hematoporphyrin IX
−0.161
11.4


49
3beta,5beta-Ketotriol
−0.096
10.59


50
2-Phenylpropionate
0.026
10


51
trans-2-Heptenal
0.014
9.63


52
LysoPC(0:0/18:0)
0.028
9.08


53
Linoleoyl ethanolamide
−0.025
8.93


54
LysoPE(24:0/0:0)
0.044
8.8


55
2-Methyl-3-hydroxyvaleric acid
−0.119
8.58


56
Quasiprotopanaxatriol
0.162
8.56


57
N-oleoyl isoleucine
0.059
8.49


58
(-)-(E)-1-(4-Hydroxyphenyl)-7-phenyl-6-hepten-3-ol
0.028
8.44


59
[FA hydroxy(4:0)] N-(3S-hydroxy-butanoyl)-homoserine lactone
0.024
8.43


60
Riboflavin cyclic-4′,5′-phosphate
0.092
8


61
Arg-Lys-Trp-Val
−0.626
7.86


62
PC(20:1(11Z)/P-16:0)
0.033
7.8


63
3,5-Dihydroxybenzoic acid
0.083
7.67


64
Tyrosine
−0.012
7.43


65
2,3-Epoxymenaquinone
0.005
7.02


66
His-Met-Val-Val
−0.018
6.86


67
PI(41:2)
−0.021
6.84


68
Phenol
−0.018
6.74


69
3,3′-Dithiobis[2-methylfuran]
−0.053
6.73


70
Ala-Leu-Trp-Pro
0
6.7


71
1,2,3-Tris(1-ethoxyethoxy)propane
−0.051
6.48


72
Vanilpyruvic acid
−0.052
6.43


73
2-Hydroxy-3-carboxy-6-oxo-7-methylocta-2,4-dienoate
0.035
6.2


74
Secoeremopetasitolide B
0.023
5.77


75
2-O-Benzoyl-D-glucose
0.033
5.65


76
Ile-Leu-Phe-Trp
0.094
5.49


77
(R)-lipoic acid
0.036
5.18


78
PA(20:4(5Z,8Z,11Z,14Z)e/2:0)
0.013
5.15


79
PE(P-16:0e/0:0)
0.003
5.15


80
Benzyl isobutyrate
0.001
5.04


81
Hexyl 2-furoate
−0.099
5.04


82
Trp-Ala-Ser
0.012
4.95


83
LysoPC(15:0)
−0.093
4.72


84
4-Hydroxycrotonic acid
−0.007
4.72


85
3-Feruloyl-1,5-quinolactone
0.05
4.6


86
Furfuryl octanoate
0.178
4.44


87
PC(22:2(13Z,16Z)/15:0)
−0.006
4.26


88
(-)-1-Methylpropyl 1-propenyl disulfide
−0.021
4.07


89
PC (36:6)
0.073
4.05


90
Leucyl-Glycine
−0.096
3.96


91
CE(16:2)
0.041
3.81


92
Triterpenoid
0
3.79


93
Violaxanthin
0.002
3.79


94
[FA hydroxy(17:0)] heptadecanoic acid
−0.059
3.6


95
2-Hydroxyundecanoate
0.077
3.6


96
Chorismate
−0.003
3.52


97
delta-Dodecalactone
0.161
3.34


98
3-O-Protocatechuoylceanothic acid
0.058
3.31


99
PG(16:1(9Z)/16:1(9Z))
−0.004
3.17


100
p-Cresol sulfate
−0.003
3.15


101
Quercetin 3′-sulfate
0.02
3.03


102
PS(26:0))
−0.02
2.94


103
Ala-Leu-Phe-Trp
0.016
2.93


104
L-Glutamic acid 5-phosphate
−0.003
2.87


105
N,2,3-Trimethyl-2-(1-methylethyl)butanamide
−0.058
2.86


106
Isoamyl isovalerate
−0.06
2.85


107
n-Dodecane
−0.029
2.81


108
PC(14:1(9Z)/14:1(9Z))
−0.089
2.8


109
Lucyoside Q
0.007
2.76


110
Endomorphin-1
−0.017
2.51


111
3-Hydroxy-10′-apo-b,y-carotenal
0.013
2.5


112
Pyrroline hydroxycarboxylic acid
0.014
2.39


113
S-Propyl 1-propanesulfinothioate
0.019
2.38


114
N-Methylindolo[3,2-b]-5alpha-cholest-2-ene
−0.007
2.31


115
Tocopheronic acid
0.05
2.26


116
1-(2,4,6-Trimethoxyphenyl)-1,3-butanedione
0.018
2.24


117
Homogentisic acid
0.011
2.22


118
LysoPE(18:1(9Z)/0:0)
0.008
2.19


119
N-stearoyl valine
0.009
2.17


120
trans-Carvone oxide
0.07
2.14


121
1,1′-Thiobis-1-propanethiol
0.002
2.14


122
2-(Ethylsulfonylmethyl)phenyl methylcarbamate
0.076
2.05


123
menaquinone-4
0.004
2.04


124
Benzeneacetamide-4-O-sulphate
0.01
2


125
N5-acetyl-N5-hydroxy-L-ornithine
0.001
1.98


126
Succinic acid
0
1.97


127
Asn-Lys-Val-Pro
0.083
1.92


128
LysoPC(14:1(9Z))
0.003
1.88


129
Phenol glucuronide
−0.015
1.71


130
2-methyl-Butanoic acid, 2-methylbutyl ester
0.01
1.67


131
3-O-Caffeoyl-1-O-methylquinic acid
0.004
1.66


132
[FA hydroxy(24:0)] 3-hydroxy-tetracosanoic acid
0.01
1.63


133
N-(2-hydroxyhexadecanoyl)-sphinganine-1-phospho-(1'-myo-inositol)
0.146
1.56


134
gamma-Dodecalactone
0.117
1.54


135
PA(22:1(11Z)/0:0)
−0.074
1.49


136
Butyl butyrate
0.025
1.44


137
TG(20:5(5Z,8Z,11Z,14Z,17Z)/18:1(9Z)/22:5(7Z,10Z,13Z,16Z,19Z))[iso6]
−0.035
1.38


138
Clausarinol
0.03
1.36


139
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
0.006
1.31


140
Trigonelline
0.02
1.18


141
Arg-Val-Pro-Tyr
0.008
1.17


142
2,3-Methylenesuccinic acid
0.016
1.04


143
Serinyl-Threonine
0.005
1.04


144
Lycoperoside D
−0.009
1.03


145
Geraniol
0.012
1


146
1-18:2-lysophosphatidylglycerol
0.098
0.89


147
omega-6-Hexadecalactone, Ambrettolide
0.031
0.83


148
gamma-Glutamyl-S-methylcysteinyl-beta-alanine
0.008
0.79


149
FA oxo(22:0)
0.005
0.53


150
D-Ribose
−0.021
0.53


151
LysoPC(17:0)
0.036
0.47


152
PA(O-36:4)
0.02
0.38


153
C19 Sphingosine-1-phosphate
−0.018
0.34


154
4-Hydroxy-5-(dihydroxyphenyl)-valeric acid-O-methyl-O-sulphate
0.016
0.29


155
PE(14:1(9Z)/14:0)
0.015
0.28


156
Citronellyl tiglate
0.052
0.27


157
Ethyl methylphenylglycidate (isomer 1)
−0.038
0.24


158
N-Acetyl-leu-leu-tyr
0.003
0


158
PS(O-34:3)
−0.002
0





LASSO and Random Forest (RF) statistics of metabolites predictive of IBS versus Control; Analysis had 2 classes: Control and IBS and included 143 samples (IBS: n = 80 and Control: n = 63); Metrics reported are the mean and the standard deviation of values from Cross Validation.













TABLE 14





Strain level (CAG) Machine learning is predictive of IBS versus Control





















LASSO
Random Forest
Model




Optimisation
Optimisation
Performance







AUC
0.754 (0.146)
0.897 (0.09) 
0.814 (0.134)



Sensitivity
0.814 (0.162)
0.95 (0.074)
0.875 (0.102)



Specificity
0.525 (0.241)
0.57 (0.205)
0.497 (0.217)











10-fold Cross Validation












Predicted IBS
Predicted Control







IBS
70
10



Control
30
29
















LASSO
Random Forest


Rank #
CAG ID
coefficients
feature importance





1
unclassified_00060
0.001381
60.04


2
unclassified_13382
0.068289
57.19


3
Ambiguous_02465
0.010803
55.91


4
unclassified_10544
0.030574
43.01


5
unclassified_01797
0.020433
42.42


6
unclassified_01214
0.001162
40.69


7
unclassified_04033
0.008943
40.54


8
Ambiguous_00664
0.001472
39.75


9
unclassified_07453
0.027742
39.38


10
unclassified_09604
0.025831
38.55


11
unclassified_04421
0.018453
37.31


12
unclassified_02178
0.014262
33.23


13
unclassified_04275
0.022114
32.93


14
unclassified_00992
0.003028
32.52


15
unclassified_08180
0.03671
32.5


16
unclassified_02378
0.00303
30.66


17
unclassified_14410
0.028182
28.63


18
unclassified_14848
0.00442
28.44


19
Escherichia_coli_08281
0.007697
26.73


20
unclassified_01723
0.002795
25.28


21
unclassified_01973
0.003755
23.46


22
unclassified_07490
0.017293
23.05


23
unclassified_04642
0.010974
22.99


24
unclassified_12490
0.041094
22.65


25
unclassified_04705
0.004598
22.01


26
unclassified_01929
0.013678
21.88


27
unclassified_04761
0.025652
21.43


28
unclassified_13688
0.010278
20.66


29
Clostridium_spp_04742
0.005228
19.73


30
Streptococcus_spp_01624
0.001426
19.23


31
unclassified_12615
0.036959
18.59


32
unclassified_10766
0.05376
17.8


33
unclassified_11165
0.035285
17.52


34
unclassified_00496
0.001305
17.34


35
unclassified_07581
0.007595
15.91


36
unclassified_10074
0.012338
15.41


37
unclassified_01227
0.000621
13.73


38
unclassified_01850
0.004519
13.48


39
unclassified_01534
0.001799
12.87


40
unclassified_00657
0.001686
12.77


41
unclassified_03784
0.012933
12.67


42
Streptococcus_anginosus_14524
0.01304
12.16


43
unclassified_04216
0.003356
12.02


44
Parabacteroides_johnsonii_04505
0.007269
11.48


45
unclassified_02737
0.0006
10.34


46
Streptococcus_gordonii_00694
0.00061
10.11


48
Ambiguous_00350
0.011386
10


49
Ambiguous_01019
0.008179
10


50
unclassified_00612
0.004216
10


51
Clostridium_spp_00680
0.003678
10


52
Ambiguous_00176
0.002303
10


53
Ambiguous_00008
0.000835
10


47
Ambiguous_01504
0.000006
10


54
unclassified_07058
0.001504
9.82


55
Clostridium_spp_11230
0.002081
9.47


56
Ambiguous_01105
0.002674
9.4


57
unclassified_02000
0.003605
9.28


58
unclassified_01034
0.005573
9.27


59
unclassified_06517
0.041237
8.95


60
Clostridium_bolteae_00697
0.001039
8.78


61
Turicibacter_sanguinis_07698
0.041323
8.57


62
unclassified_04716
0.004963
8.29


63
unclassified_06120
0.023365
8.22


64
Clostridiales_bacterium_1_7_47FAA_00444
0.000169
8.15


65
unclassified_00404
0.004334
8.15


66
Ambiguous_06054
0.000061
8.14


67
Clostridium_spp_09935
0.008296
8.09


68
unclassified_03271
0.001025
8


69
Ambiguous_03591
0.007581
7.86


70
unclassified_11816
0.030684
7.6


71
Ambiguous_03760
0.004159
7.52


72
Clostridiales_bacterium_1_7_47FAA_00369
0.000864
7.46


73
unclassified_04974
0.003624
7.35


74
Streptococcus_anginosus_02750
0.000721
6.82


75
unclassified_08690
0.003226
6.72


76
unclassified_06706
0.00206
6.56


77
Paraprevotella_xylaniphila_07441
0.00209
6.41


78
unclassified_04992
0.005196
6.09


79
unclassified_08989
0.011704
6.08


80
unclassified_02911
0.002799
6


81
unclassified_02952
0.006054
5.87


82
unclassified_00342
0.000084
5.49


83
Eubacterium_sp_3_1_31_00679
0.001407
5.12


84
Lachnospiraceae_bacterium_5_1_57FAA_01560
0.000291
5


85
Escherichia_coli_01241
0.000114
4.84


86
unclassified_02624
0.002928
4.72


87
Clostridiaceae_bacterium_JC118_03657
0.005134
4.58


88
unclassified_09127
0.001119
4.5


89
unclassified_05532
0.000001
4.48


90
unclassified_09184
0.005517
4.45


91
Bacteroides_spp_03730
0.000523
4.4


92
Paraprevotella_xylaniphila_08998
0.002821
4.3


93
unclassified_03065
0.001211
4.27


94
Ambiguous_01649
0.000779
4.26


95
Streptococcus_mutans_09018
0.005574
4.26


96
Ambiguous_13545
0.00493
4.22


97
unclassified_08505
0.004519
4.12


98
Escherichia_coli_00201
0.000672
3.9


99
unclassified_03041
0.004803
3.78


100
unclassified_05056
0.007699
3.77


101
unclassified_01365
0.000379
3.38


102
Bacteroides_plebeius_08099
0.009286
3.37


103
Ambiguous_05609
0.008937
3.32


104
unclassified_05684
0.00422
3.25


105
unclassified_02242
0.002019
3.21


106
Clostridium_clostridioforme_06211
0.061218
3.16


107
Klebsiella_pneumoniae_01817
0.012099
2.92


108
Clostridium_hathewayi_06002
0.000291
2.87


109
Ambiguous_03727
0.000144
2.8


110
Bacteroides_fragilis_14807
0.011963
2.71


111
unclassified_01340
0.001622
2.66


112
unclassified_08925
0.000758
2.57


113
unclassified_08324
0.000257
2.48


114
Prevotella_disiens_10832
0.004206
2.48


115
Clostridium_leptum_11975
0.002101
2.35


116
unclassified_01283
0.004063
2.09


117
Pseudoflavonifractor_capillosus_03569
0.000849
2.06


118
unclassified_12165
0.006268
2.02


119
unclassified_07203
0.000139
1.84


120
Bacteroides_intestinalis_14747
0.001208
1.73


121
unclassified_08104
0.000055
1.6


122
unclassified_14839
0.000932
1.54


123
Enterococcus_faecalis_01189
0.00061
1.52


124
Streptococcus_infantis_14065
0.00542
1.24


125
Lachnospiraceae_bacterium_1_4_56FAA_13504
0.000698
1.09


126
Alistipes_shahii_15132
0.000646
1.04


127
Clostridium_spp_10114
0.000481
1.03


128
unclassified_13766
0.000045
0.94


129
Ambiguous_06549
0.00035
0.73


130
unclassified_14263
0.00382
0.7


131
Eubacterium_sp_3_1_31_05331
0.001123
0.55


132
Clostridium_asparagiforme_06161
0.000488
0.4


133
Streptococcus_mutans_07592
0.000826
0.33


134
unclassified_12188
0.003405
0.26


135
Clostridium_symbiosum_14754
0.002328
0.17


136
Streptococcus_sanguinis_11557
0.001
0





LASSO and Random Forest (RF) statistics of CAGs predictive of IBS versus Control


Analysis had 2 classes: Control and IBS and included 139 samples (IBS: n = 80 and Control: n = 59)


Metrics reported are the mean and the standard deviation of values from Cross Validation.


Taxonomy is assigned where greater than 60% of the gene families are associated with a genus level.


LASSO coefficients are absolute values for the CAG dataset













TABLE 15







Number of samples used in analysis of IBS subtypes












16S
Shotgun
Fecal
Urine



Genus
Species
Metabolomics
Metabolomics















Number of Samples
138
135
139
138
















TABLE 16







Permuational MANOVA results for beta diversity analysis












16S
Shotgun
Fecal
Urine



Genus
Species
Metabolomics
Metabolomics















IBS-1 subgroup vs
0.0006
0.006
0.0012
0.906


IBS-2 subgroup


IBS-1 subgroup vs
0.0006
0.006
0.006
0.006


IBS-3 subgroup


IBS-2 subgroup vs
0.0006
0.006
0.002
0.774


IBS-3 subgroup


IBS-1 subgroup vs
0.0006
0.006
0.001
0.006


Healthy


IBS-2 subgroup vs
0.0006
0.006
0.012
1


Healthy


IBS-3 subgroup vs
1
1
0.059
0.006


Healthy





All values are adjusted p-values using Bonferroni correction




















TABLE 21a





Urine metabolomics machine learning with alternative


pipeline is predictive of IBS versus Control: metabolites


present at higher levels in controls



















LASSO
Random Forest
Model



Optimisation
Optimisation
Performance





AUC
1 (0)
0.999 (0.001)
1 (0)


Sensitivity
0.992 (0.027)
1 (0)
1 (0)


Specificity
0.881 (0.142)
0.976 (0.064)
0.969 (0.066)










10-fold Cross Validation












Predicted IBS
Predicted Control







IBS
80
0



Control
2
61















AUC (Prediction


Rank #
Metabolite ID
of/higher in Controls)





1
Tricetin 3′-methyl ether 7,5′-
0.86



diglucuronide


2
Alloathyriol
0.86


3
Torasemide
0.85


4
(−)-Epigallocatechin sulfate
0.8


5
Tetrahydrodipicolinate
0.78


6
Silicic acid
0.75


7
Delphinidin 3-(6″-O-4-malyl-
0.75



glucosyl)-5-glucoside


8
Creatinine
0.75


9
L-Arginine
0.74


10
Leucyl-Methionine
0.74


11
Gln-Met-Pro-Ser
0.73


12
Ala-Asn-Cys-Gly
0.72


13
Isoleucyl-Proline
0.71


14
3,4-Methylenesebacic acid
0.71


15
(4-Hydroxybenzoyl)choline
0.71


16
Diazoxide
0.7


17
(1S,3R,4S)-3,4-Dihydroxycyclohexane-
0.69



1-carboxylate


18
2-Hydroxypyridine
0.69


19
Ala-Lys-Phe-Cys
0.69


20
3-Methyldioxyindole
0.68


21
N-Carboxyacetyl-D-phenylalanine
0.68


22
Urea
0.67


23
Ferulic acid 4-sulfate
0.67


24
3-Indolehydracrylic acid
0.67


25
Demethyloleuropein
0.67


26
5′-Guanosyl-methylene-triphosphate
0.67


27
Linalyl formate
0.67


28
4-Methoxyphenylethanol sulfate
0.67


29
Allyl nonanoate
0.66


30
D-Galactopyranosyl-(1−>3)-D-
0.66



galactopyranosyl-(1−>3)-L-arabinose


31
Met-Met-Thr-Trp
0.66


32
Cys-Pro-Pro-Tyr
0.66


33
methylphosphonate
0.66


34
2-Phenylethyl octanoate
0.66


35
Hippuric acid
0.65


36
Glutarylcarnitine
0.65


37
Cys-Phe-Phe-Gln
0.65





LASSO and Random Forest (RF) statistics of metabolites predictive of IBS versus Control


Analysis had 2 classes: Control and IBS and included 143 samples (IBS: n = 80 and Control: n = 63)


Metrics reported are the mean and the standard deviation of values from Cross Validation.


Data used was log10 transformed.


For all the external cross validation folds, lasso did not return more than 5 features.


Therefore, all the trained models are based on random forest with all the features.


Metabolites presented are the most predictive as defined by a AUC of greater than 0.65 when tested on the full dataset (applied as a feature selection methodology).













TABLE 21b





Urine metabolomics machine learning with alternative


pipeline is predictive of IBS versus Control:


metabolites present at higher levels in IBS



















LASSO
Random Forest
Model



Optimisation
Optimisation
Performance





AUC
1 (0)
0.999 (0.001)
1 (0)


Sensitivity
0.992 (0.027)
1 (0)
1 (0)


Specificity
0.881 (0.142)
0.976 (0.064)
0.969 (0.066)










10-fold Cross Validation












Predicted IBS
Predicted Control







IBS
80
0



Control
2
61















AUC (Prediction


Rank #
Metabolite ID
of/higher in IBS)





1
A 80987
1


2
Medicagenic acid 3-O-b-D-
1



glucuronide


3
N-Undecanoylglycine
0.99


4
Ala-Leu-Trp-Gly
0.98


5
Gamma-glutamyl-Cysteine
0.92


6
Butoctamide hydrogen succinate
0.91


7
(−)-Epicatechin sulfate
0.89


8
1,4,5-Trimethyl-naphtalene
0.86


9
Trp-Ala-Pro
0.83


10
Dodecanedioylcarnitine
0.77


11
1,6,7-Trimethylnaphthalene
0.76


12
Sumiki's acid
0.76


13
Phe-Gly-Gly-Ser
0.75


14
2-hydroxy-2-(hydroxymethyl)-
0.73



2H-pyran-3(6H)-one


15
5-((2-iodoacetamido)ethyl)-1-
0.72



aminonapthalene sulfate


16
Thiethylperazine
0.72


17
dCTP
0.71


18
Dimethylallylpyrophosphate/
0.71



Isopentenyl pyrophosphate


19
Asp-Met-Asp-Pro
0.7


20
3,5-Di-O-galloyl-1,4-
0.7



galactarolactone


21
Decanoylcarnitine
0.69


22
[FA (18:0)] N-(9Z-
0.67



octadecenoyl)-taurine


23
UDP-4-dehydro-6-deoxy-D-glucose
0.66


24
Delphinidin 3-O-3″,6″-
0.66



O-dimalonylglucoside


25
Osmundalin
0.65


26
Cysteinyl-Cysteine
0.65





LASSO and Random Forest (RF) statistics of metabolites predictive of IBS versus Control


Analysis had 2 classes: Control and IBS and included 143 samples (IBS: n = 80 and Control: n = 63)


Metrics reported are the mean and the standard deviation of values from Cross Validation.


Data used was log10 transformed.


For all the external cross validation folds, lasso did not return more than 5 features.


Therefore, all the trained models are based on random forest with all the features.


Metabolites presented are the most predictive as defined by a AUC of greater than 0.65 when tested on the full dataset (applied as a feature selection methodology).





Claims
  • 1.-40. (canceled)
  • 41. A method comprising: detecting in a biological sample from a subject the level of at least two of (i), (ii), and (iii): (i) a bacterial strain of a taxa associated with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS);(ii) a microbial gene involved in a pathway associated with IBS, wherein the pathway is selected from the group consisting of amino acid biosynthesis, amino acid degradation, starch degradation, galactose degradation, sulfate reduction, sulfate assimilation, and cysteine biosynthesis; or(iii) a metabolite associated with IBS, a precursor thereof, or a breakdown product thereof, wherein the metabolite is a urine metabolite or a fecal metabolite,and comparing the detected level of (i), (ii), or (iii) to the corresponding level of (i), (ii), or (iii) in a biological sample from a subject that does not have IBS,wherein the subject is determined to have IBS when there is an increase in the detected level of (i), (ii), or (iii) compared to the corresponding level of (i), (ii), or (iii) in the biological sample from the subject that does not have IBS.
  • 42. The method of claim 41, wherein the detecting of the bacterial strain comprises 16S amplicon sequencing or shotgun sequencing.
  • 43. The method of claim 41, wherein the detecting of the metabolite comprises performing gas chromatography and liquid chromatography mass spectrometry (GC/LC MS).
  • 44. The method of claim 41, wherein the biological sample comprises a fecal sample, a urine sample, or an oral sample.
  • 45. The method of claim 41, wherein the subject is a human.
  • 46. The method of claim 41, wherein the bacterial strain comprises a 16S rRNA gene sequence having at least 97% sequence identity to any one of SEQ ID NOs:1-10 or is of the group consisting of Lachnospiraceae, Firmicutes, Butyricicoccus, Clostridiales, and Ruminococcaceae.
  • 47. The method of claim 41, wherein the bacterial strain belongs to an operational taxonomic unit (OTU) selected from Table 11.
  • 48. The method of claim 41, wherein the pathway is selected from the group consisting of pathways listed in Table 4.
  • 49. The method of claim 41, wherein the detecting the microbial gene comprises detecting a bacterial species carrying the gene or detecting a nucleic acid sequence encoding the gene.
  • 50. The method of claim 41, wherein the urine metabolite comprises A 80987, Ala-Leu-Trp-Gly, Medicagenic acid 3-O-b-D-glucuronide, or (−)-Epigallocatechin sulfate or is selected from the group consisting of the metabolites listed in Table 6.
  • 51. The method of claim 41, wherein the subject is determined to have a subcategory of IBS based on the comparing.
  • 52. The method of claim 41, wherein the urine metabolite is: A 80987, Medicagenic acid 3-O-b-D-glucuronide, N-Undecanoylglycine, Ala-Leu-Trp-Gly, or Gamma-glutamyl-Cysteine, Tricetin 3′-methyl ether 7,5′-diglucuronide, Alloathyriol, Torasemide, (−)-Epigallocatechin sulfate, or Tetrahydrodipicolinate.
  • 53. The method of claim 41, wherein the urine metabolite is selected from the group consisting of the metabolites listed in Table 21a and Table 21b.
  • 54. The method of claim 41, wherein the fecal metabolite comprises 3-deoxy-D-galactose, Tyrosine, I-Urobilin, Adenosine, Glu-Ile-Ile-Phe, 3,6-Dimethoxy-19-norpregna-1,3,5,7,9-pentaen-20-one, 2-Phenylpropionate, MG(20:3(8Z,11Z,14Z)/0:0/0:0), 1,2,3-Tris(1-ethoxyethoxy)propane, Staphyloxanthin, Hexoses, 20-hydroxy-E4-neuroprostane, Nonyl acetate, 3-Feruloyl-1,5-quinolactone, trans-2-Heptenal, Pyridoxamine, L-Arginine, Dodecanedioic acid, Ursodeoxycholic acid, 1-(Malonylamino)cyclopropanecarboxylic acid, Cortisone, 9,10,13-Trihydroxystearic acid, Glu-Ala-Gln-Ser, Quasiprotopanaxatriol, N-Methylindolo[3,2-b]-5alpha-cholest-2-ene, PG(20:0/22:1(11Z)), (−)-Epigallocatechin, 2-Methyl-3-ketovaleric acid, Secoeremopetasitolide B, PC(20:1(11Z)/P-16:0), Glu-Asp-Asp, N5-acetyl-N5-hydroxy-L-ornithine acid, Silicic acid, (1xi,3xi)-1,2,3,4-Tetrahydro-1-methyl-beta-carboline-3-carboxylic acid, PS(36:5), Chorismate, Isoamyl isovalerate, PA(O-36:4), PE(P-28:0) or gamma-Glutamyl-S-methylcysteinyl-beta-alanine.
  • 55. The method of claim 41, wherein the fecal metabolite is selected from the group consisting of metabolites listed in Table 8.
  • 56. The method of claim 41, wherein the fecal metabolite is selected from the group consisting of metabolites listed in Table 13.
  • 57. The method of claim 41, further comprising detecting two or more bacterial strains of two or more bacterial taxa associated with IBS, two or more microbial genes involved in a pathway associated with IBS, or two or more metabolites associated with IBS.
  • 58. The method of claim 41, wherein the method further comprises treating the subject determined to have IBS.
  • 59. A method of treating irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) in a subject in need thereof comprising administering to the subject a treatment for IBS selected from loperamide, a laxative, an antidepressant, an antibiotic, a probiotic, or a live biotherapeutic after detecting in a biological sample from the subject an elevated level of at least two of (i), (ii), and (iii): (i) a bacterial strain of a taxa associated with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), wherein the bacteria strain comprises a 16S rRNA gene sequence having at least 97% sequence identity to any one of SEQ ID NOs:1-10,(ii) a microbial gene involved in a pathway associated with IBS, wherein the pathway is selected from the group consisting of amino acid biosynthesis, amino acid degradation, starch degradation, galactose degradation, sulfate reduction, sulfate assimilation, and cysteine biosynthesis, or(iii) a metabolite associated with IBS, a precursor thereof, or a breakdown product thereof, wherein the metabolite is a urine metabolite or a fecal metabolite,as compared to the corresponding level of (i), (ii), or (iii) in a biological sample from a subject that does not have IBS.
  • 60. A kit comprising reagents for detecting: a. a bacterial strain of a taxa associated with IBS, wherein the bacteria strain comprises a 16S rRNA gene sequence having at least 97% sequence identity to any one of SEQ ID NOs:1-10;b. a microbial gene involved in a pathway associated with IBS, wherein the pathway is selected from the group consisting of pathways listed in Table 4; orc. a metabolite associated with IBS, wherein the metabolite is a urine metabolite or a fecal metabolite.
Priority Claims (5)
Number Date Country Kind
19167114.8 Apr 2019 EP regional
19167118.9 Apr 2019 EP regional
1909052.1 Jun 2019 GB national
1915143.0 Oct 2019 GB national
1915156.2 Oct 2019 GB national
CROSS-REFERENCE

This application is a continuation of International Application No. PCT/EP2020/059459, filed Apr. 2, 2020, which claims the benefit of European Application No. 19167114.8, filed Apr. 3, 2019, European Application No. 19167118.9, filed Apr. 3, 2019, Great Britain Application No. 1909052.1, filed Jun. 24, 2019, Great Britain Application No. 1915143.0, filed Oct. 18, 2019, and Great Britain Application No. 1915156.2, filed Oct. 18, 2019, all of which are hereby incorporated by reference in their entirety.

Continuations (1)
Number Date Country
Parent PCT/EP2020/059459 Apr 2020 US
Child 17491563 US