Dynamic Changes in the Gut Microbiota Composition during Adalimumab Therapy in Patients with Ulcerative Colitis: Implications for Treatment Response Prediction and Therapeutic Targets

Dynamic Changes in the Gut Microbiota Composition during Adalimumab Therapy in Patients with Ulcerative Colitis: Implications for Treatment Response Prediction and Therapeutic Targets | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Dynamic Changes in the Gut Microbiota Composition during Adalimumab Therapy in Patients with Ulcerative Colitis: Implications for Treatment Response Prediction and Therapeutic Targets Han Na Oh, Seung Yong Shin, Jong-Hwa Kim, Jihye Baek, Hyo Jong Kim, and 7 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-3957225/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Published Journal Publication published 26 Aug, 2024 Read the published version in Gut Pathogens → Version 1 posted 14 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Background Little is known about the changes in the gut microbiota composition during anti-tumor necrosis factor-alpha (anti TNF-α) therapy. This study aimed to investigate the dynamics of gut microbiome changes during anti TNF-α (adalimumab) therapy in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC). Results The microbiota composition was affected by the disease severity and extent in patients with UC. Regardless of clinical remission status at each time point, patients with UC exhibited microbial community distinctions from healthy controls. Distinct amplicon sequence variants (ASVs) differences were identified throughout the course of ADA treatment at each time point. A notable reduction in gut microbiome dissimilarity was observed only in remitters. Remitters demonstrated a decrease in the relative abundances of Burkholderia-Caballeronia-Paraburkholderia and Staphylococcus , accompanied by an increase in Bifidobacterium and Dorea as the treatment progressed. Given the distribution of the 48 ASVs with high or low relative abundances in the pre-treatment samples according to clinical remission at week 8, a clinical remission at week 8 with a sensitivity and specificity of 72.4% and 84.3%, respectively, was predicted on the receiver operating characteristic curve (area under the curve, 0.851). Conclusions The gut microbiota undergoes diverse changes according to the treatment response during ADA treatment. These changes provide insights into predicting treatment responses to ADA and offer new therapeutic targets for UC. microbiome ulcerative colitis tumor necrosis factor inhibitor Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Background Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), which includes Crohn’s disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC), is a chronic inflammatory disorder whose incidence has been increasing over time, expanding from Western countries to different regions around the world. Recently, the prevalence of the disease has increased in many Asian countries, including South Korea, Japan, and China, with urbanization and a Westernized lifestyle. [ 1 – 6 ] Notably, a Korean population-based study revealed that the incidence and prevalence of UC had gradually increased. The mean annual incidence rates of UC increased significantly from 0.29 and 0.06 per 100,000 inhabitants in 1986–1990 to 5.82 and 2.44, respectively, in 2011–2014. [ 7 ] The pathophysiology of IBD remains unclear; however, abnormal interaction between mucosal immune response and gut microbiome in genetically susceptible individuals has been suggested as a key pathophysiology. [ 8 ] With the development of bacteria controlling and sequencing technology, the role of the gut microbiome has been highlighted in the past decade, and dysbiosis of intestinal microbiota has been suggested to induce an imbalance of mucosal immunity, which contributes to the increasing incidence of UC. [ 9 , 10 ] Recent attempts were made based on these studies to identify the changes in the microbial profile associated with the treatment response and predict the efficacy of biologic therapy. [ 11 – 13 ] Adalimumab (ADA) is a fully human IgG1 monoclonal antibody directed against tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) that inhibits the activity of cytokines by blocking the interaction of TNF-α with its p55 and p75 cell surface receptors. [ 14 ] ADA has been approved for use in patients with moderate to severe CD and UC who have shown unsuccessful outcomes following conventional therapy with corticosteroids and/or immunomodulators. [ 15 , 16 ] As its efficacy and safety in patients with UC have been demonstrated in previous studies, including Western and Asian areas, [ 17 , 18 ] ADA has gained importance in treating moderately to severely active UC. However, little is known about the relationship between the gut microbiome and ADA treatment in patients with UC. We demonstrated the efficacy and safety of ADA for induction and maintenance therapy in patients with moderately to severely active UC in our previous prospective, observational, multicenter study. [ 19 ] The clinical outcomes of ADA were similar to those of other real-world studies. To better understand the association between clinical outcomes and gut microbiome, we analyzed fecal samples collected longitudinally during treatment. We hypothesized that the gut microbiome would exhibit different changes based on the clinical response of patients with UC undergoing treatment with ADA. Furthermore, we assumed that we could utilize them to predict the prognosis of patients or identify bacteria with the potential to serve as new therapeutic targets for UC. Therefore, we evaluated the changes in the fecal microbiome by analyzing 16S rRNA microbiome profiles using longitudinal patient stool samples collected before and after ADA treatment. Methods Participants and study design This prospective, observational, multicenter study was conducted at 17 academic hospitals in Korea between June 2015 and September 2018. Adult patients with moderately to severely active UC (Mayo score [ 14 ] 6–12 with an endoscopic subscore ≥ 2) who failed conventional therapy, including 5-aminosalicylic acid, corticosteroids, and azathioprine/6-mercaptopurine or previous anti-TNF-α agents other than ADA, were recruited. The patients received subcutaneous injections of ADA (160 mg at week 0, 80 mg at week 2, and 40 mg every other week from week 4). Fecal samples were collected from patients at designated time points (week 0, 8, and 56) after ADA therapy initiation. Prior to stool collection, all the participants were asked to refrain from taking antibiotics or probiotics, which could affect the gut bacterial composition, while maintaining their usual diet. Disease severity and clinical response were assessed using the Mayo score. Clinical response was defined as a decrease in the Mayo score from baseline by ≥ 3 points and ≥ 30% with an accompanying decrease in rectal bleeding subscore of ≥ 1 point or an absolute rectal bleeding subscore of 0 or 1. Clinical remission was defined as a Mayo score ≤ 2 with no individual subscore exceeding 1 point. This study was performed in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Review Board of Chung-Ang University Hospital (IRB No. C2015020). Written informed consent was obtained from each participant before inclusion into the study. Microbiome analysis DNA isolation Fecal samples taken before (week 0) and after ADA administration at weeks 8 and 56 were immediately transported on ice and stored at -80°C. DNA was extracted using a FastDNA SPIN kit for bacterial DNA (MP Biomedicals, Irvine, CA, USA) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. 16S rRNA gene amplification To detect the bacterial 16S rRNA gene, we performed polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplification of the V3–V4 region using gene-specific sequences with Illumina adapter overhang nucleotide sequences. Amplification was performed with 5 ng/µL DNA per reaction, and the final primer concentration was 0.5 µM with 2× KAPA HiFi HotStart. The PCR amplification profile included an initial step of 95°C for 3 min followed by 25 cycles of 95°C (30 s), 55°C (30 s), and 72°C (30 s). After completion of cycling, the reactions were incubated for 5 min at 72°C. After PCR completion, Sera-magTM selected beads (29343052; GE Healthcare, Chicago, IL, USA) were eluted in Tris-EDTA buffer (Sigma-Aldrich, Burlington, MA, USA). The cleaned amplicon was attached to dual indices and Illumina sequencing adapters using a Nextera XT Index Kit. Indexing was performed with 5 µL PCR amplicon per reaction, and 5 µL of N7 Nextera XT Index Primer 1 and S5 Nextera XT Index Primer 2 with 2× KAPA HiFi HotStarton a thermal cycler using the following program: 95°C for 3 min followed by 8 cycles of 95°C (30 s), 55°C (30 s), and 72°C (30 s). After cycling, the reactions were incubated for 5 min at 72°C. After the indexing PCR, cleaned up with Sera-magTM select, 16S libraries concentration was determined using Qubit 2.0 (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA, USA). The calculated equimolar pools were sequenced on an Illumina MiSeq platform using a paired-end 300-cycle MiSeq Reagent Kit V3 (Illumina, San Diego, CA, USA). 16S rRNA gene microbiome analysis The 16S rRNA gene sequences were processed and applied using Quantitative Insights Into Microbial Ecology 2 (QIIME2). [ 20 ] Briefly, divisive amplicon denoising algorithm version 2 (DADA2 1.12.1) was used for quality-filtered, trimmed, error correction, exact sequence inference, chimera removal, and merged paired-end sequences and generate the amplicon sequence variant (ASV) table. [ 21 ] Taxonomic classification was performed using a sklern-based classifier using the SILVA database. ASVs assigned to the chloroplast (class level) and mitochondria (family level) were excluded from further analysis because of their sequence similarity to eukaryotic DNA sequences. For rarefaction, the ASV count was normalized to a depth of 2,332 per sample. The rarefied ASV table was used for α-diversity (Shannon’s diversity, Faith’s phylogenetic diversity, and Simpson evenness), and principal coordinates analysis was conducted on the Unifrac unweighted distance matrices. Using the QIIME1 script (compare_categories.py), analysis of similarities (ANOSIM) was performed to evaluate the differences in the bacterial community composition among groups. In R v.4.0.2, the statistical tests for comparing alpha diversity and the relative abundance of the specific ASVs were conducted using the Wilcoxon test and t-test and visualized using ggplot2. The nucleotide sequences of Bifidobacterium assigned ASVs were aligned using MUSCLE and were used to construct a phylogenetic tree using the neighbor-joining method in MEGA X ( 10.1093/molbev/msy096 ). The evolutionary distances were computed using the Tamura 3-paramter method, and the variation rate among sites was modeled using a gamma distribution. The phylogenetic tree of Bifidobacterium ASVs was visualized using Interactive Tree of Life v6 (iTOL) (doi: 10.1093/nar/gkab301 ). We conducted linear discriminant analysis effect size (LEfSe) to identify specific ASV explaining variation between each group. [ 22 ] For the statistical test incorporated in LEfSe, the Kruskal–Wallis test among groups was performed at the 0.05 significance level, and the threshold of the logarithmic linear discriminant analysis (LDA) score for different ASVs was set at 2.0 to 3.0. The area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) was used to predict clinical remission in patients with UC based on microbiome data using the ROC function in the Epi package ( http://bendixcarstensen.com/Epi/ ). Results Study population and clinical outcomes This study included 131 patients with moderately to severely active UC, who were administered ADA, and 40 healthy controls (HC). The mean age of the HC was 40.6 years, and 42.5% were men. Table 1 summarizes the baseline clinical characteristics of patients with UC. The mean age was 44.7 years, and 35.1% of the patients were men. The baseline mean Mayo and endoscopic subscores were 8.7 and 2.5, respectively. The clinical response rates were 52.1% (29/146) and 37.7% (36/146) at weeks 8 and 56, respectively. The clinical remission rates were 24.0% (35/146) and 22.0% (32/146) at weeks 8 and 56, respectively. [ 19 ] Table 1 Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics of participants Characteristics Patients with UC (n = 131) Age (years) 44.7 ± 14.9 Male sex, no (%) 46 (35.1) Body weight (kg) 63.5 ± 12.6 BMI (kg/m 2 ) a 22.6 ± 3.7 Age at diagnosis (years) 38.8 ± 14.5 Duration of disease (months) b 52.1 ± 49.6 Mayo score 8.7 ± 1.4 Endoscopic subscore 2.5 ± 0.5 Disease location Proctitis 24 (18.3) Left-sided colitis 58 (44.3) Extensive colitis 49 (37.4) Fecal calprotectin (mg/kg) Mean ± SD 892.8 ± 628.1 C-reactive protein (mg/dL) Mean ± SD 4.6 ± 11.4 Albumin (g/dL) Mean ± SD 3.7 ± 0.6 Concomitant medication (Overlapped), n (%) 5- aminosalicylates 110 (84.0) Azathioprine/6-Mercaptopurine 61 (46.6) Systemic corticosteroid 41 (31.3) Prior anti-TNF therapy, n (%) 33 (25.2) 1 medication 32 (97.0) 2 medications and above 1 (3.0) UC: ulcerative colitis, BMI: body mass index, SD: standard deviation, TNF: tumor necrosis factor Analysis of the gut microbiota between HC and patients with UC at baseline DNA was extracted and sequenced from 244 samples (99, 100, and 45 samples at 0, 8, and 56 weeks, respectively) of 131 patients with UC and 40 samples of HC. Both indices of bacterial richness (Shannon’s diversity and Faith’s phylogenetic diversity) were significantly lower in patients with UC than those in HC. Principal component analysis of beta diversity showed significantly different clustering between the HC and UC groups (ANOSIM, P = 0.001) (Fig. 1 A ) . LEfSe was used to identify important bacterial taxa that contributed to classifying HC and patients with UC. ASVs related to the Bacilli, Peptostreptococcaceae , Lactobacillus , and Bifidobacterium were predominant in patients with UC (Fig. 1 B). No significant differences were observed in alpha diversity and beta diversity based on the severity and extent of the disease (see figure, Supplementary Data Content 1 ). To determine the different ASVs in HC and patients according to the severity and extent of UC, we conducted an LEfSe analysis (LDA threshold of over 3.0). The 20 ASVs showing higher abundance in patients with severe UC included ASVs belonging to Bacilli, Sporosarcina, Streptococcus thermophilus TH1435, Pediococcus , and E. coli . Extensive colitis bacteria are characterized by a high abundance of ASVs, including Blautia (ASV5214), Lactobacillus (ASV3095), Peptostreptococcus (ASV6142), and Bacilli (ASV2551) (see figure, Supplementary Data Content 2 ). A significant difference was observed between patients with high (≥ 500 mg/kg) and low (< 500 mg/kg) [ 23 , 24 ] FC levels ( P = 0.001). Baseline fecal samples were stratified based on high and low ADA drug levels (trough level, serum ADA drug level of 5 ug/mL), showing no significant differences in the gut microbiome between these groups ( P = 0.098) (see figure, Supplementary Data Content 3 ). [ 23 , 24 ] Dynamics and diversity of microbes throughout the course of ADA Treatment LEfSe analysis revealed significant differences in bacteria at each time point during the 56-week ADA treatment period (see figure, Supplementary Data Content 4 ). To examine the dynamics and diversity of microbes throughout the course of ADA treatment, we classified samples based on the attainment of clinical remission at each time point. The distribution of samples is presented in the Supplementary Table (see table, Supplementary Data Content 5) . Baseline samples were divided according to the attainment of clinical remission at week 8. The bacterial diversity of HC was higher than that of all other groups, regardless of the time point and remission. The principal coordinate analysis plot revealed distinct gut microbiome differences between HC and patients with UC ( P = 0.001), which were particularly notable in the comparison between HC and remitters at week 8 ( P = 0.001). Significant differences were also observed between HC and remitters at week 56 ( P = 0.001) (Fig. 2 A). Using UniFrac unweighted distance matrices, we examined dissimilarities in the gut microbiome, representing differences in the composition and structure of microbial communities, between remitters and non-remitters. Unlike non-remitters, baseline dissimilarities significantly decreased in remitters at week 8, with levels lower than those at week 56 (Fig. 2 A). The dissimilarities between remitters were significantly different, whereas no significant difference was observed among non-remitters ( Fig. 2 A and 2 B). Furthermore, a notable reduction in dissimilarities was observed among remitters at week 8 when compared to non-remitters at the same time point (Fig. 2 C and 2 D). After 56 weeks of ADA treatment, the gut microbiota composition of patients who achieved clinical remission showed distinct differences compared to that of HC. Figure 3 shows significantly different genera between 56-week remitters and HC, as confirmed by LEfSe analysis. We explored the distinctive microbes identified in remitters at each time point and examined the changes in their abundance. In the baseline samples with remission at week 8, we noted an increase in Burkholderia-Caballeronia-Paraburkholderia, Staphylococcus , and Murdochiella ; Lachnospiraceae UCG-008 in the remitters at week 8, and Bifidobacterium, Dorea, [Ruminococcus] torques group, and Lachnospiraceae FCS020 in the remitters at week 56 (Fig. 4 A). Notably, decreased relative abundances were found in Burkholderia-Caballeronia-Paraburkholderia and Staphylococcus with time, and increased relative abundances of Bifidobacterium and Dorea in the remitters (Fig. 4 B). However, in the non-remitters, the relative abundances of these four genera remained consistent across each time point, except for Burkholderia-Caballeronia-Paraburkholderia , which exhibited the highest abundance at baseline and the lowest at week 56. Potential biomarker predicting clinical remission to ADA treatment To predict clinical remission following ADA treatment at week 8 using the gut microbiome, we compared different ASVs between remitters and non-remitters. We compared the ASV tables of baseline samples with and without remission at week 8 (Fig. 5 A). The baseline samples of remitters at week 8 showed a higher abundance of 40 ASVs, including Sporosarcina (ASV2803), Bacteroides sp. (ASV1298, ASV1490), Enterobacter (ASV9330, ASV9332), Prevotella bivia DSM 20514 (ASV2051), [ Eubacterium ] sp. (ASV6247, ASV6259), and E. coli (ASV9259), than those of non-remitters. On the other hand, they showed a lower abundance of 8 ASVs, including Bifidobacterium (ASV236, ASV396, and ASV509), Blautia (ASV5128), Enterococcus (ASV2914 and ASV2922), Anaerostipes (ASV5000), and Lachnospiraceae (ASV4860). Considering the 48 ASVs with high or low relative abundances in the baseline samples of patients in clinical remission at week 8, we identified the distribution of positive and negative ASVs in each baseline sample, where the log ratio of Avg. relative abundance of positive ASVs/Avg. relative abundance of negative ASVs was calculated (Fig. 5 B). The log value was higher for remitters than for non-remitters. The log ratio of positive ASVs/negative ASVs for predicting remission at week 8 was 0.348, with a sensitivity of 65.5% and specificity of 91.4% on the ROC curve (AUC, 0.851; Fig. 5 C). Similarly, we attempted to determine positive and negative ASVs and evaluate the effect of ADA on clinical remission at week 56 using baseline and week-8 samples (see figure, Supplementary Data Content 6 ). However, a prediction model was not obtained (data not shown). Discussion Dysbiosis is defined as an altered diversity, composition, and structure of the intestinal microbiota, which can be caused by a spectrum of chronic inflammation and is collectively identified as IBD. [ 25 , 26 ] The understanding and control of the gut microbiota is the key to overcoming IBD. However, despite the critical role of anti-TNF-α therapy in the treatment of UC, limited knowledge exists regarding the longitudinal changes in the gut microbiome following anti-TNF-α therapy. While the restoration of gut diversity has been previously noted with anti-TNF therapy, [ 12 ] a comprehensive understanding of the distinctions in the gut microbiome linked to the clinical responses during anti-TNF-α therapy is still lacking. We conducted a longitudinal analysis of changes in the gut microbiome in patients with UC before and after ADA treatment, followed by a description of these changes in relation to clinical response in the present study. In patients with UC, notable variations in the microbial community structure were observed when compared to those in the HC, as evidenced by distinct features in Shannon’s diversity and beta diversity. However, alpha diversity comparisons based on disease severity or extent did not reveal significant differences. Nonetheless, the composition of gut microbes varies according to the severity or extent of the disease. Three ASVs assigned to Lactobacillus , Streptococcus sp ., and class Bacilli were consistently identified as the predominant ASVs in patients with UC when comparing both HC and patients with UC based on the extent of the disease and disease severity. In particular, Bacilli (ASV2551) and Streptococcus (ASV3437, ASV3508, and ASV3519) were consistently present in patients with severe disease and extensive colitis. Previous studies related to UC also reported the enrichment of Lactobacillus and Streptococcus in patients with UC, [ 27 , 28 ] while several species within Lactobacillus and Streptococcus are categorized as lactic acid bacteria. [ 29 ] Specific highly virulent strains of Streptococcus species have been considered potential risk factors for systemic inflammatory diseases, including UC. [ 30 , 31 ] Additionally, certain Lactobacillus species are proposed to be linked with extensive disease involvement and heightened disease activity. [ 32 ] Although no clear evidence supports the association of a specific type of gut bacteria with UC development, these findings suggest that as the disease progresses, the gut environment may change to favor the colonization and expression of certain bacteria. Thus, the changing gut environment should be considered with the progression of the disease through further research. In our study, despite patients with UC achieving clinical remission at 8 or 56 weeks after ADA treatment, their overall microbial diversity did not recover to the levels observed in the HC group. When comparing the gut microbiota composition of patients who reached clinical remission at 56 weeks with HC using LEfSe analysis, a notable difference in the abundance of various bacterial species was observed between the two groups. However, dissimilarity significantly decreased in patients who achieved clinical remission compared to before treatment, and notably, at 8 weeks of treatment, remitters showed significantly lower dissimilarity compared to non-remitters. The dissimilarity is a measure used to quantify how distinct one microbial community is from another in terms of composition, structure, or function. These findings suggest that clinical remission with anti-TNF-α therapy does not result in the transformation of the gut microbiota composition to resemble that of HC; instead, patients seem to establish their distinct gut microbial community. The genus-level analysis showed a significant decrease in Burkholderia-Caballeronia-Paraburkholderia and Staphylococcus and significant increase in Bifidobacterium and Dorea from baseline to week 56 in patients with UC who showed clinical remission. A previous study reported that a higher proportion of the Burkholderiales order could be a biomarker of clinical response to anti-TNF treatment. [ 33 ] This suggests that, although very little is known about this aspect, Burkholderia-Caballeronia-Paraburkholderia may be associated with anti-TNF treatment response in patients with UC. Further research is warranted on these taxa in patients with UC treated with anti-TNF agents. A low relative abundance of Bifidobacterium and Dorea in patients with active UC was consistent with the findings of previous studies, [ 34 , 35 ] and a high relative abundance of Staphylococcus in patients with UC was observed in a previous study that revealed S. aureus infection in the gut during IBD. [ 36 ] Bifidobacterium is the well-known butyrate-producing bacteria in the human gut and showed lower abundance in patients with active UC than in the remitters. [ 37 , 38 ] Although a simple increase or decrease in specific bacteria may not fully reflect the overall gut microbiome status of patients with UC, our study provided a specific list of gut microbes for patients who achieved clinical remission through ADA treatment and suggested the evidence of the correlation between ADA treatment and gut microbes. We considered that the changes in the gut microbiome composition observed in patients who achieved remission through ADA treatment could be applied for exploring therapeutic targets for the treatment of UC. In the present study, we identified a notable difference in the abundance of each gut microbe at the ASV level between baseline samples showing clinical remission and those showing no remission. ASVs belonging to Sporosarcina , Bacteroides spp., Enterobacter , and Prevotella bivia DSM 20514 were higher in baseline samples of week-8 remitters. ASVs assigned to taxa, including Bifidobacterium , Blautia , Enterococcus , and Lachnospiraceae, were less common in baseline samples of remitters. In addition, the log ratio of positive to negative ASVs was higher in remitters than in non-remitters based on the ROC curve analysis of baseline samples for predicting the response to ADA treatment. This result shows the importance of analyzing ASV levels to identify key microbes associated with an active member of the UC gut. The ratio of positive to negative ASVs could be a key factor for evaluating the effectiveness of ADA treatment in patients with UC. Our study has several limitations. First, the smaller number of samples at 56 weeks could introduce bias into the longitudinal analysis. Additionally, the majority of samples collected at 56 weeks were from patients who demonstrated treatment efficacy at that time point. Second, this study may not account for all potential confounding factors that could influence the gut microbiome, such as dietary habits or lifestyle factors. Third, while this study contributes to understanding the microbial community dynamics influenced by anti-TNF treatment, the specific mechanisms and causal relationships between microbial changes and treatment outcomes were not elucidated. Lastly, the duration of the study, up to 56 weeks post-treatment, might not capture the long-term effects or changes that could occur beyond this timeframe. Considering these limitations, future research with larger and more diverse cohorts, longer follow-up durations, and consideration of potential confounding factors would provide a more comprehensive understanding of the effects of ADA therapy on the gut microbiome in patients with UC. Conclusion This study demonstrated that the composition of gut microbiota can undergo continuous changes during the course of ADA treatment, and such changes may vary in direction based on the clinical response. Furthermore, when reaching clinical remission, the gut bacteria were found to create a new environment distinct from that of healthy individuals, establishing a balance within it. Additionally, the ratio of positive to negative microbes in baseline samples can serve as a predictor for clinical remission. These findings help us to understand the flow of changes in the microbial community induced by anti-TNF treatment and suggest the possibility of personalized treatment through this flow in patients with UC. Declarations Ethical considerations This manuscript has not been published or presented elsewhere in part or in entirety and is not under consideration by another journal. This study was performed in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Review Board of Chung-Ang University Hospital (IRB No. C2015020). Written informed consent was obtained from each participant before inclusion into the study. Ethics approval and consent to participate This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Chung-Ang University Hospital (IRB No. C2015020). Written informed consent was obtained from each participant before inclusion into the study. Consent for publication Not applicable Availability of data and materials The 16S rRNA gene sequence data from the present study has been archived at the NCBI Sequence Read Archive (SRA) under the BioProject accession number PRNJA952830 Competing interests Han Na Oh, Seung Yong Shin, Jong-Hwa Kim, Jihye Baek, Hyo Jong Kim, Kang-Moon Lee, Soo Jung Park, Seok-Young Kim, Hyung-Kyoon Choi, Woo Jun Sul, Wonyong Kim, and Chang Hwan Choi: nothing to disclose Funding This study was funded by AbbVie and the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) (Grant/Award Number: NRF-2017R1D1A1B03031924). Author’s Contributions Study concept and design: CHC, WJS. Acquisition of data: SYS, HJK KL, SJP. Statistical analysis and interpretation of data: HNO, SYS, JK, JB, WK, WJS. Drafting of the manuscript: HNO, SYS, JK. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: CHC, WJS. Study supervision: CHC, WJS. Final approval of the version: all authors. Acknowledgements Not applicable References Abegunde AT, Muhammad BH, Bhatti O, Ali T. Environmental risk factors for inflammatory bowel diseases: Evidence based literature review. World J Gastroenterol. 2016;22(27):6296-317. https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v22.i27.6296. Maaser C, Langholz E, Gordon H, Burisch J, Ellul P, Ramirez VH, et al. European Crohn's and Colitis Organisation Topical Review on Environmental Factors in IBD. J Crohns Colitis. 2017;11(8):905-20. https://doi.org/10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjw223. van der Sloot KWJ, Amini M, Peters V, Dijkstra G, Alizadeh BZ. Inflammatory Bowel Diseases: Review of Known Environmental Protective and Risk Factors Involved. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2017;23(9):1499-509. https://doi.org/10.1097/mib.0000000000001217. Kaplan GG, Ng SC. Understanding and Preventing the Global Increase of Inflammatory Bowel Disease. Gastroenterology. 2017;152(2):313-21.e2. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2016.10.020. Bernstein CN. Review article: changes in the epidemiology of inflammatory bowel disease-clues for aetiology. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2017;46(10):911-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/apt.14338. Ananthakrishnan AN, Bernstein CN, Iliopoulos D, Macpherson A, Neurath MF, Ali RAR, et al. Environmental triggers in IBD: a review of progress and evidence. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018;15(1):39-49. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrgastro.2017.136. Park SH, Kim YJ, Rhee KH, Kim YH, Hong SN, Kim KH, et al. A 30-year Trend Analysis in the Epidemiology of Inflammatory Bowel Disease in the Songpa-Kangdong District of Seoul, Korea in 1986-2015. J Crohns Colitis. 2019;13(11):1410-7. https://doi.org/10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjz081. Ordás I, Eckmann L, Talamini M, Baumgart DC, Sandborn WJ. Ulcerative colitis. Lancet. 2012;380(9853):1606-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(12)60150-0. Ahmed J, Reddy BS, Mølbak L, Leser TD, MacFie J. Impact of probiotics on colonic microflora in patients with colitis: a prospective double blind randomised crossover study. Int J Surg. 2013;11(10):1131-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2013.08.019. Hansen J, Gulati A, Sartor RB. The role of mucosal immunity and host genetics in defining intestinal commensal bacteria. Curr Opin Gastroenterol. 2010;26(6):564-71. https://doi.org/10.1097/MOG.0b013e32833f1195. Aden K, Rehman A, Waschina S, Pan WH, Walker A, Lucio M, et al. Metabolic Functions of Gut Microbes Associate With Efficacy of Tumor Necrosis Factor Antagonists in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Diseases. Gastroenterology. 2019;157(5):1279-92.e11. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2019.07.025. Magnusson MK, Strid H, Sapnara M, Lasson A, Bajor A, Ung KA, et al. Anti-TNF Therapy Response in Patients with Ulcerative Colitis Is Associated with Colonic Antimicrobial Peptide Expression and Microbiota Composition. J Crohns Colitis. 2016;10(8):943-52. https://doi.org/10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjw051. Ananthakrishnan AN, Luo C, Yajnik V, Khalili H, Garber JJ, Stevens BW, et al. Gut Microbiome Function Predicts Response to Anti-integrin Biologic Therapy in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases. Cell Host Microbe. 2017;21(5):603-10.e3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chom.2017.04.010. Schroeder KW, Tremaine WJ, Ilstrup DM. Coated oral 5-aminosalicylic acid therapy for mildly to moderately active ulcerative colitis. A randomized study. N Engl J Med. 1987;317(26):1625-9. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm198712243172603. Suzuki Y, Motoya S, Hanai H, Matsumoto T, Hibi T, Robinson AM, et al. Efficacy and safety of adalimumab in Japanese patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis. J Gastroenterol. 2014;49(2):283-94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00535-013-0922-y. Muñoz-Villafranca C, Ortiz de Zarate J, Arreba P, Higuera R, Gómez L, Ibáñez S, et al. Adalimumab treatment of anti-TNF-naïve patients with ulcerative colitis: Deep remission and response factors. Dig Liver Dis. 2018;50(8):812-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dld.2018.03.007. Fukuda T, Naganuma M, Kanai T. Current new challenges in the management of ulcerative colitis. Intest Res. 2019;17(1):36-44. https://doi.org/10.5217/ir.2018.00126. Sandborn WJ, van Assche G, Reinisch W, Colombel JF, D'Haens G, Wolf DC, et al. Adalimumab induces and maintains clinical remission in patients with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis. Gastroenterology. 2012;142(2):257-65.e1-3. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2011.10.032. Shin SY, Park SJ, Kim Y, Im JP, Kim HJ, Lee KM, et al. Clinical outcomes and predictors of response for adalimumab in patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis: a KASID prospective multicenter cohort study. Intest Res. 2021. https://doi.org/10.5217/ir.2021.00049. Bolyen E, Rideout JR, Dillon MR, Bokulich NA, Abnet CC, Al-Ghalith GA, et al. Reproducible, interactive, scalable and extensible microbiome data science using QIIME 2. Nat Biotechnol. 2019;37(8):852-7. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-019-0209-9. Callahan BJ, McMurdie PJ, Rosen MJ, Han AW, Johnson AJ, Holmes SP. DADA2: High-resolution sample inference from Illumina amplicon data. Nat Methods. 2016;13(7):581-3. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.3869. Segata N, Izard J, Waldron L, Gevers D, Miropolsky L, Garrett WS, et al. Metagenomic biomarker discovery and explanation. Genome Biol. 2011;12(6):R60. https://doi.org/10.1186/gb-2011-12-6-r60. Papamichael K, Cheifetz AS. Higher Adalimumab Drug Levels Are Associated with Mucosal Healing in Patients with Crohn's Disease. J Crohns Colitis. 2016;10(5):507-9. https://doi.org/10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjw041. Yarur AJ, Jain A, Hauenstein SI, Quintero MA, Barkin JS, Deshpande AR, et al. Higher Adalimumab Levels Are Associated with Histologic and Endoscopic Remission in Patients with Crohn's Disease and Ulcerative Colitis. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2016;22(2):409-15. https://doi.org/10.1097/mib.0000000000000689. Tamboli CP, Neut C, Desreumaux P, Colombel JF. Dysbiosis in inflammatory bowel disease. Gut. 2004;53(1):1-4. https://doi.org/10.1136/gut.53.1.1. Nishida A, Inoue R, Inatomi O, Bamba S, Naito Y, Andoh A. Gut microbiota in the pathogenesis of inflammatory bowel disease. Clin J Gastroenterol. 2018;11(1):1-10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12328-017-0813-5. Dai L, Tang Y, Zhou W, Dang Y, Sun Q, Tang Z, et al. Gut Microbiota and Related Metabolites Were Disturbed in Ulcerative Colitis and Partly Restored After Mesalamine Treatment. Front Pharmacol. 2020;11:620724. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2020.620724. Cui Y, Wei H, Lu F, Liu X, Liu D, Gu L, et al. Different Effects of Three Selected Lactobacillus Strains in Dextran Sulfate Sodium-Induced Colitis in BALB/c Mice. PLoS One. 2016;11(2):e0148241. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0148241. Wang Y, Wu J, Lv M, Shao Z, Hungwe M, Wang J, et al. Metabolism Characteristics of Lactic Acid Bacteria and the Expanding Applications in Food Industry. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2021;9:612285. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2021.612285. Kojima A, Nakano K, Wada K, Takahashi H, Katayama K, Yoneda M, et al. Infection of specific strains of Streptococcus mutans, oral bacteria, confers a risk of ulcerative colitis. Sci Rep. 2012;2:332. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep00332. Nakano K, Hokamura K, Taniguchi N, Wada K, Kudo C, Nomura R, et al. The collagen-binding protein of Streptococcus mutans is involved in haemorrhagic stroke. Nat Commun. 2011;2:485. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms1491. Shin SY, Kim Y, Kim WS, Moon JM, Lee KM, Jung SA, et al. Compositional changes in fecal microbiota associated with clinical phenotypes and prognosis in Korean patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Intest Res. 2023;21(1):148-60. https://doi.org/10.5217/ir.2021.00168. Bazin T, Hooks KB, Barnetche T, Truchetet ME, Enaud R, Richez C, et al. Microbiota Composition May Predict Anti-Tnf Alpha Response in Spondyloarthritis Patients: an Exploratory Study. Sci Rep. 2018;8(1):5446. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-23571-4. Prosberg M, Bendtsen F, Vind I, Petersen AM, Gluud LL. The association between the gut microbiota and the inflammatory bowel disease activity: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2016;51(12):1407-15. https://doi.org/10.1080/00365521.2016.1216587. Zhu S, Han M, Liu S, Fan L, Shi H, Li P. Composition and diverse differences of intestinal microbiota in ulcerative colitis patients. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2022;12:953962. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcimb.2022.953962. Chiba M, Hoshina S, Kono M, Tobita M, Fukushima T, Iizuka M, et al. Staphylococcus aureus in inflammatory bowel disease. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2001;36(6):615-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/003655201750163079. Rivière A, Selak M, Lantin D, Leroy F, De Vuyst L. Bifidobacteria and Butyrate-Producing Colon Bacteria: Importance and Strategies for Their Stimulation in the Human Gut. Front Microbiol. 2016;7:979. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2016.00979. Kedia S, Ghosh TS, Jain S, Desigamani A, Kumar A, Gupta V, et al. Gut microbiome diversity in acute severe colitis is distinct from mild to moderate ulcerative colitis. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021;36(3):731-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/jgh.15232. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files SupplementaryData.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Published Journal Publication published 26 Aug, 2024 Read the published version in Gut Pathogens → Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 15 Jul, 2024 Reviews received at journal 11 Jul, 2024 Reviews received at journal 08 Jul, 2024 Reviews received at journal 06 Jul, 2024 Reviews received at journal 04 Jul, 2024 Reviewers agreed at journal 28 Jun, 2024 Reviewers agreed at journal 27 Jun, 2024 Reviewers agreed at journal 26 Jun, 2024 Reviewers agreed at journal 25 Jun, 2024 Reviewers agreed at journal 25 Jun, 2024 Reviewers invited by journal 21 Feb, 2024 Editor assigned by journal 15 Feb, 2024 Submission checks completed at journal 15 Feb, 2024 First submitted to journal 14 Feb, 2024 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-3957225","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":273027819,"identity":"e22bbdda-7e95-4c2f-a78f-bf7deed8f6a0","order_by":0,"name":"Han Na Oh","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Chung-Ang University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Han","middleName":"Na","lastName":"Oh","suffix":""},{"id":273027820,"identity":"1556f251-5517-41ea-a032-5522f42a9b70","order_by":1,"name":"Seung Yong Shin","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Chung-Ang University College of Medicine","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Seung","middleName":"Yong","lastName":"Shin","suffix":""},{"id":273027821,"identity":"80b7e446-d286-4c97-85ce-640eef077a37","order_by":2,"name":"Jong-Hwa Kim","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Chung-Ang University College of Medicine","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Jong-Hwa","middleName":"","lastName":"Kim","suffix":""},{"id":273027822,"identity":"9bd92674-812a-46fe-9e93-4801ffb43a03","order_by":3,"name":"Jihye Baek","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Chung-Ang University College of Medicine","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Jihye","middleName":"","lastName":"Baek","suffix":""},{"id":273027823,"identity":"e3d2144a-befb-4024-a312-180a62f40e6b","order_by":4,"name":"Hyo Jong Kim","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Kyung Hee University Hospital, Department of Gastroenterology","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Hyo","middleName":"Jong","lastName":"Kim","suffix":""},{"id":273027824,"identity":"bf81ac81-1599-4942-a157-01eb15ee85aa","order_by":5,"name":"Kang-Moon Lee","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"The Catholic University of Korea St. Vincent’s Hospital","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Kang-Moon","middleName":"","lastName":"Lee","suffix":""},{"id":273027825,"identity":"378ac0ad-6c82-4492-89c8-14d7b449c4c7","order_by":6,"name":"Soo Jung Park","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Yonsei University College of Medicine","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Soo","middleName":"Jung","lastName":"Park","suffix":""},{"id":273027826,"identity":"d246a6e9-c449-453e-883d-41cf6a9a7d0a","order_by":7,"name":"Seok-Young Kim","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Chung-Ang University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Seok-Young","middleName":"","lastName":"Kim","suffix":""},{"id":273027827,"identity":"7aa22c49-a775-4839-9359-ec3f9092ded1","order_by":8,"name":"Hyung-Kyoon Choi","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Chung-Ang University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Hyung-Kyoon","middleName":"","lastName":"Choi","suffix":""},{"id":273027828,"identity":"78db6deb-4b5b-4b5c-929d-39e99a8d3327","order_by":9,"name":"Wonyong Kim","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Chung-Ang University College of Medicine","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Wonyong","middleName":"","lastName":"Kim","suffix":""},{"id":273027829,"identity":"09946b38-5459-4c5f-8df5-f98adb22431c","order_by":10,"name":"Woo Jun Sul","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Chung-Ang University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Woo","middleName":"Jun","lastName":"Sul","suffix":""},{"id":273027830,"identity":"96652c44-8151-481e-b9e7-6a2aa11bb91b","order_by":11,"name":"Chang Hwan Choi","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Chung-Ang University College of Medicine","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Chang","middleName":"Hwan","lastName":"Choi","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2024-02-15 00:29:20","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-3957225/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3957225/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[{"content":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13099-024-00637-5","type":"published","date":"2024-08-26T15:58:14+00:00"}],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":51332134,"identity":"d8fdd66c-d088-49a1-9e84-c988bf32ab3b","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-02-19 17:58:42","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":269248,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCharacterization of the gut microbiome of healthy controls (HC) and patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) at baseline (week 0).\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA. Biodiversity was calculated using Shannon’s diversity, Faith’s phylogenetic diversity, and Simpson’s evenness indices. Principal coordinate analysis (PCoA) plot of the microbiome profile of all participants was conducted using Unifrac unweighted distance matrix. The statistical significance of alpha diversity was tested using the non-parametric Wilcoxon rank sum test (*\u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt;0.05; **\u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt;0.01, ***\u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt;0.001), and the PCoA was evaluated using the analysis of similarities (ANOSIM) test. B. Heatmap showed the significantly different amplicon sequence variants(ASVs) obtained from the linear discriminant analysis effect size (LEfSe) analysis (Linear discriminant analysis score \u0026gt;3.2).. Relative abundance was normalized to a Z-score,to show relative changes across the samples. Blue on the heat map indicates low abundance and red indicates high abundance. The row represents the taxonomic classification level from phylum to species of ASV, and the column is each sample.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3957225/v1/8ecc46ab9fabfe172bbd57f2.png"},{"id":51330809,"identity":"79258e0d-d6f8-4092-8789-aebc56cc58a3","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-02-19 17:50:38","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":199733,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDiversity and dissimilarity of the gut microbial community in each time point (week 0, 8, and 56) after adalimumab treatment to patients with ulcerative colitis (UC).\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCharacterization of the gut microbiomes of remitters (A) and non-remitters (B) at each time point. Biodiversity was calculated using Shannon’s diversity and Faith’s phylogenetic diversity indices. Richness indices showed no significant difference based on the time point in patients with UC who showed clinical remission. Beta diversities comparing healthy controls (HC) and remitters (A) or non-remitters (B) at each time point and dissimilarities between the groups were calculated using Unifrac unweighted distance matrices. The comparison of dissimilarities between remitters was significantly different but not for non-remitters. Comparison of the gut microbiome of remitters and non-remitters at weeks 8 (C) and 56 (D).\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3957225/v1/695e87ef722abf295a158060.png"},{"id":51330810,"identity":"c89778d7-06a2-496e-9ffb-fcc893e4195e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-02-19 17:50:39","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":454918,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eUnique gut microbiome of patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) treated with adalimumab (ADA) at 56 weeks.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHeatmap showing different gut microbiomes between healthy controls (HC), remitters (A), and non-remitters (B) who were treated with ADA and showed clinical remission or no remission at week 56 at the amplicon sequence variants(ASV) level. Relative abundance was normalized to a Z-score, and blue (lower) or red (higher) on the Z-score bar represents the calculated relative abundance. Each row represents the ASV, and the column represents each sample.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3957225/v1/dbce44fefbb82a4a91ee8868.png"},{"id":51330806,"identity":"0773290d-29f8-499d-9efb-55d7f7e47ad6","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-02-19 17:50:38","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":151534,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDistinctive microbes identified in remitters at each time point and changes in their abundance.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA. The x-axis is the linear discriminant analysis score from a linear discriminant analysis effect size (LEfSe) analysis, and the y-axis represents each significantly different genus. B. The relative abundances of continuously increased or decreased genera over time in the gut microbiome of remitters and non-remitters. Two genera, \u003cem\u003eBurkholderia\u003c/em\u003e-\u003cem\u003eCaballeronia\u003c/em\u003e-\u003cem\u003eParaburkholderia \u003c/em\u003eand \u003cem\u003eStaphylococcus\u003c/em\u003e, decreased in remitters, and two genera, \u003cem\u003eBifidobacterium \u003c/em\u003eand \u003cem\u003eDorea\u003c/em\u003e, increased in remitters with a change of time point. The x-axis indicates the group, including baseline, week 8, and week 56, and the y-axis indicates the relative abundance of each genus.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3957225/v1/71e9c6ce111f784ca289d6a1.png"},{"id":51332132,"identity":"1501bebf-73ab-4f23-94d4-c8494a479a4e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-02-19 17:58:39","extension":"png","order_by":5,"title":"Figure 5","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":253249,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAmplicon sequence variants (ASVs) as biomarkers for predicting clinical remission at week 8.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA. Different 48 ASVs were identified by comparing baseline samples of week-8 remitters vs non-remitters (Linear discriminant analysis score 2.0). B. Bar graph of the positive and negative ASVs related to remission to adalimumab (ADA) treatment in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC). The positive and negative ASVs were included in the 48 different ASVs shown in Figure 5A. The positive ASVs were the ASVs highly found in the samples with a clinical remission shown in the upper part of the heat map, and the negative ASVs were found in the samples of non-remitters shown at the bottom of the heat map. Each bar represents the value obtained by the log ratio of the average relative abundance of positive ASVs/average relative abundance of negative ASVs. C. The receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC-curve) based on the log ratio of Avg. relative abundance of positive ASVs/Avg. relative abundance of negative ASVs. Using the ROC function in the Epi package in the R v4.0.2, the ROC curve was plotted with the area under the curve (AUC).\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure5.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3957225/v1/4002d4aaa7163a4664199f6a.png"},{"id":63821532,"identity":"df886eb0-d20e-45ed-be37-0abcd0ef87c4","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-09-02 16:14:08","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":2027447,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3957225/v1/8c6b150a-5026-491e-935d-aa46e1a7dae6.pdf"},{"id":51330812,"identity":"89c6d4d7-e2a1-4cab-a7c4-5354dcd1e3cf","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-02-19 17:50:39","extension":"docx","order_by":8,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":2334702,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"SupplementaryData.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3957225/v1/223500d80566d43119c95c35.docx"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Dynamic Changes in the Gut Microbiota Composition during Adalimumab Therapy in Patients with Ulcerative Colitis: Implications for Treatment Response Prediction and Therapeutic Targets","fulltext":[{"header":"Background","content":"\u003cp\u003eInflammatory bowel disease (IBD), which includes Crohn\u0026rsquo;s disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC), is a chronic inflammatory disorder whose incidence has been increasing over time, expanding from Western countries to different regions around the world. Recently, the prevalence of the disease has increased in many Asian countries, including South Korea, Japan, and China, with urbanization and a Westernized lifestyle. [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR2 CR3 CR4 CR5\" citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e] Notably, a Korean population-based study revealed that the incidence and prevalence of UC had gradually increased. The mean annual incidence rates of UC increased significantly from 0.29 and 0.06 per 100,000 inhabitants in 1986\u0026ndash;1990 to 5.82 and 2.44, respectively, in 2011\u0026ndash;2014. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe pathophysiology of IBD remains unclear; however, abnormal interaction between mucosal immune response and gut microbiome in genetically susceptible individuals has been suggested as a key pathophysiology. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e] With the development of bacteria controlling and sequencing technology, the role of the gut microbiome has been highlighted in the past decade, and dysbiosis of intestinal microbiota has been suggested to induce an imbalance of mucosal immunity, which contributes to the increasing incidence of UC. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e] Recent attempts were made based on these studies to identify the changes in the microbial profile associated with the treatment response and predict the efficacy of biologic therapy. [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR12\" citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdalimumab (ADA) is a fully human IgG1 monoclonal antibody directed against tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) that inhibits the activity of cytokines by blocking the interaction of TNF-α with its p55 and p75 cell surface receptors. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e] ADA has been approved for use in patients with moderate to severe CD and UC who have shown unsuccessful outcomes following conventional therapy with corticosteroids and/or immunomodulators. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e] As its efficacy and safety in patients with UC have been demonstrated in previous studies, including Western and Asian areas, [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e] ADA has gained importance in treating moderately to severely active UC. However, little is known about the relationship between the gut microbiome and ADA treatment in patients with UC.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWe demonstrated the efficacy and safety of ADA for induction and maintenance therapy in patients with moderately to severely active UC in our previous prospective, observational, multicenter study. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e] The clinical outcomes of ADA were similar to those of other real-world studies. To better understand the association between clinical outcomes and gut microbiome, we analyzed fecal samples collected longitudinally during treatment. We hypothesized that the gut microbiome would exhibit different changes based on the clinical response of patients with UC undergoing treatment with ADA. Furthermore, we assumed that we could utilize them to predict the prognosis of patients or identify bacteria with the potential to serve as new therapeutic targets for UC. Therefore, we evaluated the changes in the fecal microbiome by analyzing 16S rRNA microbiome profiles using longitudinal patient stool samples collected before and after ADA treatment.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eParticipants and study design\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis prospective, observational, multicenter study was conducted at 17 academic hospitals in Korea between June 2015 and September 2018. Adult patients with moderately to severely active UC (Mayo score [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e] 6\u0026ndash;12 with an endoscopic subscore\u0026thinsp;\u0026ge;\u0026thinsp;2) who failed conventional therapy, including 5-aminosalicylic acid, corticosteroids, and azathioprine/6-mercaptopurine or previous anti-TNF-α agents other than ADA, were recruited. The patients received subcutaneous injections of ADA (160 mg at week 0, 80 mg at week 2, and 40 mg every other week from week 4). Fecal samples were collected from patients at designated time points (week 0, 8, and 56) after ADA therapy initiation. Prior to stool collection, all the participants were asked to refrain from taking antibiotics or probiotics, which could affect the gut bacterial composition, while maintaining their usual diet. Disease severity and clinical response were assessed using the Mayo score. Clinical response was defined as a decrease in the Mayo score from baseline by \u0026ge;\u0026thinsp;3 points and \u0026ge;\u0026thinsp;30% with an accompanying decrease in rectal bleeding subscore of \u0026ge;\u0026thinsp;1 point or an absolute rectal bleeding subscore of 0 or 1. Clinical remission was defined as a Mayo score\u0026thinsp;\u0026le;\u0026thinsp;2 with no individual subscore exceeding 1 point. This study was performed in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Review Board of Chung-Ang University Hospital (IRB No. C2015020). Written informed consent was obtained from each participant before inclusion into the study.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eMicrobiome analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eDNA isolation\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFecal samples taken before (week 0) and after ADA administration at weeks 8 and 56 were immediately transported on ice and stored at -80\u0026deg;C. DNA was extracted using a FastDNA SPIN kit for bacterial DNA (MP Biomedicals, Irvine, CA, USA) according to the manufacturer\u0026rsquo;s instructions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e16S rRNA gene amplification\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo detect the bacterial 16S rRNA gene, we performed polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplification of the V3\u0026ndash;V4 region using gene-specific sequences with Illumina adapter overhang nucleotide sequences. Amplification was performed with 5 ng/\u0026micro;L DNA per reaction, and the final primer concentration was 0.5 \u0026micro;M with 2\u0026times; KAPA HiFi HotStart. The PCR amplification profile included an initial step of 95\u0026deg;C for 3 min followed by 25 cycles of 95\u0026deg;C (30 s), 55\u0026deg;C (30 s), and 72\u0026deg;C (30 s). After completion of cycling, the reactions were incubated for 5 min at 72\u0026deg;C. After PCR completion, Sera-magTM selected beads (29343052; GE Healthcare, Chicago, IL, USA) were eluted in Tris-EDTA buffer (Sigma-Aldrich, Burlington, MA, USA). The cleaned amplicon was attached to dual indices and Illumina sequencing adapters using a Nextera XT Index Kit. Indexing was performed with 5 \u0026micro;L PCR amplicon per reaction, and 5 \u0026micro;L of N7 Nextera XT Index Primer 1 and S5 Nextera XT Index Primer 2 with 2\u0026times; KAPA HiFi HotStarton a thermal cycler using the following program: 95\u0026deg;C for 3 min followed by 8 cycles of 95\u0026deg;C (30 s), 55\u0026deg;C (30 s), and 72\u0026deg;C (30 s). After cycling, the reactions were incubated for 5 min at 72\u0026deg;C. After the indexing PCR, cleaned up with Sera-magTM select, 16S libraries concentration was determined using Qubit 2.0 (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA, USA). The calculated equimolar pools were sequenced on an Illumina MiSeq platform using a paired-end 300-cycle MiSeq Reagent Kit V3 (Illumina, San Diego, CA, USA).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e16S rRNA gene microbiome analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe 16S rRNA gene sequences were processed and applied using Quantitative Insights Into Microbial Ecology 2 (QIIME2). [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e] Briefly, divisive amplicon denoising algorithm version 2 (DADA2 1.12.1) was used for quality-filtered, trimmed, error correction, exact sequence inference, chimera removal, and merged paired-end sequences and generate the amplicon sequence variant (ASV) table. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e] Taxonomic classification was performed using a sklern-based classifier using the SILVA database. ASVs assigned to the chloroplast (class level) and mitochondria (family level) were excluded from further analysis because of their sequence similarity to eukaryotic DNA sequences. For rarefaction, the ASV count was normalized to a depth of 2,332 per sample. The rarefied ASV table was used for α-diversity (Shannon\u0026rsquo;s diversity, Faith\u0026rsquo;s phylogenetic diversity, and Simpson evenness), and principal coordinates analysis was conducted on the Unifrac unweighted distance matrices. Using the QIIME1 script (compare_categories.py), analysis of similarities (ANOSIM) was performed to evaluate the differences in the bacterial community composition among groups. In R v.4.0.2, the statistical tests for comparing alpha diversity and the relative abundance of the specific ASVs were conducted using the Wilcoxon test and t-test and visualized using ggplot2. The nucleotide sequences of \u003cem\u003eBifidobacterium\u003c/em\u003e assigned ASVs were aligned using MUSCLE and were used to construct a phylogenetic tree using the neighbor-joining method in MEGA X (\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1093/molbev/msy096\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1093/molbev/msy096\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e). The evolutionary distances were computed using the Tamura 3-paramter method, and the variation rate among sites was modeled using a gamma distribution. The phylogenetic tree of \u003cem\u003eBifidobacterium\u003c/em\u003e ASVs was visualized using Interactive Tree of Life v6 (iTOL) (doi: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1093/nar/gkab301\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1093/nar/gkab301\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWe conducted linear discriminant analysis effect size (LEfSe) to identify specific ASV explaining variation between each group. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e] For the statistical test incorporated in LEfSe, the Kruskal\u0026ndash;Wallis test among groups was performed at the 0.05 significance level, and the threshold of the logarithmic linear discriminant analysis (LDA) score for different ASVs was set at 2.0 to 3.0. The area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) was used to predict clinical remission in patients with UC based on microbiome data using the ROC function in the Epi package (\u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://bendixcarstensen.com/Epi/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"http://bendixcarstensen.com/Epi/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eStudy population and clinical outcomes\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study included 131 patients with moderately to severely active UC, who were administered ADA, and 40 healthy controls (HC). The mean age of the HC was 40.6 years, and 42.5% were men. Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e summarizes the baseline clinical characteristics of patients with UC. The mean age was 44.7 years, and 35.1% of the patients were men. The baseline mean Mayo and endoscopic subscores were 8.7 and 2.5, respectively. The clinical response rates were 52.1% (29/146) and 37.7% (36/146) at weeks 8 and 56, respectively. The clinical remission rates were 24.0% (35/146) and 22.0% (32/146) at weeks 8 and 56, respectively. [\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\n\u003ctable id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBaseline demographic and clinical characteristics of participants\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/caption\u003e\n\u003cthead\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCharacteristics\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePatients with UC\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e(n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;131)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/th\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003c/thead\u003e\n\u003ctbody\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAge (years)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e44.7\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;14.9\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMale sex, no (%)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e46 (35.1)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBody weight (kg)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e63.5\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;12.6\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBMI (kg/m\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e) \u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e22.6\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;3.7\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAge at diagnosis (years)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e38.8\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;14.5\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDuration of disease (months) \u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e52.1\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;49.6\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMayo score\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e8.7\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;1.4\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEndoscopic subscore\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2.5\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.5\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDisease location\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eProctitis\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e24 (18.3)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLeft-sided colitis\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e58 (44.3)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eExtensive colitis\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e49 (37.4)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFecal calprotectin (mg/kg)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMean\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;SD\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e892.8\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;628.1\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eC-reactive protein (mg/dL)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMean\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;SD\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e4.6\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;11.4\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlbumin (g/dL)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMean\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;SD\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3.7\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.6\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConcomitant medication (Overlapped), n (%)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e5- aminosalicylates\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e110 (84.0)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAzathioprine/6-Mercaptopurine\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e61 (46.6)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSystemic corticosteroid\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e41 (31.3)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior anti-TNF therapy, n (%)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e33 (25.2)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1 medication\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e32 (97.0)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2 medications and above\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1 (3.0)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003ctfoot\u003e\n\u003ctr\u003e\n\u003ctd colspan=\"2\"\u003eUC: ulcerative colitis, BMI: body mass index, SD: standard deviation, TNF: tumor necrosis factor\u003c/td\u003e\n\u003c/tr\u003e\n\u003c/tfoot\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eAnalysis of the gut microbiota between HC and patients with UC at baseline\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDNA was extracted and sequenced from 244 samples (99, 100, and 45 samples at 0, 8, and 56 weeks, respectively) of 131 patients with UC and 40 samples of HC. Both indices of bacterial richness (Shannon\u0026rsquo;s diversity and Faith\u0026rsquo;s phylogenetic diversity) were significantly lower in patients with UC than those in HC. Principal component analysis of beta diversity showed significantly different clustering between the HC and UC groups (ANOSIM, \u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.001) (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003eA\u003cstrong\u003e)\u003c/strong\u003e. LEfSe was used to identify important bacterial taxa that contributed to classifying HC and patients with UC. ASVs related to the Bacilli, \u003cem\u003ePeptostreptococcaceae\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eLactobacillus\u003c/em\u003e, and \u003cem\u003eBifidobacterium\u003c/em\u003e were predominant in patients with UC (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003eB).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNo significant differences were observed in alpha diversity and beta diversity based on the severity and extent of the disease (see figure, \u003cstrong\u003eSupplementary Data Content 1\u003c/strong\u003e). To determine the different ASVs in HC and patients according to the severity and extent of UC, we conducted an LEfSe analysis (LDA threshold of over 3.0). The 20 ASVs showing higher abundance in patients with severe UC included ASVs belonging to Bacilli, \u003cem\u003eSporosarcina, Streptococcus thermophilus\u003c/em\u003e TH1435, \u003cem\u003ePediococcus\u003c/em\u003e, and \u003cem\u003eE. coli\u003c/em\u003e. Extensive colitis bacteria are characterized by a high abundance of ASVs, including \u003cem\u003eBlautia\u003c/em\u003e (ASV5214), \u003cem\u003eLactobacillus\u003c/em\u003e (ASV3095), \u003cem\u003ePeptostreptococcus\u003c/em\u003e (ASV6142), and Bacilli (ASV2551) (see figure, \u003cstrong\u003eSupplementary Data Content 2\u003c/strong\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA significant difference was observed between patients with high (\u0026ge;\u0026thinsp;500 mg/kg) and low (\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;500 mg/kg) [\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e] FC levels (\u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.001). Baseline fecal samples were stratified based on high and low ADA drug levels (trough level, serum ADA drug level of 5 ug/mL), showing no significant differences in the gut microbiome between these groups (\u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.098) (see figure, \u003cstrong\u003eSupplementary Data Content 3\u003c/strong\u003e). [\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eDynamics and diversity of microbes throughout the course of ADA Treatment\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLEfSe analysis revealed significant differences in bacteria at each time point during the 56-week ADA treatment period (see figure, \u003cstrong\u003eSupplementary Data Content 4\u003c/strong\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo examine the dynamics and diversity of microbes throughout the course of ADA treatment, we classified samples based on the attainment of clinical remission at each time point. The distribution of samples is presented in the Supplementary Table (see table, \u003cstrong\u003eSupplementary Data Content 5)\u003c/strong\u003e. Baseline samples were divided according to the attainment of clinical remission at week 8.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe bacterial diversity of HC was higher than that of all other groups, regardless of the time point and remission. The principal coordinate analysis plot revealed distinct gut microbiome differences between HC and patients with UC (\u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.001), which were particularly notable in the comparison between HC and remitters at week 8 (\u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.001). Significant differences were also observed between HC and remitters at week 56 (\u003cem\u003eP\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.001) (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003eA). Using UniFrac unweighted distance matrices, we examined dissimilarities in the gut microbiome, representing differences in the composition and structure of microbial communities, between remitters and non-remitters. Unlike non-remitters, baseline dissimilarities significantly decreased in remitters at week 8, with levels lower than those at week 56 (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003eA). The dissimilarities between remitters were significantly different, whereas no significant difference was observed among non-remitters \u003cstrong\u003e(\u003c/strong\u003eFig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003eA and \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003eB). Furthermore, a notable reduction in dissimilarities was observed among remitters at week 8 when compared to non-remitters at the same time point (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003eC and \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003eD).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAfter 56 weeks of ADA treatment, the gut microbiota composition of patients who achieved clinical remission showed distinct differences compared to that of HC. Figure\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e shows significantly different genera between 56-week remitters and HC, as confirmed by LEfSe analysis.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe explored the distinctive microbes identified in remitters at each time point and examined the changes in their abundance. In the baseline samples with remission at week 8, we noted an increase in \u003cem\u003eBurkholderia-Caballeronia-Paraburkholderia, Staphylococcus\u003c/em\u003e, and \u003cem\u003eMurdochiella\u003c/em\u003e; Lachnospiraceae UCG-008 in the remitters at week 8, and \u003cem\u003eBifidobacterium, Dorea, [Ruminococcus] torques\u003c/em\u003e group, and Lachnospiraceae FCS020 in the remitters at week 56 (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003eA). Notably, decreased relative abundances were found in \u003cem\u003eBurkholderia-Caballeronia-Paraburkholderia\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eStaphylococcus\u003c/em\u003e with time, and increased relative abundances of \u003cem\u003eBifidobacterium\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eDorea\u003c/em\u003e in the remitters (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003eB). However, in the non-remitters, the relative abundances of these four genera remained consistent across each time point, except for \u003cem\u003eBurkholderia-Caballeronia-Paraburkholderia\u003c/em\u003e, which exhibited the highest abundance at baseline and the lowest at week 56.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003ePotential biomarker predicting clinical remission to ADA treatment\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo predict clinical remission following ADA treatment at week 8 using the gut microbiome, we compared different ASVs between remitters and non-remitters. We compared the ASV tables of baseline samples with and without remission at week 8 (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003eA). The baseline samples of remitters at week 8 showed a higher abundance of 40 ASVs, including \u003cem\u003eSporosarcina\u003c/em\u003e (ASV2803), \u003cem\u003eBacteroides\u003c/em\u003e sp. (ASV1298, ASV1490), \u003cem\u003eEnterobacter\u003c/em\u003e (ASV9330, ASV9332), \u003cem\u003ePrevotella bivia\u003c/em\u003e DSM 20514 (ASV2051), [\u003cem\u003eEubacterium\u003c/em\u003e] sp. (ASV6247, ASV6259), and \u003cem\u003eE. coli\u003c/em\u003e (ASV9259), than those of non-remitters. On the other hand, they showed a lower abundance of 8 ASVs, including \u003cem\u003eBifidobacterium\u003c/em\u003e (ASV236, ASV396, and ASV509), \u003cem\u003eBlautia\u003c/em\u003e (ASV5128), \u003cem\u003eEnterococcus\u003c/em\u003e (ASV2914 and ASV2922), \u003cem\u003eAnaerostipes\u003c/em\u003e (ASV5000), and Lachnospiraceae (ASV4860).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConsidering the 48 ASVs with high or low relative abundances in the baseline samples of patients in clinical remission at week 8, we identified the distribution of positive and negative ASVs in each baseline sample, where the log ratio of Avg. relative abundance of positive ASVs/Avg. relative abundance of negative ASVs was calculated (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003eB). The log value was higher for remitters than for non-remitters. The log ratio of positive ASVs/negative ASVs for predicting remission at week 8 was 0.348, with a sensitivity of 65.5% and specificity of 91.4% on the ROC curve (AUC, 0.851; Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003eC). Similarly, we attempted to determine positive and negative ASVs and evaluate the effect of ADA on clinical remission at week 56 using baseline and week-8 samples (see figure, \u003cstrong\u003eSupplementary Data Content 6\u003c/strong\u003e). However, a prediction model was not obtained (data not shown).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eDysbiosis is defined as an altered diversity, composition, and structure of the intestinal microbiota, which can be caused by a spectrum of chronic inflammation and is collectively identified as IBD. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e] The understanding and control of the gut microbiota is the key to overcoming IBD. However, despite the critical role of anti-TNF-α therapy in the treatment of UC, limited knowledge exists regarding the longitudinal changes in the gut microbiome following anti-TNF-α therapy. While the restoration of gut diversity has been previously noted with anti-TNF therapy, [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e] a comprehensive understanding of the distinctions in the gut microbiome linked to the clinical responses during anti-TNF-α therapy is still lacking. We conducted a longitudinal analysis of changes in the gut microbiome in patients with UC before and after ADA treatment, followed by a description of these changes in relation to clinical response in the present study.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn patients with UC, notable variations in the microbial community structure were observed when compared to those in the HC, as evidenced by distinct features in Shannon\u0026rsquo;s diversity and beta diversity. However, alpha diversity comparisons based on disease severity or extent did not reveal significant differences. Nonetheless, the composition of gut microbes varies according to the severity or extent of the disease. Three ASVs assigned to \u003cem\u003eLactobacillus\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eStreptococcus sp\u003c/em\u003e., and class Bacilli were consistently identified as the predominant ASVs in patients with UC when comparing both HC and patients with UC based on the extent of the disease and disease severity. In particular, Bacilli (ASV2551) and \u003cem\u003eStreptococcus\u003c/em\u003e (ASV3437, ASV3508, and ASV3519) were consistently present in patients with severe disease and extensive colitis. Previous studies related to UC also reported the enrichment of \u003cem\u003eLactobacillus\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eStreptococcus\u003c/em\u003e in patients with UC, [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e] while several species within \u003cem\u003eLactobacillus\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eStreptococcus\u003c/em\u003e are categorized as lactic acid bacteria. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e] Specific highly virulent strains of \u003cem\u003eStreptococcus\u003c/em\u003e species have been considered potential risk factors for systemic inflammatory diseases, including UC. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e] Additionally, certain \u003cem\u003eLactobacillus\u003c/em\u003e species are proposed to be linked with extensive disease involvement and heightened disease activity. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e] Although no clear evidence supports the association of a specific type of gut bacteria with UC development, these findings suggest that as the disease progresses, the gut environment may change to favor the colonization and expression of certain bacteria. Thus, the changing gut environment should be considered with the progression of the disease through further research.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn our study, despite patients with UC achieving clinical remission at 8 or 56 weeks after ADA treatment, their overall microbial diversity did not recover to the levels observed in the HC group. When comparing the gut microbiota composition of patients who reached clinical remission at 56 weeks with HC using LEfSe analysis, a notable difference in the abundance of various bacterial species was observed between the two groups. However, dissimilarity significantly decreased in patients who achieved clinical remission compared to before treatment, and notably, at 8 weeks of treatment, remitters showed significantly lower dissimilarity compared to non-remitters. The dissimilarity is a measure used to quantify how distinct one microbial community is from another in terms of composition, structure, or function. These findings suggest that clinical remission with anti-TNF-α therapy does not result in the transformation of the gut microbiota composition to resemble that of HC; instead, patients seem to establish their distinct gut microbial community.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe genus-level analysis showed a significant decrease in \u003cem\u003eBurkholderia-Caballeronia-Paraburkholderia\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eStaphylococcus\u003c/em\u003e and significant increase in \u003cem\u003eBifidobacterium\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eDorea\u003c/em\u003e from baseline to week 56 in patients with UC who showed clinical remission. A previous study reported that a higher proportion of the \u003cem\u003eBurkholderiales\u003c/em\u003e order could be a biomarker of clinical response to anti-TNF treatment. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e] This suggests that, although very little is known about this aspect, \u003cem\u003eBurkholderia-Caballeronia-Paraburkholderia\u003c/em\u003e may be associated with anti-TNF treatment response in patients with UC. Further research is warranted on these taxa in patients with UC treated with anti-TNF agents. A low relative abundance of \u003cem\u003eBifidobacterium\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eDorea\u003c/em\u003e in patients with active UC was consistent with the findings of previous studies, [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e] and a high relative abundance of \u003cem\u003eStaphylococcus\u003c/em\u003e in patients with UC was observed in a previous study that revealed \u003cem\u003eS. aureus\u003c/em\u003e infection in the gut during IBD. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e] \u003cem\u003eBifidobacterium\u003c/em\u003e is the well-known butyrate-producing bacteria in the human gut and showed lower abundance in patients with active UC than in the remitters. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e37\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e38\u003c/span\u003e] Although a simple increase or decrease in specific bacteria may not fully reflect the overall gut microbiome status of patients with UC, our study provided a specific list of gut microbes for patients who achieved clinical remission through ADA treatment and suggested the evidence of the correlation between ADA treatment and gut microbes. We considered that the changes in the gut microbiome composition observed in patients who achieved remission through ADA treatment could be applied for exploring therapeutic targets for the treatment of UC.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn the present study, we identified a notable difference in the abundance of each gut microbe at the ASV level between baseline samples showing clinical remission and those showing no remission. ASVs belonging to \u003cem\u003eSporosarcina\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eBacteroides\u003c/em\u003e spp., \u003cem\u003eEnterobacter\u003c/em\u003e, and \u003cem\u003ePrevotella bivia\u003c/em\u003e DSM 20514 were higher in baseline samples of week-8 remitters. ASVs assigned to taxa, including \u003cem\u003eBifidobacterium\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eBlautia\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eEnterococcus\u003c/em\u003e, and Lachnospiraceae, were less common in baseline samples of remitters. In addition, the log ratio of positive to negative ASVs was higher in remitters than in non-remitters based on the ROC curve analysis of baseline samples for predicting the response to ADA treatment. This result shows the importance of analyzing ASV levels to identify key microbes associated with an active member of the UC gut. The ratio of positive to negative ASVs could be a key factor for evaluating the effectiveness of ADA treatment in patients with UC.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOur study has several limitations. First, the smaller number of samples at 56 weeks could introduce bias into the longitudinal analysis. Additionally, the majority of samples collected at 56 weeks were from patients who demonstrated treatment efficacy at that time point. Second, this study may not account for all potential confounding factors that could influence the gut microbiome, such as dietary habits or lifestyle factors. Third, while this study contributes to understanding the microbial community dynamics influenced by anti-TNF treatment, the specific mechanisms and causal relationships between microbial changes and treatment outcomes were not elucidated. Lastly, the duration of the study, up to 56 weeks post-treatment, might not capture the long-term effects or changes that could occur beyond this timeframe. Considering these limitations, future research with larger and more diverse cohorts, longer follow-up durations, and consideration of potential confounding factors would provide a more comprehensive understanding of the effects of ADA therapy on the gut microbiome in patients with UC.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study demonstrated that the composition of gut microbiota can undergo continuous changes during the course of ADA treatment, and such changes may vary in direction based on the clinical response. Furthermore, when reaching clinical remission, the gut bacteria were found to create a new environment distinct from that of healthy individuals, establishing a balance within it. Additionally, the ratio of positive to negative microbes in baseline samples can serve as a predictor for clinical remission. These findings help us to understand the flow of changes in the microbial community induced by anti-TNF treatment and suggest the possibility of personalized treatment through this flow in patients with UC.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthical considerations\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis manuscript has not been published or presented elsewhere in part or in entirety and is not under consideration by another journal. This study was performed in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Review Board of Chung-Ang University Hospital (IRB No. C2015020). Written informed consent was obtained from each participant before inclusion into the study.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics approval and consent to participate\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Chung-Ang University Hospital (IRB No. C2015020). Written informed consent was obtained from each participant before inclusion into the study.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent for publication\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAvailability of data and materials\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe 16S rRNA gene sequence data from the present study has been archived at the NCBI Sequence Read Archive (SRA) under the BioProject accession number PRNJA952830\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting interests\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHan Na Oh, Seung Yong Shin, Jong-Hwa Kim, Jihye Baek, Hyo Jong Kim, Kang-Moon Lee, Soo Jung Park, Seok-Young Kim, Hyung-Kyoon Choi, Woo Jun Sul, Wonyong Kim, and Chang Hwan Choi: nothing to disclose\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study was funded by AbbVie and the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) (Grant/Award Number: NRF-2017R1D1A1B03031924).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthor\u0026rsquo;s Contributions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eStudy concept and design: CHC, WJS. Acquisition of data: SYS, HJK KL, SJP. Statistical analysis and interpretation of data: HNO, SYS, JK, JB, WK, WJS. Drafting of the manuscript: HNO, SYS, JK. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: CHC, WJS. Study supervision: CHC, WJS. Final approval of the version: all authors.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgements\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAbegunde AT, Muhammad BH, Bhatti O, Ali T. Environmental risk factors for inflammatory bowel diseases: Evidence based literature review. World J Gastroenterol. 2016;22(27):6296-317. https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v22.i27.6296.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMaaser C, Langholz E, Gordon H, Burisch J, Ellul P, Ramirez VH, et al. European Crohn\u0026apos;s and Colitis Organisation Topical Review on Environmental Factors in IBD. J Crohns Colitis. 2017;11(8):905-20. https://doi.org/10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjw223.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003evan der Sloot KWJ, Amini M, Peters V, Dijkstra G, Alizadeh BZ. Inflammatory Bowel Diseases: Review of Known Environmental Protective and Risk Factors Involved. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2017;23(9):1499-509. https://doi.org/10.1097/mib.0000000000001217.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKaplan GG, Ng SC. Understanding and Preventing the Global Increase of Inflammatory Bowel Disease. Gastroenterology. 2017;152(2):313-21.e2. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2016.10.020.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBernstein CN. Review article: changes in the epidemiology of inflammatory bowel disease-clues for aetiology. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2017;46(10):911-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/apt.14338.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnanthakrishnan AN, Bernstein CN, Iliopoulos D, Macpherson A, Neurath MF, Ali RAR, et al. Environmental triggers in IBD: a review of progress and evidence. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018;15(1):39-49. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrgastro.2017.136.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePark SH, Kim YJ, Rhee KH, Kim YH, Hong SN, Kim KH, et al. A 30-year Trend Analysis in the Epidemiology of Inflammatory Bowel Disease in the Songpa-Kangdong District of Seoul, Korea in 1986-2015. J Crohns Colitis. 2019;13(11):1410-7. https://doi.org/10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjz081.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOrd\u0026aacute;s I, Eckmann L, Talamini M, Baumgart DC, Sandborn WJ. Ulcerative colitis. Lancet. 2012;380(9853):1606-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(12)60150-0.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAhmed J, Reddy BS, M\u0026oslash;lbak L, Leser TD, MacFie J. Impact of probiotics on colonic microflora in patients with colitis: a prospective double blind randomised crossover study. Int J Surg. 2013;11(10):1131-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2013.08.019.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHansen J, Gulati A, Sartor RB. The role of mucosal immunity and host genetics in defining intestinal commensal bacteria. Curr Opin Gastroenterol. 2010;26(6):564-71. https://doi.org/10.1097/MOG.0b013e32833f1195.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAden K, Rehman A, Waschina S, Pan WH, Walker A, Lucio M, et al. Metabolic Functions of Gut Microbes Associate With Efficacy of Tumor Necrosis Factor Antagonists in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Diseases. Gastroenterology. 2019;157(5):1279-92.e11. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2019.07.025.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMagnusson MK, Strid H, Sapnara M, Lasson A, Bajor A, Ung KA, et al. Anti-TNF Therapy Response in Patients with Ulcerative Colitis Is Associated with Colonic Antimicrobial Peptide Expression and Microbiota Composition. J Crohns Colitis. 2016;10(8):943-52. https://doi.org/10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjw051.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnanthakrishnan AN, Luo C, Yajnik V, Khalili H, Garber JJ, Stevens BW, et al. Gut Microbiome Function Predicts Response to Anti-integrin Biologic Therapy in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases. Cell Host Microbe. 2017;21(5):603-10.e3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chom.2017.04.010.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSchroeder KW, Tremaine WJ, Ilstrup DM. Coated oral 5-aminosalicylic acid therapy for mildly to moderately active ulcerative colitis. A randomized study. N Engl J Med. 1987;317(26):1625-9. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm198712243172603.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSuzuki Y, Motoya S, Hanai H, Matsumoto T, Hibi T, Robinson AM, et al. Efficacy and safety of adalimumab in Japanese patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis. J Gastroenterol. 2014;49(2):283-94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00535-013-0922-y.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMu\u0026ntilde;oz-Villafranca C, Ortiz de Zarate J, Arreba P, Higuera R, G\u0026oacute;mez L, Ib\u0026aacute;\u0026ntilde;ez S, et al. Adalimumab treatment of anti-TNF-na\u0026iuml;ve patients with ulcerative colitis: Deep remission and response factors. Dig Liver Dis. 2018;50(8):812-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dld.2018.03.007.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFukuda T, Naganuma M, Kanai T. Current new challenges in the management of ulcerative colitis. Intest Res. 2019;17(1):36-44. https://doi.org/10.5217/ir.2018.00126.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSandborn WJ, van Assche G, Reinisch W, Colombel JF, D\u0026apos;Haens G, Wolf DC, et al. Adalimumab induces and maintains clinical remission in patients with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis. Gastroenterology. 2012;142(2):257-65.e1-3. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2011.10.032.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShin SY, Park SJ, Kim Y, Im JP, Kim HJ, Lee KM, et al. Clinical outcomes and predictors of response for adalimumab in patients with moderately to severely active ulcerative colitis: a KASID prospective multicenter cohort study. Intest Res. 2021. https://doi.org/10.5217/ir.2021.00049.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBolyen E, Rideout JR, Dillon MR, Bokulich NA, Abnet CC, Al-Ghalith GA, et al. Reproducible, interactive, scalable and extensible microbiome data science using QIIME 2. Nat Biotechnol. 2019;37(8):852-7. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-019-0209-9.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCallahan BJ, McMurdie PJ, Rosen MJ, Han AW, Johnson AJ, Holmes SP. DADA2: High-resolution sample inference from Illumina amplicon data. Nat Methods. 2016;13(7):581-3. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.3869.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSegata N, Izard J, Waldron L, Gevers D, Miropolsky L, Garrett WS, et al. Metagenomic biomarker discovery and explanation. Genome Biol. 2011;12(6):R60. https://doi.org/10.1186/gb-2011-12-6-r60.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePapamichael K, Cheifetz AS. Higher Adalimumab Drug Levels Are Associated with Mucosal Healing in Patients with Crohn\u0026apos;s Disease. J Crohns Colitis. 2016;10(5):507-9. https://doi.org/10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjw041.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYarur AJ, Jain A, Hauenstein SI, Quintero MA, Barkin JS, Deshpande AR, et al. Higher Adalimumab Levels Are Associated with Histologic and Endoscopic Remission in Patients with Crohn\u0026apos;s Disease and Ulcerative Colitis. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2016;22(2):409-15. https://doi.org/10.1097/mib.0000000000000689.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTamboli CP, Neut C, Desreumaux P, Colombel JF. Dysbiosis in inflammatory bowel disease. Gut. 2004;53(1):1-4. https://doi.org/10.1136/gut.53.1.1.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNishida A, Inoue R, Inatomi O, Bamba S, Naito Y, Andoh A. Gut microbiota in the pathogenesis of inflammatory bowel disease. Clin J Gastroenterol. 2018;11(1):1-10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12328-017-0813-5.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDai L, Tang Y, Zhou W, Dang Y, Sun Q, Tang Z, et al. Gut Microbiota and Related Metabolites Were Disturbed in Ulcerative Colitis and Partly Restored After Mesalamine Treatment. Front Pharmacol. 2020;11:620724. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2020.620724.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCui Y, Wei H, Lu F, Liu X, Liu D, Gu L, et al. Different Effects of Three Selected Lactobacillus Strains in Dextran Sulfate Sodium-Induced Colitis in BALB/c Mice. PLoS One. 2016;11(2):e0148241. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0148241.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWang Y, Wu J, Lv M, Shao Z, Hungwe M, Wang J, et al. Metabolism Characteristics of Lactic Acid Bacteria and the Expanding Applications in Food Industry. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2021;9:612285. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2021.612285.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKojima A, Nakano K, Wada K, Takahashi H, Katayama K, Yoneda M, et al. Infection of specific strains of Streptococcus mutans, oral bacteria, confers a risk of ulcerative colitis. Sci Rep. 2012;2:332. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep00332.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNakano K, Hokamura K, Taniguchi N, Wada K, Kudo C, Nomura R, et al. The collagen-binding protein of Streptococcus mutans is involved in haemorrhagic stroke. Nat Commun. 2011;2:485. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms1491.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShin SY, Kim Y, Kim WS, Moon JM, Lee KM, Jung SA, et al. Compositional changes in fecal microbiota associated with clinical phenotypes and prognosis in Korean patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Intest Res. 2023;21(1):148-60. https://doi.org/10.5217/ir.2021.00168.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBazin T, Hooks KB, Barnetche T, Truchetet ME, Enaud R, Richez C, et al. Microbiota Composition May Predict Anti-Tnf Alpha Response in Spondyloarthritis Patients: an Exploratory Study. Sci Rep. 2018;8(1):5446. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-23571-4.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eProsberg M, Bendtsen F, Vind I, Petersen AM, Gluud LL. The association between the gut microbiota and the inflammatory bowel disease activity: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2016;51(12):1407-15. https://doi.org/10.1080/00365521.2016.1216587.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZhu S, Han M, Liu S, Fan L, Shi H, Li P. Composition and diverse differences of intestinal microbiota in ulcerative colitis patients. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2022;12:953962. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcimb.2022.953962.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChiba M, Hoshina S, Kono M, Tobita M, Fukushima T, Iizuka M, et al. Staphylococcus aureus in inflammatory bowel disease. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2001;36(6):615-20. https://doi.org/10.1080/003655201750163079.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRivi\u0026egrave;re A, Selak M, Lantin D, Leroy F, De Vuyst L. Bifidobacteria and Butyrate-Producing Colon Bacteria: Importance and Strategies for Their Stimulation in the Human Gut. Front Microbiol. 2016;7:979. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2016.00979.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKedia S, Ghosh TS, Jain S, Desigamani A, Kumar A, Gupta V, et al. Gut microbiome diversity in acute severe colitis is distinct from mild to moderate ulcerative colitis. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021;36(3):731-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/jgh.15232.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"gut-pathogens","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"gutp","sideBox":"Learn more about [Gut Pathogens](http://gutpathogens.biomedcentral.com/)","snPcode":"13099","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/13099/3","title":"Gut Pathogens","twitterHandle":"@GutPathogens","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"BMC/SO AJ","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"microbiome, ulcerative colitis, tumor necrosis factor inhibitor","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-3957225/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3957225/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003ch2\u003eBackground\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eLittle is known about the changes in the gut microbiota composition during anti-tumor necrosis factor-alpha (anti TNF-α) therapy. This study aimed to investigate the dynamics of gut microbiome changes during anti TNF-α (adalimumab) therapy in patients with ulcerative colitis (UC).\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eResults\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe microbiota composition was affected by the disease severity and extent in patients with UC. Regardless of clinical remission status at each time point, patients with UC exhibited microbial community distinctions from healthy controls. Distinct amplicon sequence variants (ASVs) differences were identified throughout the course of ADA treatment at each time point. A notable reduction in gut microbiome dissimilarity was observed only in remitters. Remitters demonstrated a decrease in the relative abundances of \u003cem\u003eBurkholderia-Caballeronia-Paraburkholderia\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eStaphylococcus\u003c/em\u003e, accompanied by an increase in \u003cem\u003eBifidobacterium\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eDorea\u003c/em\u003e as the treatment progressed. Given the distribution of the 48 ASVs with high or low relative abundances in the pre-treatment samples according to clinical remission at week 8, a clinical remission at week 8 with a sensitivity and specificity of 72.4% and 84.3%, respectively, was predicted on the receiver operating characteristic curve (area under the curve, 0.851).\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eConclusions\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe gut microbiota undergoes diverse changes according to the treatment response during ADA treatment. These changes provide insights into predicting treatment responses to ADA and offer new therapeutic targets for UC.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Dynamic Changes in the Gut Microbiota Composition during Adalimumab Therapy in Patients with Ulcerative Colitis: Implications for Treatment Response Prediction and Therapeutic Targets","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2024-02-19 17:50:34","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-3957225/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2024-07-16T01:12:35+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2024-07-11T11:47:07+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2024-07-08T16:38:24+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2024-07-06T15:30:25+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2024-07-04T16:07:38+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"44775269145416000600531511968965529265","date":"2024-06-28T11:56:00+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"124427845996239903903507581564612484600","date":"2024-06-28T01:06:07+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"333883772578766553375704909011523984682","date":"2024-06-26T12:08:56+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"161567403916410749330804190007873520332","date":"2024-06-26T03:03:20+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"111771926224478105921078328652683439988","date":"2024-06-26T01:15:35+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2024-02-22T00:35:14+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2024-02-15T13:21:53+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2024-02-15T13:21:52+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Gut Pathogens","date":"2024-02-15T00:27:24+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"gut-pathogens","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"gutp","sideBox":"Learn more about [Gut Pathogens](http://gutpathogens.biomedcentral.com/)","snPcode":"13099","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/13099/3","title":"Gut Pathogens","twitterHandle":"@GutPathogens","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"BMC/SO AJ","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"79aeaf95-ccc6-458b-a08e-f7c8cdca9065","owner":[],"postedDate":"February 19th, 2024","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"published-in-journal","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2024-09-02T16:08:41+00:00","versionOfRecord":{"articleIdentity":"rs-3957225","link":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13099-024-00637-5","journal":{"identity":"gut-pathogens","isVorOnly":false,"title":"Gut Pathogens"},"publishedOn":"2024-08-26 15:58:14","publishedOnDateReadable":"August 26th, 2024"},"versionCreatedAt":"2024-02-19 17:50:34","video":"","vorDoi":"10.1186/s13099-024-00637-5","vorDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13099-024-00637-5","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-3957225","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-3957225","identity":"rs-3957225","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"qtupq5eGEP_6zYnWcrvyt","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}