Reproducibility in Cancer Biology: The who, where and how of fusobacteria and colon cancer
The association between the bacterium Fusobacterium nucleatum and human colon cancer is more complicated than it first appeared.
- Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, United States
Trillions of microbes live on or in the body of a typical human, and this relationship is mostly harmonious. Our colons harbor the highest density of bacteria, with a mucus barrier protecting our gut from them. For 50 years, scientists have researched who amongst these bacteria might cause colon cancer, where these bacteria might act in the colon, and how they might cause colon cancer.
In 2012 researchers at the BC Cancer Agency, Simon Fraser University and the University of Guelph reported that they had used sequence-based technologies to show that Fusobacterium nucleatum, a species not previously linked to cancer, might be associated with colon cancer (Castellarin et al., 2012). They found that the levels of F. nucleatum in colorectal carcinoma were significantly higher than the levels in adjacent normal tissue. An independent group also reported a similar finding at the same time (Kostic et al., 2012). This was a surprise as F. nucleatum is usually found in the mouth.
In 2016, as part of the Reproducibility Project: Cancer Biology, Repass et al. published a Registered Report which explained in detail how they would seek to replicate the experiment (figure 2 in Castellarin et al.) in which quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) was used to detect F. nucleatum in colon tissues taken from colon cancer patients (Repass et al., 2016). The results of this experiment have now been published as a Replication Study (Repass and Reproducibility Project: Cancer Biology, 2018). In short, F. nucleatum was detected in just 25% of colorectal carcinomas in the Replication Study, and the difference in the level of this species in colorectal carcinomas and adjacent tissues (there was 10% more F. nucleatum in the carcinomas) was not significant.
So why did the Replication Study not find what was reported in the original study? One possible explanation is that Castellarin et al. studied 99 colon tissue pairs (tumor and tumor-adjacent tissues) from colon cancer patients. The Replication Study, on the other hand, included samples from 40 patients with cancer (both tumor and adjacent tissue), along with 40 non-diseased control tissue samples from age, sex and ethnicity matched individuals. A power calculation had suggested that a sample size of 40 would be big enough to see the effect reported in the original paper, assuming that the two populations were clinically similar. However, Castellarin et al. did not fully report the clinical metadata for their study (such as age, gender, ethnicity and risk factors for disease), so differences between the populations might explain why the original results were not replicated. This possibility is also supported by the fact that the relative abundance of F. nucleatum in tumors in the original experiment is much higher than in the Replication Study.
Technical issues might also have contributed to the lack of replication: in particular, in the Replication Study, qPCR suggested that F. nucleatum DNA was present in 26 samples, albeit at low levels, but qPCR amplicon sequencing detected the presence of specific F. nucleatum gene products in just 16 of these samples (10 in carcinomas; 6 in adjacent tissues). Moreover, all the non-specific amplicons (that is, the 10 that were not due to F. nucleatum) were detected very close to the detection limit of this technique.
Given that numerous studies have already shown that there is an association between F. nucleatum and the microbiota of human colon cancer (see Repass et al., 2016 and Gholizadeh et al., 2017 for reviews), the Replication Study is not a reason to change our view of this association. Rather, it provides a critical opportunity to reflect on our growing, yet incomplete, knowledge regarding fusobacteria and colon cancer. First, and most obvious, there is a need for prospective human studies in well-defined populations – using both microbiology and bioinformatics approaches – to carefully probe how risk factor and other clinical features might alter colon health in the presence of fusobacteria. For example, while F. nucleatum has certainly been the species most consistently identified in association with colon cancer to date, many studies have raised the possibility that other species of fusobacteria, or bacteria that co-aggregate in the presence F. nucleatum, could contribute to the pathogenesis of colon cancer (Castellarin et al., 2012; Kostic et al., 2012; Drewes et al., 2017; Bullman et al., 2017).
Further, while it is clear that fusobacteria are highly genetically diverse (Castellarin et al., 2012; Manson McGuire et al., 2014), we do not as yet understand whether the strains associated with colon cancer exhibit unique genetic features or are related to the fusobacteria that are common in the mouth.
There are also other gaps in our understanding. For example, some experiments that used daily inoculations of F. nucleatum in mouse models of colon cancer suggest that F. nucleatum acts early in colon cancer (Kostic et al., 2013; Yang et al., 2017), whereas germ-free mouse experiments – which are, arguably, a more definitive way to test the role of F. nucleatum on its own in tumor induction – refute this result (Tomkovich et al., 2017). In contrast, at least two studies (Castellarin et al., 2012; Bullman et al., 2017) suggest that F. nucleatum acts late in the tumor process, and research by the present author and co-workers could not discern an association with tumor stage (Drewes et al., 2017).
There is also uncertainty about where F. nucleatum is found: some researchers have reported that it is found with increased frequency in cancers on the right side of the colon (Mima et al., 2016), whereas this effect was not seen in other experiments (Drewes et al., 2017). The question of 'where?' is also complicated by the fact that right colon cancer contains prominent mucus-invasive bacterial biofilms, and about one third of these exhibit blooms of F. nucleatum.
Lastly, we lack a clear picture of how F. nucleatum contributes to the emergence of human colon cancer. Limited data suggest a wide range of putative mechanisms (including Wnt nuclear signaling, immune cell recruitment, checkpoint molecules and specific miRNA induction). While each mechanism is plausible, we lack a cohesive, step-by-step story for F. nucleatum carcinogenesis (Gholizadeh et al., 2017; Kostic et al., 2013; Yang et al., 2017).
While the Replication Study did not replicate the results of Castellarin et al., it provided useful information about the importance of population differences and the need for accurate F. nucleatum detection methods, and highlighted how much we need to learn about the links between F. nucleatum and colon cancer. A better understanding of the who (which Fusobacterium species and/or associates), the where (where in the colon, where in the world) and the how (which disease mechanisms) will help with the development of new prevention approaches, diagnostics and/or therapies for a cancer that is increasing in the young and also across the globe.
Note
Cynthia L Sears was the Reviewing Editor for the Registered Report (Repass et al., 2016) and the Replication Study (Repass and Reproducibility Project: Cancer Biology, 2018).
References
-
Carcinogenesis mechanisms of Fusobacterium nucleatumBiomedicine & Pharmacotherapy 89:918–925.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopha.2017.02.102
-
Fusobacterium nucleatum in colorectal carcinoma tissue according to tumor locationClinical and Translational Gastroenterology 7:e200.https://doi.org/10.1038/ctg.2016.53
Article and author information
Author details
Publication history
Copyright
© 2018, Sears
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.
Metrics
-
- 2,003
- views
-
- 243
- downloads
-
- 24
- citations
Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.
Download links
A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.
Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)
Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)
Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)
Reproducibility in Cancer Biology: The who, where and how of fusobacteria and colon cancer
eLife 7:e28434.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.28434
Further reading
-
- Cancer Biology
- Cell Biology
Testicular microcalcifications consist of hydroxyapatite and have been associated with an increased risk of testicular germ cell tumors (TGCTs) but are also found in benign cases such as loss-of-function variants in the phosphate transporter SLC34A2. Here, we show that fibroblast growth factor 23 (FGF23), a regulator of phosphate homeostasis, is expressed in testicular germ cell neoplasia in situ (GCNIS), embryonal carcinoma (EC), and human embryonic stem cells. FGF23 is not glycosylated in TGCTs and therefore cleaved into a C-terminal fragment which competitively antagonizes full-length FGF23. Here, Fgf23 knockout mice presented with marked calcifications in the epididymis, spermatogenic arrest, and focally germ cells expressing the osteoblast marker Osteocalcin (gene name: Bglap, protein name). Moreover, the frequent testicular microcalcifications in mice with no functional androgen receptor and lack of circulating gonadotropins are associated with lower Slc34a2 and higher Bglap/Slc34a1 (protein name: NPT2a) expression compared with wild-type mice. In accordance, human testicular specimens with microcalcifications also have lower SLC34A2 and a subpopulation of germ cells express phosphate transporter NPT2a, Osteocalcin, and RUNX2 highlighting aberrant local phosphate handling and expression of bone-specific proteins. Mineral disturbance in vitro using calcium or phosphate treatment induced deposition of calcium phosphate in a spermatogonial cell line and this effect was fully rescued by the mineralization inhibitor pyrophosphate. In conclusion, testicular microcalcifications arise secondary to local alterations in mineral homeostasis, which in combination with impaired Sertoli cell function and reduced levels of mineralization inhibitors due to high alkaline phosphatase activity in GCNIS and TGCTs facilitate osteogenic-like differentiation of testicular cells and deposition of hydroxyapatite.
-
- Cancer Biology
TAK1 is a serine/threonine protein kinase that is a key regulator in a wide variety of cellular processes. However, the functions and mechanisms involved in cancer metastasis are still not well understood. Here, we found that TAK1 knockdown promoted esophageal squamous cancer carcinoma (ESCC) migration and invasion, whereas TAK1 overexpression resulted in the opposite outcome. These in vitro findings were recapitulated in vivo in a xenograft metastatic mouse model. Mechanistically, co-immunoprecipitation and mass spectrometry demonstrated that TAK1 interacted with phospholipase C epsilon 1 (PLCE1) and phosphorylated PLCE1 at serine 1060 (S1060). Functional studies revealed that phosphorylation at S1060 in PLCE1 resulted in decreased enzyme activity, leading to the repression of phosphatidylinositol 4,5-bisphosphate (PIP2) hydrolysis. As a result, the degradation products of PIP2 including diacylglycerol (DAG) and inositol IP3 were reduced, which thereby suppressed signal transduction in the axis of PKC/GSK-3β/β-Catenin. Consequently, expression of cancer metastasis-related genes was impeded by TAK1. Overall, our data indicate that TAK1 plays a negative role in ESCC metastasis, which depends on the TAK1-induced phosphorylation of PLCE1 at S1060.
