MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4296708864 · doi:10.1136/jitc-2022-itoc9.24

P02.05 How proton pump inhibitors blunt immune checkpoint inhibitors efficacy: a role of the microbiome?

2022· article· en· W4296708864 on OpenAlex
Eloïse Ramel, M Masson, D Challopin, A Barre, M Nikolski, Marie Kostine, Maysoun Saleh

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePoster presentations · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGut microbiota and health
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOmeprazoleGut floraTranscriptomeCancerProton-pump inhibitorMicrobiomeImmune checkpointImmune systemAntibioticsMedicineInternal medicineImmunologyCancer researchImmunotherapyBiologyMicrobiologyBioinformaticsGeneGene expression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<h3>Background</h3> While Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are revolutionizing the management of many advanced cancers, several studies have reported that the gut microbiota composition may have an impact on ICI response. Antibiotics have been shown to alter the efficacy of immunotherapies, but other commonly used comedications known to interact with the microbiota might also impact the clinical benefit of those treatments. Clinical studies revealed that patients treated with ICI could be stratified into responder (R) or non-responder (NR) according to their microbiota composition. In a total of 635 patients with advanced cancer treated with anti PD-1, anti PD-L1 or anti CTLA-4 between 2015 and 2017 in Bordeaux, M. Kostine et al. described an association between the baseline use of co-medications, including proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), and a significantly shortened overall survival.<sup>1</sup> Our objectives are a) to address whether PPIs impact the ICI response, and b) to understand if the underlying mechanism involves the gut microbiota. <h3>Materials and Methods</h3> We first explored the impact of the PPI omeprazole on the composition of the microbiota in different segments of the gut. This was conducted in mice after long- or short-time exposure to omeprazole. In parallel, we explored omeprazole-induced changes in the intestinal transcriptome using bulk RNA sequencing of gut tissue segments. In other experiments, we interrogated the impact of omeprazole on anti-PD-1 efficacy in mice transplanted with different cancer cell-lines. Using 16S rDNA sequencing, we characterized both the gut as well as the local tumor microbiomes of R and NR mice. <h3>Results</h3> Our results revealed that omeprazole treatment resulted in a decrease of bacteria associated with a healthy gut and an expansion of oral bacteria and environmental pathobionts, consistent with published studies.<sup>2, 3</sup> Notably, omeprazole administration led to a striking reduction in Lachnospiraceae spp., which are enriched in the ‘microbiotype’ of ICI-responder patients.<sup>4</sup> Multi-omics integration of the gut microbiome and transcriptional data sets using weighted gene co-expression network analysis (WGCNA) identified omeprazole-induced transcriptional modules in the colon significantly associated with depletion or enrichment of specific microbiota components. From this integration, we will reconstruct the bacterial and host metabolic networks towards identifying metabolic signals linked to impaired anti-tumor immunity. <h3>Conclusions</h3> Collectively, our results present the impact of PPI on microbiome changes in tumor-bearing individuals and unravel potential mechanisms for intervention aimed at enhancing the anti-tumoral immune responses elicited by immunotherapies. <h3>References</h3> Kostine, M. <i>et al. Eur J Cancer</i> 2021;<b>157</b>:474–484. PMID: 34649118. Imhann, F. <i>et al. Gut</i> 2016;<b>65</b>:740–748. PMID: 26657899. Jackson, M. A. <i>et al. Gut</i> 2016;<b>65</b>:749–756. PMID: 26719299. McCulloch, J. A., <i>et al. Nat Med</i> 2022;<b>28</b>:545–556. PMID: 35228752. <h3>Disclosure Information</h3> <b>E. Ramel:</b> None. <b>M. Masson:</b> None. <b>D. Challopin:</b> None. <b>A. Barre:</b> None. <b>M. Nikolski:</b> None. <b>M. Kostine:</b> None. <b>M. Saleh:</b> None.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.070
Threshold uncertainty score0.524

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.242 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it