MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409363860 · doi:10.1186/s13099-025-00694-4

Coupling culturomics and metagenomics sequencing to characterize the gut microbiome of patients with cancer treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors

2025· article· en· W4409363860 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Khoudia Diop, Babacar Mbaye, Somayeh Nili, Myriam Benlaïfaoui, Julie Malo, A. Renaud, Wiam Belkaïd, Sebastian Hunter, Meriem Messaoudene, Karla A. Lee, Arielle Elkrief, Bertrand Routy

Bibliographic record

VenueGut Pathogens · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGut microbiota and health
Canadian institutionsCentre de Recherche Industrielle du QuébecMAB-Mackay Rehabilitation CentreCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMetagenomicsMicrobiomeBiologyCancerHuman Microbiome ProjectBiomarkerShotgun sequencingComputational biologyHuman microbiomeBioinformaticsDNA sequencingGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The gut microbiome represents a novel biomarker for melanoma and non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI). Gut microbiome metagenomics profiling studies of patients treated with immunotherapy identified bacteria associated with ICI efficacy, while others have been linked to resistance. However, limitations of metagenomics sequencing, such as complex bioinformatic processing requirements, necessity of a threshold for positive detection, and the inability to detect live organisms, have hindered our ability to fully characterize the gut microbiome. Therefore, combining metagenomics with high-throughput culture-based techniques (culturomics) represents an ideal strategy to fully characterize microbiome composition to more robustly position the microbiome as a biomarker of response to ICI. METHODS: We performed culturomics using fecal samples from 22 patients from two academic centres in Canada and the United Kingdom with NSCLC and cutaneous melanoma treated with ICI (cancer group), comparing their microbiome composition to that of 7 healthy volunteers (HV), along with matching shotgun metagenomics sequencing. RESULTS: For culturomics results, 221 distinct species were isolated. Among these 221 distinct species, 182 were identified in the cancer group and 110 in the HV group. In the HV group, the mean species richness was higher compared to the cancer group (34 vs. 18, respectively, p = 0.002). Beta diversity revealed separate clusters between groups (p = 0.004). Bifidobacterium spp. and Bacteroides spp. were enriched in HV, while cancer patients showed an overrepresentation of Enterocloster species, as well as Veillonella parvula. Next, comparing cancer patients' clinical outcomes to ICI, we observed that among the 20 most abundant bacteria present in non-responder patients, 2 belonged to the genus Enterocloster, along with an enrichment of Hungatella hathewayi and Cutibacterium acnes. In contrast, responders to ICI exhibited a predominance of Bacteroides spp. In NSCLC patients, metagenomics analysis revealed that of the 154 bacteria species isolated through culturomics, 61/154 (39%) were also identified by metagenomics sequencing. Importantly, 94 individual species were uniquely detected by culturomics. CONCLUSION: These findings highlight that culturomics and metagenomics can serve as complementary tools to characterize the microbiome in patients with cancer. This integrated approach uncovers specific microbiome signatures that differentiate HV from cancer patients, and identifies specific species associated with therapy response and resistance.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGut PathogensSame topicGut microbiota and healthFrench-language works237,207