Skip to main content
Download PDF

A case–control study of the association between the gut microbiota and colorectal cancer: exploring the roles of diet, stress, and race

Gut Pathogens volume 16, Article number: 13 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

The gut microbiota is associated with risk for colorectal cancer (CRC), a chronic disease for which racial disparities persist with Black Americans having a higher risk of CRC incidence and mortality compared to other groups. Given documented racial differences, the gut microbiota may offer some insight into previously unexplained racial disparities in CRC incidence and mortality. A case–control analysis comparing 11 women newly diagnosed with CRC with 22 cancer-free women matched on age, BMI, and race in a 1:2 ratio was conducted. Information about participants’ diet and perceived stress levels were obtained via 24-h Dietary Recall and Perceived Stress Scale-10 survey, respectively. Participants provided stool samples from which microbial genomic DNA was extracted to reveal the abundance of 26 genera chosen a priori based on their previously observed relevance to CRC, anxiety symptoms, and diet.

Results

Significantly lower alpha diversity was observed among cancer-free Black women compared to all other race-cancer status combinations. No group differences were observed when comparing beta diversity. Non-Hispanic White CRC cases tended to have higher relative abundance of Fusobacteria, Gemellaceae, and Peptostreptococcus compared to all other race-cancer combination groups. Perceived stress was inversely associated with alpha diversity and was associated with additional genera.

Conclusions

Our findings suggest that microbiome-CRC associations may differ by racial group. Additional large, racially diverse population-based studies are needed to determine if previously identified associations between characteristics of the gut microbiome and CRC are generalizable to Black women and other racial, ethnic, and gender groups.

Introduction

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the 3rd most common cancer among adults living in the United States with approximately 150,000 new cases and more than 50,000 CRC-related deaths annually [1]. While improvements in screening and treatment have led to a decline in overall CRC incidence and mortality over time, racial disparities persist. For example, the incidence of CRC is approximately 10–30% higher among non-Hispanic Black individuals compared to other racial and ethnic groups [2, 3]. Black individuals also have a lower 5-year overall survival rate after CRC surgery compared to White individuals [2]. Known risk factors for CRC include increasing age, male sex, family history, inflammatory bowel disease, type 2 diabetes, alcohol consumption, smoking, physical inactivity, high consumption of red and processed meats, high fat diet, and obesity [3, 4].

In recent years, associations between the gut microbiota and CRC have also increasingly been investigated in the etiology and pathology of this chronic disease [5,6,7]. The gut microbiota refers to the microbial communities that inhabit the gut and plays a role in digestion, metabolism, nutrient absorption, and immune health. Associations have been identified between the gut microbiota and many chronic diseases including CRC [5]. Inflammation in the gut can lead to dysplasia which may lead to many chronic diseases including CRC [8]. When dysplasia occurs, structural damage begins in the epithelium barriers between the microbiota and the immune cells in the lamina propria. This facilitates bacterial translocation which increases exposure of immunogenic microbial compounds to both epithelial cells and antigen-presenting cells [9]. Therefore, bacteria stimulate immune signaling pathways resulting in a loss of homeostasis and an environment that is prone to neoplasms.

The composition of the gut microbiota is largely influenced at birth by mode of delivery [10, 11]. Additional environmental and behavioral factors are associated with the gut microbiota over the life course including diet, physical activity, medication usage, and stress [12,13,14,15]. Racial and ethnic differences in the gut microbiota are also documented [13, 16, 17]. One study comparing the gut microbiota of a generally healthy, racially diverse sample of women reported a higher abundance of Bacteroidetes among Black women compared to White [13]. This is of importance given the evidence that Bacteroidetes may be enriched among individuals with CRC [18, 19]. Reasons for racial differences are believed to be largely a result of social, environmental, and cultural factors associated with race and ethnicity (e.g., diet, stress) [20, 21]. Given the association between the gut microbiota and several chronic diseases for which racial disparities persist, such as CRC, further investigations into the gut microbiota as a potential contributor to health disparities are warranted.

While many risk factors for CRC are known, racial disparities in CRC persist among women even after controlling for these traditional risk factors [3]. With the mounting evidence supporting an association between the gut microbiota and CRC, the gut microbiota must be integrated into CRC research. Dietary intake, a behavior that is associated with the gut microbiota and tends to differ by race [22, 23], is also associated with risk for CRC [24]. Thus, it is plausible that if race is associated with diet which in turn affects the composition of the gut microbiota which is associated with CRC risk, then racial disparities in CRC may be driven by the intersection of diet and the gut microbiota. Similarly, there is increasing evidence to support a relationship between psychological stress, which also tends to differ by race, and the gut microbiota [13, 25]. These links may suggest that the interaction between psychological stress and the gut microbiota may contribute to unexplained racial disparities in CRC.

The purpose of this study was to compare the gut microbiota of a racially diverse sample of women with newly diagnosed CRC to matched cancer-free controls. We compared alpha diversity and other a priori-selected microbiota characteristics across a racially diverse sample of women newly diagnosed with CRC and cancer-free controls. We also assessed racial differences in CRC-associated microbiota characteristics, hypothesizing that CRC-associated gut microbiota characteristics would be more prevalent among Black women compared to White women. Lastly, we compared select dietary factors by race-CRC status and examined associations between perceived stress and relative abundances of a priori-selected genera.

Methods

From 2016 to 2019, we enrolled 11 cis-gendered women with newly diagnosed CRC prior to their initiation of treatment (case) and 178 cis-gendered women from the same geographic area who were cancer free (control). Cases were recruited collaboratively with the multidisciplinary cancer treatment clinic at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. Research staff and clinic staff worked together to identify potential participants with upcoming gastrointestinal oncology confirmatory appointments. After completing the clinic appointment, research staff met with eligible patients to inform them of the study opportunity and invited them to participate. Interested patients were then enrolled in the study and completed the first study visit the same day to limit participant burden. Controls were cancer-free volunteers from the local area that would be served by the same hospital as cases. Controls were recruited using flyers, word of mouth, and small media. Participants self-identified as non-Hispanic Black or White. Exclusion criteria were the following: (1) current tobacco use, (2) current pregnancy, (3) previous cancer diagnosis, or (4) use of antibiotics or other medications known to alter the gut in the previous 90 days. All study-related protocols and questionnaires received approval from The University of Alabama at Birmingham Institutional Review Board for human subjects (IRB-150714003). All methods were performed in accordance with the relevant guidelines and regulations. Participants provided written informed consent and were compensated US $50 for their time.

For this case–control analysis, CRC patients were matched to cancer-free controls using age, BMI, and race. Cases were matched 1:2 with controls leading to a sample of 33 participants. All participants completed two study visits during which demographics, anthropometrics, survey data, and biospecimens were collected. During visit 1, participants completed the following:

Demographics survey

Age; race and ethnicity; education (less than high school, high school/general equivalency diploma, some college, Associates, Bachelors, Masters, Doctoral); household income (US < $10,000, $10,000–$19,999, $20,000–$29,999, $30,000–$39,999, $40,000–$49,999, or ≥ $50,000); and number of individuals in the household were collected using a standardized demographics data collection survey.

Anthropometric measures

Weight and height were measured in light, indoor clothing, without shoes, using a calibrated digital measuring station (Seca 284 measuring station, Hanover, MD). Body mass index (BMI) was calculated as weight (kilogram)/height (square meter). Waist circumference was measured to the nearest 0.10 cm using the Gulick II tension spring measuring tape (model 67020).

Perceived Stress Scale-10 (PSS-10)

Participants’ global perception of perceived stress in the previous month was assessed using the PSS-10, a validated 10-item scale used to assess the degree to which situations in one's life are appraised as stressful [26]. Participants provided a response (0 = never, 1 = almost never, 2 = sometimes, 3 = fairly often, and 4 = very often) to a series of 10 statements about the occurrence of stressful events. Higher scores on the PSS-10 indicate greater perceived stress (possible range 0–40). The PSS has good internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = 0.86) and is positively correlated with other indices of stress among adults [27].

At the end of the first study visit, participants were given a stool collection kit along with verbal and written instructions for proper sample collection at home. Participants were asked to collect one fecal sample at home and return at the next study visit which was scheduled within the following 5 to 7 days. During the second visit, participants returned stool samples and provided dietary information using the National Cancer Institute Automated Self-administered 24-h Dietary Recall, which includes multilevel food probes and cues to assess food types and amounts [28]. Total calories, macronutrient, sugar, and fiber intakes were retrieved from ASA-24 for analyses.

Sample collection

Participants were asked to self-collect stool samples using ParaPak vials (Meridian Biosciences, Inc; Cincinnati, OH) no more than 48 h before their second clinic visit. Participants were advised to store vials with collected samples in a biohazard bag provided by the study in their home freezer until samples were returned to research staff at the second study visit. Once received by research staff, each sample was diluted to 0.1 mg/ml in Cary-Blair medium for total volume of 20 mL with 10% glycerol by volume. Samples were aliquoted into cryovials and stored at − 80 °C until time for DNA extraction and processing.

DNA extraction and illumina MiSeq DNA sequencing

Microbial genomic DNA was isolated using the Zymo D6010 Fecal DNA isolation kit (also referred to as Quick-DNA Fecal/Soil Microbe MiniPrep kit) from Zymo Research following the manufacturer's instructions. The isolated DNA was quantitated prior to polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and barcoded PCR amplification of the V4 region of the 16S rRNA gene [29] to create an amplicon library from individual samples was accomplished using degenerate primers originally taken from Caporaso et al. [30]. Primers were modified as described by Kumar et al. [31] for use on the Illumina MiSeq sequencer. PCR was carried out under conditions described by Kozich et al. [32] and Kumar et al. [31]. PCR products were resolved on agarose gels; DNA isolated and purified using Qiagen kits; and then quantitated. The products were sequenced on the MiSeq platform, a single flowcell, single lane instrument.

The PCR product was approximately 255 bases from the V4 segment of the 16S rDNA gene, and we sequenced 251 bases paired-end reads using Illumina MiSeq. Additional details are available in Additional File 1: Table S1.

Bioinformatics

FASTQ conversion of the raw data files was performed following demultiplexing using MiSeq reporter. Quality control of sequence reads was performed with DADA2 [33] and low-quality data filtered out using the function fastqPairedFilter (truncLen = c(240,240), maxN = 0, maxEE = c(2,2), truncQ = 2). Filtering, denoising, and clustering of reads into Amplicon Sequence Variants (ASVs) was done using DADA2. Taxon assignment was performed with Mothur [34] and the SILVA 16S rDNA database (SILVA_132_QIIME_release) [35,36,37]. These tools were incorporated into an update of our automated analysis pipeline, QWRAP [31]. Alpha (Shannon, Simpson, and observed species) and beta diversity (Bray Curtis and weighted and unweighted Unifrac) were calculated using QIIME [38].

Statistical methods

We chose 26 genera a priori based on their previously observed relevance to CRC, anxiety symptoms, and diet and are listed by phylum as follows: Euryarchaeota—Methanobrevibacter; Actinobacteria- Bifidobacterium; Bacteroidetes—Bacteroides, Porphyromonas, Prevotella; Clostridia—Parvimonas, Peptostreptococcus; Firmicutes—Eubacterium, [Ruminococcus], Blautia, Clostridium, Coprococcus, Lachnospira, Roseburia, Butyricicoccus, Faecalibacterium, Ruminococcus, [Eubacterium], Clostridium, Dialister, Gemella, Lactobacillus; Fusobacteria—Fusobacterium; Proteobacteria -Sutterella, Succinivibrio; Verrucomicrobia—Akkermansia.

Statistical analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 25.0. (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY), R version (1.3.1), and figures were generated using GraphPad Prism version 8.0.0 (GraphPad Software, San Diego, CA). Complete data were available for matching from four non-Hispanic Black and seven non-Hispanic White women with CRC and 92 non-Hispanic Black and 86 non-Hispanic White cancer-free women. Controls were frequency-matched 2:1 to cases using the FUZZY extension in SPSS with the following parameters: race- exact; age— ± 5 years; BMI— ± 5 kg/m2.

We conducted descriptive analyses among each of the four race-cancer status combinations for participant characteristics, diet variables, perceived stress, alpha diversity metrics, and relative abundance of genera. Normality was determined using the Shapiro–Wilk test. Overall differences in normally distributed variables were assessed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). Between-group differences for variables with non-normal distribution (genera and food groups) were analyzed using Kruskal–Wallis ANOVA. We used unconditional multivariable logistic regression to estimate the associations of the microbiome metrics with CRC. We included age, race, and body mass index (BMI) in the regression models based on previous literature and biological plausibility. Post-hoc exploratory analyses between stress variables of interest and genera were conducted using partial Spearman correlations. We accounted for multiple testing in all analyses using Bonferroni correction.

Results

Twenty-two cancer-free women (controls) were race, age, and BMI matched to eleven women who were treatment-naïve CRC patients (cases). As shown in Table 1, there were no significant differences in age or BMI when comparing cases and controls, which was expected due to our matching criteria. Waist circumference tended to be lower among non-Hispanic White women overall and lower among cancer-free non-Hispanic Black women compared to non-Hispanic Black women with CRC. We did not observe differences in perceived stress between groups.

Table 1 Characteristics of non-Hispanic black and white female cancer patients and matched cancer-free controls
Full size table

Associations of alpha diversity with CRC among non-Hispanic Black and non-Hispanic White women combined are presented in Table 2. Alpha diversity was positively associated with CRC, though the findings were generally not statistically significant and the estimates unstable. For example, for every 1-SD increase in the Shannon Index, there was an estimated non-statistically significant 2.1-fold higher odds of CRC (95% CI 0.68, 8.24). In a comparison of the alpha diversity estimates by race, cancer-free non-Hispanic Black women tended to have the lowest diversity among the groups (Fig. 1A). There were no statistically significant associations of the beta diversity distance matrices (e.g., overall microbiome composition) with CRC (all P > 0.50 for Bray–Curtis, Weighted Unifrac, and Unweighted Unifrac distance; data not shown).

Table 2 Associations of alpha diversity estimates with colorectal cancer among black and white women (N = 33; 11 colorectal cancer cases, and 22 cancer-free controls)
Full size table
Fig. 1
figure 1

A Fecal bacteria alpha diversity metrics by race-cancer status combinations. Chao1, p = 0.611; Observed Species, p = 0.018; Whole Tree Phylogeny, p = 0.012; Shannon Index, p = 0.027; Simpson Index, p = 0.094. A.b ap = 0.0038; bp = 0.0009; cp = 0.0080. NHB, non-Hispanic Black; CF, Cancer-Free; CC, Colon Cancer; NHW, non-Hispanic White. P values not listed are greater than 0.05. B Fecal bacteria relative abundance by race-cancer status combinations. NHB, non-Hispanic Black; CF, Cancer-Free; CC, Colon Cancer; NHW, non-Hispanic White. P values not listed are greater than 0.05

Full size image

Associations of the relative abundance of a priori-selected taxa with CRC are presented in Table 3. Though no bacteria were statistically significantly associated with CRC after correction for multiple testing, notably, Fusobacteria, Gemellaceae, and Peptostreptococcus were strongly, positively associated with CRC, similar to previous literature [6, 39]. Mean relative abundances of individual genera are presented by race-cancer combination in Fig. 2. Non-Hispanic White CRC cases tended to have higher relative abundance of Fusobacteria, Gemellaceae, and Peptostreptococcus compared to all other race-cancer combination groups Fig. 1B). For example, mean relative abundance of Fusobacterium abundance was 0.767% among non-Hispanic White women with CRC compared 0.002% among cancer-free non-Hispanic White women (p = 0.0002); whereas, there were no statistically significant differences in Fusobacterium abundance among non-Hispanic Black women with and without CRC. As shown in Additional file 2: Table S2, relative abundance of [Eubacterium] was higher, on average, among non-Hispanic Black women with CRC compared to non-Hispanic White women with (p = 0.026) and without (p = 0.018) CRC. Total calories and macronutrients, including total sugar and total fiber are reported in Table 4. Although non-Hispanic White women with CRC reported average daily total calories approximately 400 cal more than the other groups, this finding was not statistically significant. No post-hoc differences between groups in any of these nutrients reached statistical significance after Bonferroni correction. Daily intake of food groups relevant to CRC by race-cancer status are presented in Fig. 3. Overall, strong between-group differences were observed for total vegetables and cured meats, while dairy was only marginally different across groups. Post hoc between group differences were only observed in total vegetables, in which non-Hispanic White women with CRC reported an almost four-fold higher consumption compared to non-Hispanic Black women with CRC (p = 0.049).

Table 3 Associations of phylum and genus level relative abundances with colorectal cancer among Black and White women (N = 33; 11 colorectal cancer cases, and 22 cancer-free controls)
Full size table
Fig. 2
figure 2

Fecal bacteria genera relative abundance by race-cancer status combinations. NHB, non-Hispanic Black; CF, Cancer-Free; CC, Colon Cancer; NHW, non-Hispanic White. P values not listed are greater than 0.05

Full size image
Table 4 Total calories and macronutrients of women with and without colorectal cancer
Full size table
Fig. 3
figure 3

Total daily servings of food groups of women reported by race-cancer status combinations. Total Fruit, p = 0.651; Total vegetables, p = 0.018; Total whole grains, p = 0.446; Total red meat, p = 0.457; Total cured meat, p = 0.030; Total dairy, p = 0.054. NHB, non-Hispanic Black; CF, Cancer-Free; CC, Colon Cancer; NHW, non-Hispanic White. P values not listed are greater than 0.05

Full size image

Finally, we sought to estimate the association of total perceived stress with relative abundance of the genera and alpha diversity controlling for cancer status, age, race, and BMI. Perceived stress was inversely associated with Shannon index, Simpson Index, relative abundance of Coprococcus, Faecalibacterium, Roseburia, Lachnospira, Butyricicoccus, and Sutterella, and positively associated with [Ruminococcus], [Eubacterium], and Parvimonas (Table 5).

Table 5 Partial Spearman correlations between total perceived stress scale score, alpha diversity, and relative abundance of target ASVs
Full size table

Discussion

The present study reports differences in alpha diversity and CRC-associated signatures of the gut microbiome when comparing Black and White women with a new CRC diagnosis to those who are cancer-free. We observed significantly lower alpha diversity among cancer-free Black women compared to all other race-cancer status combinations. One of the more intriguing findings was that a higher relative abundance of Fusobacterium, a genus which tends to be enriched among individuals with CRC [40], was only associated with CRC among White women, but not Black women. These findings highlight potentially differences in microbiome-CRC associations, as explained below. Associations between perceived stress and several genera were also observed.

Our findings related to alpha diversity were consistent with much of the limited literature that has specifically compared alpha diversity of generally healthy Black and White women. Other researchers have reported racial differences in alpha diversity including a study by Brooks et al. which also reported lower alpha diversity among Black women [17]. In contrast, a 2018 study conducted by our team found no differences in alpha diversity when comparing Black and White women [13]. However, the average age of women in the 2018 study was 40 years old whereas women in the present study were in their early 60s, on average. Given that aging is associated with changes in the gut microbiota [41], the age difference of study participants may explain some of the observed differences. Our findings may also suggest a potential interaction between race and age in the evolution of the gut microbiota over time, though this requires further investigation. Related to CRC status, studies generally suggest that alpha diversity is protectively, inversely associated with CRC [6, 42] which is counter to our study finding. Reasons for this are not fully understood. Similar to our Fusobacterium findings, it is plausible that diversity-CRC associations could differ across race and other study population characteristics. For example, it is possible that Black women with CRC may have had higher diversity and richness of bacteria that were pathogenic rather than historically protective. Further research among large, diverse populations could help to elucidate these findings. Our assessment of CRC-associated genera yielded interesting findings that might suggest that associations between characteristics of the gut microbiome and CRC may differ by race. For example, Fusobacterium, a genus that is commonly enriched among individuals with CRC [43], was significantly higher among White women with CRC compared to all other groups, including Black women with CRC. We also observed a higher relative abundance of Eubacterium among black women with CRC compared to all other race-cancer status combinations. This finding is consistent with previous studies that found Eubacterium to be positively correlated with CRC [42, 44]. It is plausible that exposures associated with race (e.g., diet, stress, racism, environmental exposures) may indeed influence the composition of the gut microbiome. For example, while statistically significant differences in diet measures or stress by race were not observed among our study population, previous research has suggested that Black and White women consume different dietary patterns or display different diet quality [45] and that Black women have elevated chronic stress compared to White women [46]. Research also shows that dietary pattern is associated with the gut microbiota [45, 47]. Similarly, stress has been shown to be associated with the composition of the gut microbiota [48,49,50] including in our findings in the current study. Thus, it is plausible that racial differences in these exposures could contribute to differences in associations between the gut microbiome and risk for CRC.

This study was limited by small sample size which may have reduced our ability to detect statistically significant differences. We are also limited, as are the vast majority of current human microbiome and cancer risk studies, by the potential that cancer may have altered the microbiome among cases. Thus, it remains unclear whether observed characteristics of the gut microbiome contributed to the etiology of the cancer or occurred because of the cancer. Our examination of dietary components was also limited to food group only. Food types and preparation methods may also influence the gut microbiota. This presents an opportunity for future research. Lastly, lack of information on medication usage was a study limitation. While antibiotic or probiotic use was assessed and led to the exclusion of participants with recent use, our study did not account for other medications that may affect the gut microbiota. Still, this study has several strengths. First, the racial diversity of the study sample allows for the examination of the gut microbiome as a contributor to health disparities. Next, the stringent matching criteria helped minimize the effect of potential confounding factors although some residual confounding possibly remained. Additionally, we were able to link the microbiome data with other behavioral measures enhancing our ability to explore and understand biobehavioral mechanisms contributing to microbiota-CRC associations.

Conclusions

This analysis reveals that bacteria previously associated with CRC were generally highest among White women with CRC with the exception of Eubacterium which was highest among Black women with CRC. Our findings suggest that previous findings about CRC-signatures in the gut microbiome may be largely driven by racially homogenous groups, i.e., White individuals, and that microbiome-CRC associations may differ by racial group. Additional large, racially diverse population-based studies are needed to determine if previously identified associations between characteristics of the gut microbiome and CRC are generalizable to Black women and other racial, ethnic, and gender groups.

Availability of data and materials

All data and codes will be made available upon request. Requests can be made by contacting the corresponding author at tiffany.carson@moffitt.org.

References

  1. Cronin KA, Scott S, Firth AU, Sung H, Henley SJ, Sherman RL, Siegel RL, Anderson RN, Kohler BA, Benard VB, Negoita S, Wiggins C, Cance WG, Jemal A. Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, part 1: National cancer statistics. Cancer. 2022 Dec 15;128(24):4251–84. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.34479. Epub 27 Oct 2022.

  2. Augustus GJ, Ellis NA. Colorectal cancer disparity in African Americans: risk factors and carcinogenic mechanisms. Am J Pathol. 2018;188(2):291–303.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Ollberding NJ, Nomura AM, Wilkens LR, Henderson BE, Kolonel LN. Racial/ethnic differences in colorectal cancer risk: the multiethnic cohort study. Int J Cancer. 2011;129(8):1899–906.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. What are the risk factors for colorectal cancer? https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/colorectal/basic_info/risk_factors.htm, Accessed 17 Feb 2022.

  5. Cipe G, Idiz UO, Firat D, Bektasoglu H. Relationship between intestinal microbiota and colorectal cancer. World J Gastrointest Oncol. 2015;7(10):233–40.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Ahn J, Sinha R, Pei Z, Dominianni C, Wu J, Shi J, et al. Human gut microbiome and risk for colorectal cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2013;105(24):1907–11.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Song M, Chan AT, Sun J. Influence of the gut microbiome, diet, and environment on risk of colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology. 2020;158(2):322–40.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Zisman TL, Rubin DT. Colorectal cancer and dysplasia in inflammatory bowel disease. World J Gastroenterol. 2008;14(17):2662–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Brennan CA, Garrett WS. Gut microbiota, inflammation, and colorectal cancer. Annu Rev Microbiol. 2016;70:395–411.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Montoya-Williams D, Lemas DJ, Spiryda L, Patel K, Carney OO, Neu J, et al. The neonatal microbiome and its partial role in mediating the association between birth by cesarean section and adverse pediatric outcomes. Neonatology. 2018;114(2):103–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Rutayisire E, Huang K, Liu Y, Tao F. The mode of delivery affects the diversity and colonization pattern of the gut microbiota during the first year of infants’ life: a systematic review. BMC Gastroenterol. 2016;16(1):86.

    Article  ADS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Singh RK, Chang HW, Yan D, Lee KM, Ucmak D, Wong K, et al. Influence of diet on the gut microbiome and implications for human health. J Transl Med. 2017;15(1):73.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Carson TL, Wang F, Cui X, Jackson BE, Van Der Pol WJ, Lefkowitz EJ, et al. Associations between race, perceived psychological stress, and the gut microbiota in a sample of generally healthy black and white women: a pilot study on the role of race and perceived psychological stress. Psychosom Med. 2018;80:640.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Clauss M, Gérard P, Mosca A, Leclerc M. Interplay between exercise and gut microbiome in the context of human health and performance. Front Nutr. 2021;8: 637010.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Weersma RK, Zhernakova A, Fu J. Interaction between drugs and the gut microbiome. Gut. 2020;69(8):1510–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Deschasaux M, Bouter KE, Prodan A, Levin E, Groen AK, Herrema H, et al. Depicting the composition of gut microbiota in a population with varied ethnic origins but shared geography. Nat Med. 2018;24(10):1526–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Brooks AW, Priya S, Blekhman R, Bordenstein SR. Gut microbiota diversity across ethnicities in the United States. PLoS Biol. 2018;16(12): e2006842.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Sánchez-Alcoholado L, Ramos-Molina B, Otero A, Laborda-Illanes A, Ordóñez R, Medina JA, et al. The role of the gut microbiome in colorectal cancer development and therapy response. Cancers. 2020;12(6):1406.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Costantini L, Molinari R, Farinon B, Merendino N. Impact of omega-3 fatty acids on the gut microbiota. Int J Mol Sci. 2017;18(12):2645.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Borrello K, Lim U, Park SY, Monroe KR, Maskarinec G, Boushey CJ, et al. Dietary intake mediates ethnic differences in gut microbial composition. Nutrients. 2022;14(3):660.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Byrd DA, Carson TL, Williams F, Vogtmann E. Elucidating the role of the gastrointestinal microbiota in racial and ethnic health disparities. Genome Biol. 2020;21(1):192.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Bennett G, Bardon LA, Gibney ER. A comparison of dietary patterns and factors influencing food choice among ethnic groups living in one locality: a systematic review. Nutrients. 2022;14(5):941.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Newby PK, Noel SE, Grant R, Judd S, Shikany JM, Ard J. Race and region have independent and synergistic effects on dietary intakes in black and white women. Nutr J. 2012;11:25.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Veettil SK, Wong TY, Loo YS, Playdon MC, Lai NM, Giovannucci EL, et al. Role of diet in colorectal cancer incidence: umbrella review of meta-analyses of prospective observational studies. JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4(2): e2037341.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. American Psychological Association APA Working Group on Stress and Health Disparities. Stress and health disparities: contexts, mechanisms, and interventions among racial/ethnic and low-socioeconomic status populations. 2017. http://www.apa.org/pi/health-disparities/resources/stress-report.aspx.

  26. Cohen S, Kamarck T, Mermelstein R. A global measure of perceived stress. J Health Soc Behav. 1983;24(4):385–96.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Cohen S, Williamson G. Perceived stress in a probability sample of the United States. In: Spacapan S, Oskamp S, editors. The social psychology of health. Newbury Park: Sage; 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Subar AF, Kirkpatrick SI, Mittl B, Zimmerman TP, Thompson FE, Bingley C, et al. The Automated Self-Administered 24-hour dietary recall (ASA24): a resource for researchers, clinicians, and educators from the National Cancer Institute. J Acad Nutr Diet. 2012;112(8):1134–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Woese CR, Gutell RR. Evidence for several higher order structural elements in ribosomal RNA. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1989;86(9):3119–22.

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Caporaso JG, Lauber CL, Walters WA, Berg-Lyons D, Lozupone CA, Turnbaugh PJ, et al. Global patterns of 16S rRNA diversity at a depth of millions of sequences per sample. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2011;108(Suppl 1):4516–22.

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Kumar R, Eipers P, Little RB, Crowley M, Crossman DK, Lefkowitz EJ, et al. Getting started with microbiome analysis: sample acquisition to bioinformatics. Curr Protocols Hum Genet. 2014;82:18.8.1-29.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Kozich JJ, Westcott SL, Baxter NT, Highlander SK, Schloss PD. Development of a dual-index sequencing strategy and curation pipeline for analyzing amplicon sequence data on the MiSeq Illumina sequencing platform. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2013;79(17):5112–20.

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Schloss PD, Westcott SL, Ryabin T, Hall JR, Hartmann M, Hollister EB, et al. Introducing mothur: open-source, platform-independent, community-supported software for describing and comparing microbial communities. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2009;75(23):7537–41.

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Wang Q, Garrity GM, Tiedje JM, Cole JR. Naive Bayesian classifier for rapid assignment of rRNA sequences into the new bacterial taxonomy. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2007;73(16):5261–7.

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Cole JR, Wang Q, Cardenas E, Fish J, Chai B, Farris RJ, et al. The Ribosomal Database Project: improved alignments and new tools for rRNA analysis. Nucleic Acids Res. 2009;37(Database issue):D141–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Yilmaz P, Parfrey LW, Yarza P, Gerken J, Pruesse E, Quast C, et al. The SILVA and “All-species Living Tree Project (LTP)” taxonomic frameworks. Nucleic Acids Res. 2014;42(Database issue):D643–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Wirbel J, Pyl PT, Kartal E, Zych K, Kashani A, Milanese A, et al. Meta-analysis of fecal metagenomes reveals global microbial signatures that are specific for colorectal cancer. Nat Med. 2019;25(4):679–89.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Yang Z, Ji G. Fusobacterium nucleatum-positive colorectal cancer. Oncol Lett. 2019;18(2):975–82.

    MathSciNet  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Yatsunenko T, Rey FE, Manary MJ, Trehan I, Dominguez-Bello MG, Contreras M, et al. Human gut microbiome viewed across age and geography. Nature. 2012;486(7402):222–7.

    Article  ADS  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Ai D, Pan H, Li X, Gao Y, Liu G, Xia LC. Identifying gut microbiota associated with colorectal cancer using a zero-inflated lognormal model. Front Microbiol. 2019;10:826.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Bashir A, Miskeen AY, Bhat A, Fazili KM, Ganai BA. Fusobacterium nucleatum: an emerging bug in colorectal tumorigenesis. Eur J Cancer Prev. 2015;24(5):373–85.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Wang Y, Wan X, Wu X, Zhang C, Liu J, Hou S. Eubacterium rectale contributes to colorectal cancer initiation via promoting colitis. Gut Pathog. 2021;13(1):2.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Little RB, Murillo AL, Van Der Pol WJ, Lefkowitz EJ, Morrow CD, Yi N, et al. Diet quality and the gut microbiota in women living in Alabama. Am J Prev Med. 2022;63(1 Suppl 1):S37-s46.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. American Psychological Association. Stress and gender. 2014.

  47. Bolte LA, Vich Vila A, Imhann F, Collij V, Gacesa R, Peters V, et al. Long-term dietary patterns are associated with pro-inflammatory and anti-inflammatory features of the gut microbiome. Gut. 2021;70(7):1287–98.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Carson TL, Wang F, Cui X, Jackson B, van der Pol W, Lefkowitz EJ, et al., editors. Racial comparisons of the gut microbiota of generally healthy black and white women for insights into colorectal cancer disparities. In: Tenth AACR conference on the science of cancer health disparities in racial/ethnic minorities and the medically underserved; 2017.

  49. Madison A, Kiecolt-Glaser JK. Stress, depression, diet, and the gut microbiota: human-bacteria interactions at the core of psychoneuroimmunology and nutrition. Curr Opin Behav Sci. 2019;28:105–10.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Geng S, Yang L, Cheng F, Zhang Z, Li J, Liu W, et al. Gut microbiota are associated with psychological stress-induced defections in intestinal and blood–brain barriers. Front Microbiol. 2019;10:3067.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank all participants who participated in this study.

Funding

Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences of the National Institutes of Health under award number UL1TR003096 and the National Cancer Institute (K01CA190559; Carson). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Moffitt Cancer Center, 12902 Magnolia Drive, Tampa, FL, 33612, USA

    Tiffany L. Carson, Doratha A. Byrd, Kristen S. Smith, Maria Gomez & Michael Abaskaron

  2. Auburn University, 1161 W. Samford Avenue, Auburn, AL, 36849, USA

    Daniel Carter & Andrew D. Fruge

  3. University of Alabama at Birmingham, 1720 2nd Avenue South, Birmingham, AL, 35294, USA

    Rebecca B. Little, Sh’Nese Townsend Holmes, William J. van Der Pol, Elliot J. Lefkowitz & Casey D. Morrow

Authors
  1. Tiffany L. Carson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Doratha A. Byrd
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kristen S. Smith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Daniel Carter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Maria Gomez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Michael Abaskaron
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Rebecca B. Little
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Sh’Nese Townsend Holmes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. William J. van Der Pol
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Elliot J. Lefkowitz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Casey D. Morrow
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Andrew D. Fruge
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

TLC, DAB, MA, WJVDP and ADF wrote main manuscript text. KSS and DC conducted literature reviews to inform the manuscript. ADF and MG conducted the statistical analysis and created tables and figures. RBL and STH made significant contributions to the implementation of the protocol and data collection. EJL, WJVDP, CDM conducted laboratory and bioinformatics analyses reported in this manuscript. All authors reviewed, edited the submitted manuscripts. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tiffany L. Carson.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

All study procedures were approved by the Institutional Review Board at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. All participants completed the informed consent process and provided a written signature indicating their informed consent to participate.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1: Table S1.

Number of reads per sample.

Additional file 2: Table S2.

Supplementary Data.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Carson, T.L., Byrd, D.A., Smith, K.S. et al. A case–control study of the association between the gut microbiota and colorectal cancer: exploring the roles of diet, stress, and race. Gut Pathog 16, 13 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13099-024-00608-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13099-024-00608-w

Keywords

Gut Pathogens

ISSN: 1757-4749