Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

Nutrition in acute and chronic diseases

Gut microbiota profile of patients on peritoneal dialysis: comparison with household contacts

European Journal of Clinical Nutrition volume 77, pages 90–97 (2023)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Background

Differences in patients gut microbiota composition with the potential for dysbiosis have been associated with chronic kidney disease (CKD). However, factors other than the disease itself, such as diet and cohabitation, have not been evaluated when gut microbiota of CKD patients was compared with that of healthy controls. The aim of this study was to compare the gut microbiota composition between patients on peritoneal dialysis (PD) and age-matched household contacts with normal renal function.

Methods

Fecal samples were collected from 20 patients [men: 70%; age: 53.5 years (48.2–66; median and interquartile range); length on PD: 14 months (5.2–43.5) and 20 controls. The region V4 of the 16S ribosomal RNA gene was PCR-amplified and sequenced on Illumina MiSeq platform. Dietary intake and diet quality were assessed by a 3-day food record and a diet quality index, respectively.

Results

No difference was found between the gut microbiota composition of patients and controls, assessed by alpha and beta diversities (p > 0.05) and genera differential abundance (p > 0.05). The most abundant phyla in both groups were Firmicutes (PD = 45%; Control: 47%; p = 0.65) and Bacteroidetes (PD = 41%; Control: 45%; p = 0.17). The phylum Proteobacteria, known as a potential marker of gut dysbiosis, was not different in proportions between groups (p > 0.05). No difference was observed regarding diet quality and dietary intake of fiber, protein and other nutrients (p > 0.05).

Conclusion

Gut microbiota of patients on PD did not differ from household contacts. This result suggests that cohabitation and dietary intake might have outweighed the disease influence on gut microbiota composition of our PD patients.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Flowchart of patients and controls.
Fig. 2: Comparison of gut microbiota alpha diversity between peritoneal dialysis patients (PD) and household contacts (Control).
Fig. 3: Comparison of gut microbiota beta diversity between peritoneal dialysis patients (PD) and household contacts (Control).
Fig. 4: Gut microbiota genera differential abundance between groups (p > 0.05).

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Additional data are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  1. Relman DA. The human microbiome and the future practice of medicine. J Am Med Assoc. 2015;314:1127–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Eckburg PB, Bik EM, Bernstein CN, Purdom E, Dethlefsen L, Sargent M, et al. Diversity of the human intestinal microbial flora. Science. 2005;308:1635–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Huttenhower C, Gevers D, Knight R, Abubucker S, Badger JH, Chinwalla AT, et al. Structure, function and diversity of the healthy human microbiome. Nature. 2012;486:207–14.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Lozupone CA, Stombaugh JI, Gordon JI, Jansson JK, Knight R. Diversity, stability and resilience of the human gut microbiota. Nature. 2012;489:220–30.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. 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;486:222–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Wu GD, Chen J, Hoffmann C, Bittinger K, Chen Y, Keilbaugh SA, et al. Linking long-term dietary patterns with Gut Microbial Enterotypes. Science. 2011;334:105–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Turnbaugh PJ, Hamady M, Yatsunenko T, Cantarel BL, Ley RE, Sogin ML, et al. A core gut microbiome between lean and obesity twins. Nature. 2009;457:480–4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Dill-McFarland KA, Tang ZZ, Kemis JH, Kerby RL, Chen G, Palloni A, et al. Close social relationships correlate with human gut microbiota composition. Sci Rep. 2019;9:703.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. van de Guchte M, Blottière HM, Doré J. Humans as holobionts: implications for prevention and therapy. Microbiome. 2018;6:81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Shin NR, Whon TW, Bae JW. Proteobacteria: microbial signature of dysbiosis in gut microbiota. Trends Biotechnol. 2015;33:496–503.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Stadlbauer V, Horvath A, Ribitsch W, Schmerböck B, Schilcher G, Lemesch S, et al. Structural and functional differences in gut microbiome composition in patients undergoing haemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis. Sci Rep. 2017;7:15601.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Xu KY, Xia GH, Lu JQ, Chen MX, Zhen X, Wang S, et al. Impaired renal function and dysbiosis of gut microbiota contribute to increased trimethylamine-N-oxide in chronic kidney disease patients. Sci Rep. 2017;7:1445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Hatch M, Vaziri ND. Enhanced enteric excretion of urate in rats with chronic renal failure. Clin Sci. 1994;86:511–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Kalantar-Zadeh K, Kopple JD, Deepak S, Block D, Block G. Food intake characteristics of hemodialysis patients as obtained by food frequency questionnaire. J Ren Nutr. 2002;12:17–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Cano AE, Neil AK, Kang JY, Barnabas A, Eastwood JB, Nelson SR, et al. Gastrointestinal symptoms in patients with end-stage renal disease undergoing treatment by hemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2007;102:1990–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Bammens B, Evenepoel P, Verbeke K, Vanrenterghem Y. Impairment of small intestinal protein assimilation in patients with end-stage renal disease: extending the malnutrition-inflammation-atherosclerosis concept. Am J Clin Nutr. 2004;80:1536–43.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Kortman GAM, Reijnders D, Swinkels DW. Oral iron supplementation: potential implications for the gut microbiome and metabolome in patients with CKD. Hemodial Int. 2017;21:S28–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Jakobsson HE, Jernberg C, Andersson AF, Sjölund-Karlsson M, Jansson JK, Engstrand L. Short-term antibiotic treatment has differing long- term impacts on the human throat and gut microbiome. PLoS One. 2010;5:e9836.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Jiang N, Zhang C, Feng H, Yuan J, Ding L, Fang W, et al. Clinical characteristics associated with the properties of gut microbiota in peritoneal dialysis patients. Perit Dial Int. 2021;41:298–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Caivano S, Colugnati FAB, Domene SMÁ. Diet quality index associated with digital food guide: update and validation. Cad Saude Publica. 2019;35:e00043419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Kopple JD. National kidney foundation K/DOQI clinical practice guidelines for nutrition in chronic renal failure. Am J Kidney Dis. 2001;37:S66–70.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Drossman DA. Functional gastrointestinal disorders: history, pathophysiology, clinical features, and Rome IV. Gastroenterology. 2016;150:1262–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Lewis SJ, Heaton KW. Stool form scale as a useful guide to intestinal transit time. Scand J Gastroenterol. 1997;32:920–4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Daugirdas JT. Second generation logarithmic estimates of single-pool variable volume Kt/V: an analysis of error. J Am Soc Nephrol. 1993;4:1205–13.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Caporaso JG, Lauber CL, Walters WA, Berg-Lyons D, Huntley J, Fierer N, et al. Ultra-high-throughput microbial community analysis on the Illumina HiSeq and MiSeq platforms. ISME J. 2012;6:1621–4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Callahan BJ, Sankaran K, Fukuyama JA, McMurdie PJ, Holmes SP. Bioconductor workflow for microbiome data analysis: from raw reads to community analyses. F1000Research. 2016;5:1492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Renaud G, Stenzel U, Maricic T, Wiebe V, Kelso J. DeML: robust demultiplexing of Illumina sequences using a likelihood-based approach. Bioinformatics. 2015;31:770–2.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Callahan BJ, McMurdie PJ, Rosen MJ, Han AW, Johnson AJA, Holmes SP. DADA2: high-resolution sample inference from Illumina amplicon data. Nat Methods. 2016;13:581–3.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Glöckner FO, Yilmaz P, Quast C, Gerken J, Beccati A, Ciuprina A, et al. 25 years of serving the community with ribosomal RNA gene reference databases and tools. J Biotechnol. 2017;261:169–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Robinson MD, McCarthy DJ, Smyth GK. edgeR: a bioconductor package for differential expression analysis of digital gene expression data. Bioinformatics. 2009;26:139–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Robinson MD, Oshlack A. A scaling normalization method for differential expression analysis of RNA-seq data. Genome Biol. 2010;11:R25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Law CW, Chen Y, Shi W, Smyth GK. Voom: Precision weights unlock linear model analysis tools for RNA-seq read counts. Genome Biol. 2014;15:R29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Ritchie ME, Phipson B, Wu D, Hu Y, Law CW, Shi W, et al. Limma powers differential expression analyses for RNA-sequencing and microarray studies. Nucleic Acids Res. 2015;43:e47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Smyth GK Linear models and empirical bayes methods for assessing differential expression in microarray experiments. Stat Appl Genet Mol Biol. 2004;3:3.

  36. McMurdie PJ, Holmes S. Phyloseq: an R package for reproducible interactive analysis and graphics of microbiome census data. PLoS One. 2013;8:e61217.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Kim BR, Shin J, Guevarra RB, Lee JH, Kim DW, Seol KH, et al. Deciphering diversity indices for a better understanding of microbial communities. J Microbiol Biotechnol. 2017;27:2089–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Whittaker RH. Vegetation of the Siskiyou Mountains, Oregon and California. Ecol Monogr. 2013;30:279–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Claesson MJ, Jeffery IB, Conde S, Power SE, O’connor EM, Cusack S, et al. Gut microbiota composition correlates with diet and health in the elderly. Nature. 2012;488:178–84.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Luo D, Zhao W, Lin Z, Wu J, Lin H, Li Y, et al. The effects of hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis on the gut microbiota of end-stage renal disease patients, and the relationship between gut microbiota and patient prognoses. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2021;11:1–13.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Gao B, Alonzo-Palma N, Brooks B, Jose A, Barupal D, Jagadeesan M, et al. A pilot study on the effect of prebiotic on host-microbial co-metabolism in peritoneal dialysis patients. Kidney Int Reports. 2020;5:1309–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Hu X, Ouyang S, Xie Y, Gong Z, Du J. Characterizing the gut microbiota in patients with chronic kidney disease. Postgrad Med. 2020;132:495–505.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Vaziri ND, Wong J, Pahl M, Piceno YM, Yuan J, Desantis TZ, et al. Chronic kidney disease alters intestinal microbial flora. Kidney Int. 2013;83:308–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Jiang S, Xie S, Lv D, Wang P, He H, Zhang T, et al. Alteration of the gut microbiota in Chinese population with chronic kidney disease. Sci Rep. 2017;7:1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Wong J, Piceno YM, DeSantis TZ, Pahl M, Andersen GL, Vaziri ND. Expansion of urease- and uricase-containing, indole- and p-cresol-forming and contraction of short-chain fatty acid-producing intestinal microbiota in ESRD. Am J Nephrol. 2014;39:230–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Nosratola DV, Ying-Yong Z, Madeleine VP. Altered intestinal microbial flora and impaired epithelial barrier structure and function in CKD: The nature, mechanisms, consequences and potential treatment. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2016;31:737–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Song SJ, Lauber C, Costello EK, Lozupone CA, Humphrey G, Berg-Lyons D, et al. Cohabiting family members share microbiota with one another and with their dogs. Elife. 2013;2013:1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Lax S, Smith DP, Hampton-marcell J, Owens SM, Handley M, Scott NM, et al. Longitudinal analysis of microbial interaction between humans and the indoor environment. Science. 2014;345:1048–52.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Poesen R, Windey K, Neven E, Kuypers D, De Preter V, Augustijns P, et al. The influence of CKD on colonic microbial metabolism. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2016;27:1389–99.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. García-Vega ÁS, Corrales-Agudelo V, Reyes A, Escobar JS. Diet quality, food groups and nutrients associated with the gut microbiota in a nonwestern population. Nutrients. 2020;12:1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Tian XK, Wang T. A low-protein diet does not necessarily lead to malnutrition in peritoneal dialysis patients. J Ren Nutr. 2005;15:298–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Sutton D, Higgins B, Stevens JM. Continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis patients are unable to increase dietary intake to recommended levels. J Ren Nutr. 2007;17:329–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge the nurses and all staff from Fundação Oswaldo Ramos (São Paulo, Brazil) for their assistance in data collection, the study participants and also to Danilo Takashi Aoike for his assistance in statistical analyses.

Funding

RRT, LSA and NBFP received a scholarship from Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES). LC receives a scholarship from Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq) (# 302765/2017-4). Support for this research was provided by Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP) (# 2018/12122-7).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Nutrition Program, Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP), São Paulo, Brazil

    Renata Rodrigues Teixeira, Laila Santos de Andrade, Natalia Barros Ferreira Pereira & Lilian Cuppari

  2. NGS Soluções Genômicas, São Paulo, Brazil

    Horacio Montenegro

  3. Food Research Center, School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of São Paulo (USP), São Paulo, Brazil

    Christian Hoffmann

  4. Division of Nephrology, Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP), São Paulo, Brazil

    Lilian Cuppari

Authors
  1. Renata Rodrigues Teixeira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Laila Santos de Andrade
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Natalia Barros Ferreira Pereira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Horacio Montenegro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Christian Hoffmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Lilian Cuppari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

The results presented in this paper have not been published previously in whole or part, except in abstract form. All authors contributed and approved the manuscript. RRT, LSA and LC conceived, designed, and implemented the study; RRT, LSA and NBFP collected the data; RRT performed the statistical analysis; RRT, LSA and LC interpreted the data, drafted the manuscript and were responsible for the final revisions. CH provided intellectual content of critical importance to the work and reviewed the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lilian Cuppari.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethics approval

The study protocol was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP, São Paulo, Brazil, #1422/2018).

Additional information

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

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Teixeira, R.R., de Andrade, L.S., Pereira, N.B.F. et al. Gut microbiota profile of patients on peritoneal dialysis: comparison with household contacts. Eur J Clin Nutr 77, 90–97 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41430-022-01190-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41430-022-01190-7

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links