Species-level verification of Phascolarctobacterium association to colorectal cancer
====================================================================================

* Cecilie Bucher-Johannessen
* Thulasika Senthakumaran
* Ekaterina Avershina
* Einar Birkeland
* Geir Hoff
* Vahid Bemanian
* Hege Tunsjø
* Trine B Rounge

## Abstract

**Background and aims** We have previously demonstrated an association between increased abundance of *Phascolarctobacterium* and colorectal cancer (CRC) and adenomas in two independent Norwegian cohorts. Here we seek to verify our previous findings using new cohorts and methods. In addition, we characterize lifestyle and sex-specificity, the functional potential of the *Phascolarctobacterium* species and their interaction with other microbial species.

**Methods** We analyze *Phascolarctobacterium* with 16S rRNA sequencing, shotgun metagenome sequencing and species-specific qPCR, using 2350 samples from three Norwegian cohorts - CRCAhus, NORCCAP and CRCbiome - and a large publicly available dataset, Curatedmetagenomedata. Using metagenome assembled genomes from the CRCbiome study we explore genomic characteristics and functional potential of the *Phascolarctobacterium* pangenome.

**Results** Three species of *Phascolarctobacterium* associated with adenoma/CRC were consistently detected by qPCR and sequencing. Positive associations with adenomas/CRC were verified for *P. succinatutens* and negative associations were shown for *P. faecium* and adenoma in Curatedmetagenomedata. Men show higher prevalence of *P. succinatutens* across cohorts. Co-occurrence among *Phascolarctobacterium* species was low (<6%). Each of the three species show distinct microbial composition and form distinct correlation networks with other bacterial taxa, although *Dialister invisus* was negatively correlated to all investigated *Phascolarctobacterium* species. Pangenome analyses showed *P. succinatutens* to be enriched for genes related to porphyrin metabolism and degradation of complex carbohydrates, whereas glycoside hydrolase enzyme 3 was specific to *P. faecium*.

**Conclusion** We have verified that *P. succinatutens* is increased in adenoma and CRC and this species should therefore be recognised among the most important CRC-associated bacteria.

Keywords
*   *Phascolarctobacterium*
*   colorectal cancer
*   microbiome

## Introduction

Many studies have revealed associations between the microbiome and several intestinal diseases. Among others, imbalance in microbial composition and enrichment of specific intestinal bacteria have been associated to adenomas formation and their subsequent progression to CRC via the adenoma-carcinoma pathway1. The time span for the progression can vary from 5-10 years depending on the specific pathway of tumorigenesis2. However, less than 10% of the adenomas are estimated to progress to cancer3,4.

We have previously shown an increased abundance of Amplicon Sequence Variants (ASV) belonging to the genus *Phascolarctobacterium* in CRC and adenoma cases when compared to healthy controls in stool samples and tissue samples in two independent Norwegian cohorts5,6.

Three species of *Phascolarctobacterium; Phascolarctobacterium succinatutens*, *Phascolarctobacterium faecium*, and *Phascolarctobacterium wakonense* have been described previously but they remain largely uncharacterized. While *P. wakonense* has been isolated from common marmoset feces7, *P. succinatutens* and *P. faecium* are abundant in the human gastrointestinal (GI) tract8,9. *P. succinatutens* is estimated to be present in around 20% of human fecal samples while prevalence of *P. faecium* varies between 40-90%, being strongly influenced by host age 8. The genus is Gram-negative, obligate anaerobic bacteria belonging to *Negativicutes* class in the phylum *Firmicutes*. Both *P. faecium* and *P. succinatutens* use succinate as energy source and can convert succinate into propionate9,10. However, they lack the fumarate reductase gene, an enzyme essential for the conversion of fumarate into succinate11, thus they only rely on the presence of succinate from the environment. Succinate, a tricarboxylic acid (TCA) cycle intermediate in humans, is not abundant in the human diet but it is produced in the GI tract by the host and bacteria such as those belonging to *Paraprevotella* 9 and *Bacteroides*10.

Studies have reported an association between *Phascolarctobacterium* and adenoma/CRC. Yachida et al.12 observed an enrichment of *P. succinatutens* in early CRC stages, accompanied by elevated succinate levels. Also, Zackular et al.13 and Peters et al.14 have reported higher abundance of *Phascolarctobacterium* in fecal samples from adenoma/CRC cases. In contrast, a small study by Sarhadi et al.15 found a reduced abundance of *Phascolarctobacterium* in fecal samples from CRC compared to controls. While these studies showed an association between adenoma/CRC and *Phascolarctobacterium* along with several other bacteria, none of them conducted in-depth analyses on the species level.

We aimed to verify the association between *Phascolarctobacterium* and adenoma/CRC at the species level using independent cohorts and techniques, and to compare the genomic makeup of *Phascolarctobacterium* across species.

## Material and Methods

### Study population and sample collection

Data from the CRC study from Akershus University Hospital (CRCAhus hereafter), Norwegian Colorectal Cancer Prevention (NORCCAP) trial and CRCbiome study, and a publicly available dataset, CuratedMetagenomicData, were included in this study (Figure 1).

![Figure 1:](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/03/15/2024.03.13.24304214/F1.medium.gif)

[Figure 1:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/03/15/2024.03.13.24304214/F1)

Figure 1: 
Cohorts, processing workflow and data analyses included in this study.

ASV = Amplicon Sequence Variant

FIT = Fecal Immunochemical Test

The CRCAhus study (for details, see Senthakumaran et al.6) includes seventy-two participants (age 30-87) who underwent colonoscopy at Akershus University Hospital between 2014 and 2017. Individuals included in the study were either referred for colonoscopy following the detection of polyps by CT or undergoing investigation for CRC due to unexplained bleeding or altered stool patterns for more than four weeks. Based on colonoscopy findings, the participants were classified into three categories: patients with cancer, patients with adenomatous polyps (diameter ≥ 10 mm), and healthy controls (no pathological findings). Either 2 or 4 biopsy samples from different locations in the colon were collected during colonoscopy for controls and cases, respectively. Each participant collected a stool sample in the RNALater RNA stabilizing buffer (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany) before colonoscopy or one week after colonoscopy. In total, the study population included 72 participants. Of these, 70 (CRC = 23, adenoma = 25, controls = 22) provided stool samples, and 60 biopsy samples were included (one from each participant; CRC = 23, adenoma = 20, controls = 17). Detailed information on the participants and sample collection was described elsewhere 16.

The NORCCAP trial (for details, see Holme et al.17,18 and Bretthauer et al.19), took place in 1999- 2001 and recruited participants (age 50-65) from the Norwegian counties of Oslo and Telemark. Participants collected fecal samples at home in 20 ml vials and immediately stored them in their freezers for up to 7 days, until transportation to the screening center during their sigmoidoscopy screening appointments, and further storage at -20°C. Twenty-eight participants were diagnosed with CRC at screening or diagnosed up to 17 years after screening (identified through cancer registry linkage in 2015). Sixty-three participants had high risk adenomas classified at time of sigmoidoscopy screening. Finally, 53 participants were included as healthy controls (no adenoma or cancer diagnosis at screening or cancer during follow up). Participants with high-risk adenomas were defined as having one or more adenomas ≥10 mm, with high-grade dysplasia or villous components regardless of size; or having three or more adenomas regardless of their size, dysplasia, and villosity.

The CRCbiome study (for details see Kværner et al.20) recruited participants from the Bowel Cancer Screening in Norway (BCSN) trial21 between 2017 and 2021. Participants in the BCSN trial were invited for once only sigmoidoscopy or biennial fecal immunochemical test (FIT). CRCbiome recruited participants (age 50 - 74) from the FIT arm, inviting those with a positive FIT test (>15 µg hemoglobin/g feces) who were referred for colonoscopy. Based on diagnoses retrieved from the BCSN database, participants were divided into three groups including 66 CRC cases, 298 advanced adenomas (including advanced adenomas, and advanced serrated lesions) and 670 controls (including no findings and those with non-advanced adenomas <3 mm). The CRCbiome study aims to explore the influence of diet and lifestyle on the microbiome. Participants completed two questionnaires prior to colonoscopy: A Food Frequency Questionnaire (FFQ), encompassing 256 food items across 23 questions about consumption frequency, portion sizes, and BMI; and a Lifestyle and Demographic Questionnaire (LDQ) with 10 items20,22. From this a healthy lifestyle index (HLI) was developed as described in Kværner et al 202323.

For external validation, we utilized the publicly available R package [dataset] CuratedMetagenomicData24 (accessed 22.03.2022, curatedMG hereafter), a comprehensive dataset of 22,588 samples obtained from 93 independent datasets. Samples are collected from various body sites, and raw data processed to generate relative abundance tables using MetaPhlAn3. We filtered the data to only include samples from stool and conditions including CRC, adenomas, and healthy controls. This resulted in a subset of 1055 samples from seven different studies where 447 were from CRC, 147 from adenomas, and 441 from healthy controls. The largest study included in this dataset was from Yachida et al.12 with 576 samples.

### Ethical considerations

The CRCAhus study, BCSN trial, the CRCbiome study and the NORCCAP trial have been approved by the Regional Committee for Medical and Health-related Research Ethics in Southeast Norway (REK ref: 2012/1944, 2011/1272, 63148, and 22337 respectively). The CRCAhus study also received approval from the data protection manager at Akershus University Hospital. The BCSN trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov (Clinical Trial (NCT) no.: 01538550). All cohorts followed and performed experiments in compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki Principles. For all cohorts, participants gave written informed consent prior to inclusion. All lab procedures were conducted in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations.

### DNA extraction and sequencing

DNA from biopsies and fecal samples from the CRCAhus were extracted using AllPrep DNA/RNA Mini Kit (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany) and PSP Spin Stool DNA Kit (Stratec Molecular Gmbh, Berlin, Germany), respectively as described by16. Amplicon sequencing of 16S rRNA V4 region was performed on the Illumina MiSeq platform (Illumina Inc., San Diego, CA, USA) using the MiSeq reagent kit v/2 as previously described6. PCR amplification of 16S rRNA V4 region was performed using 16S forward primer (16Sf V4: GTGCCAGCMGCCGCGGTAA) and 16S reverse primers (16Sr V4: GGACTACHVGGGTWTCTAAT)25.

DNA extraction of the NORCCAP samples was performed using the QIAsymphony automated extraction system and a QIAsymphony DSP Virus/Pathogen Midi Kit (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany), with an off-board lysis protocol that included modifications. The process involved bead beating of the samples, followed by a mixture with a lysis buffer, and subsequent incubation for lysis. Amplification of 143 samples was carried out using a TruSeq (TS)-tailed 1-step amplification protocol26. For 16S rRNA sequencing, the V3-V4 region was targeted using the primers S-D-Bact-0341-b-S-17 (5′CCTACGGGNGGCWGCAG′3) and SD-Bact-0785-a-A-21 (5′GACTACHVGGGTATCTAATCC′3)27. Sequencing was performed using the Illumina MiSeq instrument generating paired-end reads of 2x300 bp. A subset of the samples, 46, was also metagenome sequenced using the Riptide protocol (Twist Bioscience, CA, USA) and sequenced on an Illumina NovaSeq platform, generating paired-end reads of 2x130 bp. We have previously shown the feasibility of using these long-term stored samples for microbiome analyses28.

For CRCbiome, DNA extraction followed a similar protocol as NORCCAP, but with the inclusion of an extra washing step during lysis. The sequencing libraries for 1034 CRCbiome samples were prepared in line with the Nextera DNA Flex Library Prep Reference Guide with the modification of reducing the reaction volumes to a quarter of the recommended amounts. Sequencing was performed on the Illumina Novaseq system generating 2x151 bp paired-end reads (Illumina, Inc., CA, USA).

### Bioinformatics and taxonomic profiling

16S rRNA sequencing data from CRCAhus and NORCCAP were processed using Quantitative Insights Into Microbial Ecology (QIIME229, version 2021.2.0 and 2020.2.0, respectively) with the DADA2-plugin as described previously5,6, resulting in ASV. For comparative analysis with metagenomic data, ASV counts were transformed to relative abundances using the transform_sample_counts function from the Phyloseq package30 (v1.26.1) where each ASV count was divided by the total count of ASVs in the sample.

NORCCAP metagenomic reads were processed using Trimmomatic31 (v0.66.0) for quality trimming, discarding sequences below a quality threshold of 30 across four bases and those shorter than 30 base pairs. Bowtie232 (v2.4.2) and Samtools33 (v1.12) was used for removal of human-derived sequences. Taxonomic profiling was conducted using MetaPhlAn334 (v3.0.4) with default settings.

For the CRCbiome samples sequencing reads were processed using two different approaches. First, raw reads were trimmed using Trimmomatic (v0.36) and reads mapping to the human genome (hg38) and PhiX were removed using Bowtie2 (v2.3.5.1). Read-based taxonomy was determined at the species level and quantified as relative abundance determined by MetaPhlAn3 using the mpa_v30_Chocophlan_201901 (v3.0.7) database. Second, metagenome assembled genomes (MAGs) were created using the framework Metagenome-ATLAS35 (v2.4.3). Low-quality reads were filtered and human and phiX sequences removed using BBTools36. Reads were then assembled via MetaSpades37 (v3.13) and grouped into genomes with DAStool38 (v1.1), utilizing MetaBat39 (v2.2) and MaxBin40 (v2.14) for genomic bin identification. Genome dereplication was conducted using dRep41 (v2.2) based on 95% identity over 60% genome overlap. Genomes with completeness >90% and contamination < 10%, determined using CheckM42 were kept. GTDB-Tk (v1.3) assigned a taxonomy against the GTDB database43 (v95). Metagenome-assembled genome abundance was estimated by median read depth across 1000-bp bins of each genome and scaled by reads per million. The taxonomic classification approach was employed for those analyses where consistency and comparability across datasets was necessary. The MAGs were used for analyses including only CRCbiome samples which encompassed diet analyses, genomic characterization and functional potential of the individual *Phascolarctobacterium* species.

### Species-specific quantification of *Phascolarctobacterium* by qPCR

To verify our previous findings between *Phascolarctobacterium* ASVs and adenoma/CRC5,6, we developed species-specific qPCR assays. BLAST (Basic Local Alignment Search Tool) search identified the ASVs as *Phascolarctobacterium succinatutens* and *Phascolarctobacterium* sp. 377. As *P. faecium* is also prevalent in the human GI tract we decided to include this species as well, and genomes from *P. succinatutens* (YIT 12067), *P. faecium* (JCN 30894) and *P.* sp 377 (AB739694.1) were used for qPCR assay development. IDT PrimerQuest Tool (Integrated DNA Technologies, Leuven, Belgium) was used for primer and probe design. The primers and the probes were synthesized by TiB Molbiol (Berlin, Germany) and are listed in Table 1. The analytical specificity of the *Phascolarctobacterium* qPCR assays were tested using 50 different bacterial strains, obtained mostly from Culture Collection University of Gothenberg (CCUG) and clinical isolates from Akershus University Hospital (Table S1). Limit of detection (LOD) was determined using 10-fold serial dilution of DNA from pure bacterial suspensions. qPCR assays were performed using Brilliant III Ultra-fast QPCR master mix (Integrated DNA Technologies, USA) with 2 µl DNA in 20 µl reaction volume. Amplification was conducted on QuantStudio5 Real-Time PCR systems (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA). Cycling conditions for the *Phascolarctobacterium* assays were as follows: an initial denaturation of 95 °C for 5 min, followed by 40 cycles of 95 °C for 15 s, 60 °C for 30 s and 72 °C for 30 s.

View this table:
[Table 1:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/03/15/2024.03.13.24304214/T1)

Table 1: List of primers and TaqMan probes used in this study

In the CRCAhus cohort, all 70 fecal samples were subjected to species-specific qPCR analysis. For the NORCCAP cohort, 38 samples with reads mapping to the genus level of *Phascolarctobacterium* in both the 16S rRNA and metagenome datasets were subjected to species-specific qPCR, along with 10 samples with no reads mapping to *Phascolarctobacterium*. Additionally, 24 samples from the CRCbiome cohort were selected to verify detection of *Phascolarctobacterium* and identify their genomes. The CRCbiome cohort included 12 samples with reads from *P. succinatutens*, four samples from *P. faecium*, four samples from *P.* sp 377, and four samples without *Phascolarctobacterium* reads. Total bacterial DNA load in each sample was estimated using the universal 16S rRNA as target. The primer and probe sequences and the cycling conditions for the universal 16S rRNA gene amplification has been described elsewhere44. qPCR data was analyzed with the ΔCt method (ΔCt = CtTarget - CtTotal DNA) using the 16S rRNA gene as a reference. Relative abundance was calculated by 2-ΔCt.

### Genome analyses

#### 16S rRNA gene

To compare ASVs across studies, we made a phylogenetic tree based on the V4 region from NORCCAP and reference genomes for the three *Phascolarctobacterium* species identified in CRCAhus (*P. succinatutens*, *P. faecium*, and *P.* sp.377). Initially, we created a BLAST database of the 16S V4 region of the CRCAhus ASVs using the makeblastdb (v2.13.0) command from BLAST+ NCBI toolbox with default settings45. Blastn was then employed to extract the corresponding V4 region from the NORCCAP and reference sequences (*P. succinatutens* (GCA 017851075.1), *P.* sp 377 (AB739694.1) and *P. faecium* (AP025563.1)). The V4 sequences from CRCAhus, NORCCAP and reference genomes were then aligned by Multiple Alignment using Fast Fourier Transform (MAFFT, v7)46. A maximum likelihood phylogenetic tree was constructed with IQ-TREE47 (v2.2) using F18+F substitution model and bootstrapping set to 1000. The resulting tree was visualized using Interactive Tree of Life (iTOL, v6)48. ASVs with over 97% similarity to a reference sequence were collapsed into one ASV for all subsequent analyses.

#### Metagenome data

All CRCbiome genomes belonging to the *Phascolarctobacterium* genus were annotated using Dram49 (v1.4) with default settings using the databases KOfam50 (accessed 31.10.2022), dbCAN51 (accessed 08.09.2022) and Uniref9052 (accessed 14.11.2022). Identified protein-coding gene sequences were then used as input for a pangenome analysis using Roary53 (v3.13), based on identification of gene clusters with 70% identity cutoff for protein similarity. Gene clusters within the species-specific core were defined as those found in 95% of the genomes from one species and in 0% of the other two. Genus-level core was defined as those genes present in ≥95% of genomes regardless of species. All genomes were aligned using MAFFT54 (v7.520) and a tree was constructed using IQ-TREE (v2.2) with GTR+F+R7 substitution model and visualized using ITOL (v6). Pairwise average nucleotide identity (ANI) between the genomes was calculated based on tetranucleotide frequencies using the Python package pyani (v0.2.12).

### Statistics

Associations between *Phascolarctobacterium* species abundance and participant characteristics were evaluated in separate linear models for each species and variable. Abundance was coded as the dependent variable and participant characteristics as independent variables, adjusting for sex, age and screening center (Telemark or Oslo for NORCCAP, and Moss or Bærum for CRCbiome), or study of origin (total 7 studies for curatedMG). Here, relative abundances were log transformed, with 0 replaced by a pseudo count, defined as half the lowest observed relative abundance of the feature. The participant characteristics evaluated included clinical group (CRC, adenoma, or controls), lifestyle and dietary factors. Diet variables included were energy intake (kcal/day), macronutrients (in energy percentage (E%)), and alcohol and fiber (in g/day) as described in55. Lifestyle and demographic variables included were national background, education, occupation, marital status, body mass index, physical activity level, use of antibiotics and antacids in the past three months, smoking and snus habits and the healthy lifestyle index (further details in Kværner et al.23 and Istvan et al.55). The relationship between *Phascolarctobacterium* species relative abundance and FIT values. was assessed using an ordinal logistic regression model adjusted for sex and age, implemented with the function polr from the R package MASS56 (v7.3-60). Here, FIT values (in µg hemoglobin/g feces) were categorized into four groups based on their level of hemoglobin (group 1 = 15-20, group 2 = 20-35, group 3 = 35-70, group 4 = >70). Group differences in prevalence of *Phascolarctobacterium* species were evaluated using a chi-squared test.

To assess the correlation between the relative abundance of *Phascolarctobacterium* species as estimated using NGS and qPCR, we performed Spearman correlation analysis. Pairwise co-occurrence of *Phascolarctobacterium* species was quantified as a percentage, calculated by dividing the number of sample pairs featuring two species by the total sample count within the dataset and multiplying by 100. To evaluate whether the dominant *Phascolarctobacterium* species were associated with distinct microbial communities, a permutational multivariate analysis of variance (PERMANOVA) test was conducted using the adonis2 function from the vegan package57 (v.2.5-7) based on Bray-Curtis distances of relative species abundance. Here, participants were categorized according to *Phascolarctobacterium* presence: those with reads exclusively mapping to *P. succinatutens*, *P.* sp 377, or *P. faecium*; those with reads mapping to two or more species; and those with no *Phascolarctobacterium* reads. The PERMANOVA test was adjusted for sex, age, and screening center. Cor_test from the package rstatix58 (v.0.7.0) was used to calculate Spearman’s correlation between relative abundance of the three *Phascolarctobacterium* species and all other species or virus OTUs (vOTUs)55. Before species-correlation analysis, a 5% prevalence filtration was performed. Correlation networks were visualized using Cytoscape59 (v3.9.0).

Utilizing the results from the pangenome analyses, a chi-squared or Fisher’s exact test were used to identify significant deviations in the prevalence of carbohydrate-active enzymes (CAZY) and Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) genes across CRC, adenoma, and control groups. Additionally, we compared the prevalence of CAZy and KEGG genes within each *Phascolarctobacterium* species against the other two species combined. The KEGG genes that had varying distribution across species were used for the pathway overrepresentation analysis with MicrobiomeProfiler60 (v1.4.0).

All statistical analyses were performed using the R software (v4.1.0), with main package being tidyverse61 (v.1.3.1). Nominal statistical significance was considered for p < 0.05. Adjustment for multiple testing was performed using the Benjamini-Hochberg false discovery rate (FDR)62, with FDR < 0.05 being considered statistically significant. Code available on [https://github.com/Rounge-lab/Phascolarctobacterium_CRC](https://github.com/Rounge-lab/Phascolarctobacterium_CRC).

## Results

### Participant characteristics

In total, data from 2350 participants from three Norwegian CRC-related cohorts and the international collection of datasets available as curatedMG were analyzed (Table 2). The distribution of men and women was similar across datasets, with the percentage of women ranging from 39 to 44%.

View this table:
[Table 2:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/03/15/2024.03.13.24304214/T2)

Table 2: Participant characteristics

### Phylogenetic comparison of the *Phascolarctobacterium* ASVs and reference genomes

We assessed the phylogenetic relationship between *Phascolarctobacterium* ASVs, including two CRC-associated ASVs and *Phascolarctobacterium* reference genomes. The CRC-associated ASVs from NORCCAP5 and CRCAhus6 studies clustered in proximity to 16S rRNA gene sequences from *P. succinatutens* and *P*. sp 377 genomes, respectively (Figure 2A). *Phascolarctobacterium* ASVs from paired biopsy and fecal samples (CRCAhus) clustered exclusively together. The CRCAhus ASVs clustered with *P. succinatutens* (6 ASVs), *P.* sp 377 (4 ASVs) and *P. faecium* (3 ASVs) reference genomes. In NORCCAP stool samples, 37, 1 and 2 ASVs clustered with *P. succinatutens, P.* sp 377 and *P. faecium* references, respectively. These results show that the ASVs represent three distinct species of *Phascolarctobacterium*, and that the CRC-associated ASVs represent two independent *Phascolarctobacterium* species.

![Figure 2:](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/03/15/2024.03.13.24304214/F2.medium.gif)

[Figure 2:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/03/15/2024.03.13.24304214/F2)

Figure 2: 
A) Phylogenetic tree showing that ASVs from CRCAhus and NORCCAP cluster with referenc genomes for *P. succinatutens* (GCA 017851075.1), *Phascolarctobacterium sp*. (AB739694.1), and *P. faecium* (AP025563.1). The CRC associated ASV from CRCAhus cluster in proximity to *P.* sp 377 and the CRC associated ASV from NORCCAP cluster in proximity to *P. succinatutens*. B) Scatter plot illustrating the relationship between relative abundance from NGS data on y-axis and relative abundance from qPCR on x-axis. Each point represents one sample. Data is presented for *P. succinatutens*, *P. sp* 377 and *P. faecium* per dataset (CRCAhus feces, NORCCAP and CRCbiome). NORCCAP and CRCbiom samples were selected based on relative abundance data. C) Relative abundance of *Phascolarctobacterium* spp in fecal samples from CRCAhus. While *P. succinatutens* and *P. faecium* wer present in all three groups, the uncultured *P.* sp 377 was not found in the control group. Each point represents one sample. Number of negative samples with 0 abundance is indicated on the x-axis (neg samples).

* = p-value < 0.001.

r = Spearman’s correlation coefficient

### qPCR confirms phylogenetical distinct ASVs and CRC-association for *Phascolarctobacterium spp*

To validate the phylogenetic discordance between *Phascolarctobacterium* ASVs identified in CRCAhus and NORCCAP, we established qPCR assays for *P. succinatutens, P.* sp 377 and *P. faecium*. Analytical specificity assessed for a panel of 50 bacterial species revealed all three assays to exhibit 100 % specificity for each targeted *Phascolarctobacterium* species (Table S1). LOD for *P. succinatutens* and *P. faecium* assays were 1fg/µl. qPCR assays detection rates for samples with sequencing reads for *P. succinatutens, P. sp* 377 and *P. faecium* were 96 %, 94 % and 100 %, respectively. The qPCR additionally detected (presence) of 4, 3 and 11 of *P. succinatutens, P.* sp 377 and *P. faecium*, respectively, where 3, 1 and 9 samples (7 from NORCCAP) had low abundance (Ct >32). With regards to metagenome data from NORCCAP and CRCbiome, qPCR analysis also confirmed presence of the three species in these samples (Table S2). qPCR only detected five additional samples with either *Phascolarctobacterium* that did not have sequencing reads in the long-term stored NORCCAP samples. There was high concordance (100 %) between *Phascolarctobacterium* relative abundance detection in CRCbiome FIT samples and qPCR. Overall, this indicates high qPCR sensitivity across sample types and storage conditions.

Our results showed a high concordance between relative abundance from 16S rRNA gene sequencing, shotgun metagenome sequencing and qPCR. Spearman’s correlation coefficients of 0.92, 0.95, and 0.97 for *P. succinatutens*, *P.* sp 377 and *P. faecium*, respectively (all p<0.01, Figure 2B and Table S2) was observed in CRCAhus. In NORCCAP 16S *P. succinatutens* and *P. faecium* showed a significant positive correlation (0.88, 0.73, p<0.05), but *P. sp* 377 did not (- 0.05, p=0.7). In the NORCCAP MG and CRCbiome cohorts, *P. succinatutens, P.* sp 377 and *P. faecium* showed positive correlations (0.99, 0.97 and 0.73 for NORCCAP MG, all p<0.01, and 0.93, 0.99 and 0.84 for CRCbiome, all p<0.01). In accordance with 16S rRNA sequencing-based detection in the CRCAhus study, qPCR results identified *P.* sp 377 in 6/25 adenomas and 4/23 CRC cases but was absent from the control group (Figure 2C).

### CuratedMG metagenomes confirms association between CRC and *P. succinatutens*

We further investigated the association between adenoma/CRC cases and abundance of the three *Phascolarctobacterium* species in two large and independent CRC-related datasets, namely CRCbiome and curatedMG. The results showed a positive association between *P. succinatutens* and adenomas/CRC in curatedMG (Figure 3A, Table S3, all p<0.05). *P.* sp 377 was not associated with adenomas or CRC in either dataset. *P. faecium* was negatively associated with adenomas in curatedMG (p=0.014).

![Figure 3:](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/03/15/2024.03.13.24304214/F3.medium.gif)

[Figure 3:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/03/15/2024.03.13.24304214/F3)

Figure 3: 
A) Summary of multivariate linear models adjusting for sex, age and, for region (CRCbiome) and for study (curatedMG). Colour indicates log2 fold change, with red indicating a higher abundance and blue indicating a lower abundance compared to the reference group. Significantly increased abundance of *P. succinatutens* was observed in adenoma/CRC compared to controls in curatedMG and a lower abundance of *P. faecium* in adenomas versus controls. Significantly higher abundance of *P. succinatutens* in males were observed in both CRCbiome and curatedMG . B) Percentage of samples containing each of the three *Phascolarctobacterium* species, categorized by sex. Men displayed a higher prevalence of *P. succinatutens* compared to women in the NORCCAP, CRCbiome and curatedMG datasets. *P. succi* = *P. succinatutens; P. sp* = *P. sp* 377*; P. faec* = *P. Faecium* * = p-value < 0.05.

### Sex-specificity of P. faecium and P. succinatutens

We also observed an association between *Phascolarctobacterium* species and sex. Men exhibited a higher abundance of *P. succinatutens* in CRCbiome and curatedMG datasets (Figure 3A, Table S3, p<0.05), while women showed a higher abundance of *P. faecium* in curatedMG. Subsequent presence/absence analysis confirmed a higher presence of *P. succinatutens* in men across NORCCAP MG, CRCbiome, and curatedMG, and a greater prevalence of *P. faecium* in women in curatedMG (Figure 3B, Table S4, all p<0.05).

### *Phascolarctobacterium* species are mutually exclusive and have distinct microbial partners

We further investigated the characteristics of the microbiome, their prevalence in participants’ microbiomes, and their interactions with other microbes. We explored the extent of *Phascolarctobacterium* species co-occurrence across samples and study populations. We found a low rate of co-occurrence between the *Phascolarctobacterium* species in all datasets (Figure 4A and Table S5). The highest pairwise co-occurrence was observed in CRCAhus biopsy samples between *P. faecium* and *P.* sp 377 (6%). For all other datasets, co-occurrence was less than 3% and no samples had all three species across datasets. There was also a significant compositional difference between samples with different dominating *Phascolarctobacterium* species in CRCbiome (p=0.001, R2=0.02, Figure 4B and Figure S1) and curatedMG (p=0.001 and R2=0.02).

![Figure 4:](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/03/15/2024.03.13.24304214/F4.medium.gif)

[Figure 4:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/03/15/2024.03.13.24304214/F4)

Figure 4: 
A) Upset plot illustrating the co-occurrence of *Phascolarctobacterium* species in all five datasets. No samples had all three species present across datasets. B) PCoA plot showing the microbial composition for the CRCbiome samples, where the groups are defined based on presence of on dominating *Phascolarctobacterium* species. PERMANOVA test showed a significant difference between the three groups (p = 0.001) with an R2 of 0.02. C) Correlation network plot of the 41 species with FDR-significant, consistent correlations across at least two of the metagenome datasets (NORCCAP MG, CRCbiome, and curatedMG). Edge colors represent phyla. Red line color indicates negative correlation and blue indicates positive correlations. Line thickness indicates number of datasets the correlation was observed in. *P. succi* = *P. succinatutens; P. sp* = *P. sp* 377*; P. faec* = *P. faecium*

For all datasets we identified 321 species with significant correlation to one or more *Phascolarctobacterium* species where 248 showed a positive correlation. Forty-one species showed consistent correlations across metagenome datasets. *Dialister invisus* exhibited negative correlations with all three *Phascolarctobacterium* species (Figure 4C and Table S6) suggesting that this species could also be mutually exclusive. On the other hand, *Bacteroides salyersiae* was positively correlated to both *P. faecium and P. succinatutens.* There were also 5 other *Bacteroides* species that showed a positive correlation to *Phascolarctobacterium* species. We have recently characterized viral diversity in CRCbiome samples63. Here we detected 12 vOTUs with significant associations to one or more *Phascolarctobacterium* species (Figure S2). In contrast to the predominantly positive associations observed between bacteria, 11 out of 12 significant associations for viruses were negative, and only one had a positive association with *P. faecium*, but not with other *Phascolarctobacterium*.

Association of *Phascolarctobacterium* species abundance with education but not with diet and fecal blood concentration *P. faecium* and *P. succinatutens* both use succinate as a primary carbon source, therefore we investigated whether the relative abundance of *Phascolarctobacterium* species was associated with diet and other lifestyle factors. Here, we employed the CRCbiome dataset with dietary and lifestyle information. After adjusting for sex, age and screening center, there was a significant association to alcohol consumption and increased abundance of *P.* sp 377 (p=0.018 and padj>0.05; Table S7). High-school (padj=0.04) and university education (p=0.005 and padj>0.05) was associated with lower abundance of *P. succinatutens.* University education (p=0.03 and padj>0.05) and those not married or cohabitating (p=0.03 and padj>0.05) was associated with higher and lower abundance of *P. faecium,* respectively. The concentration of blood in stool was not associated with the abundance of either of the three *Phascolarctobacterium* species (all p>0.05).

### Pangenome variability among *Phascolarctobacterium* species

Based on metagenome sequencing data from CRCbiome, 221 high quality genomes of the *Phascolarctobacterium* genus were identified. Fifty-two genomes were annotated as *P. succinatutens*, 131 as *P. faecium*, and 32 as *P.* sp 377 (Figure 5A). Mean within-species ANI was 99.9%, 99.9% and 99.8% for *P. faecium*, *P.* sp 377 and *P. succinatutens* respectively, and mean between-species ANI of 73.9% (Figure 5B).

![Figure 5:](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2024/03/15/2024.03.13.24304214/F5.medium.gif)

[Figure 5:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/03/15/2024.03.13.24304214/F5)

Figure 5: 
*Phascolarctobacterium* species genome comparison. A) Core-genome maximum likelihood tree representing all *Phascolarctobacterium* genomes in CRCbiome used for pangenome analyses, 52 genomes from *P. succinatutens*, 32 from *P.* sp 377. and 131 from *P. faecium*. B) Multi-dimensional scaling of *Phascolarctobacterium* genomes based on their pairwise ANI distances. The average within species ANI and between species ANI are presented in the legend. C) Enrichment analysis of pathway with a significant over-representation of KEGG genes from either *P. succinatutens*, *P. sp* 377, or *P. faecium*. KEGG genes included in the analyses were those that were significantly different between whichever species against the two others combined, as determined by a chi-square test (padj<0.05). Siz of the dot point represents the number of KEGG genes within the relevant pathway. D) Log2FC of th significantly different CAZy enzymes between one species versus the two others combined as determined by a chi-square test (padj<0.05). Only samples from CRCbiome are included in these analyses.ANI = Average Nucleotide Identity; Log2FC = Log2 fold-change; *P. succi* = *P. succinatutens;P. sp* = *P. sp* 377; *P. faec* = *P. faecium*.

Pangenome analysis for all *Phascolarctobacterium* genomes identified 25 847 gene clusters, with 1423 of them being ubiquitous (≥95%) within a species, and not found in the others (species- specific cores). On average, each genome contained 2065 gene clusters. Specifically, the average for *P. succinatutens* was 2071, *P.* sp 377 1752, and *P. faecium* 2153 gene clusters. Only 197 gene clusters were identified in ≥95% of *Phascolarctobacterium* genomes (genus-level core). 17127 gene clusters were annotated with UniRef, 1804 with KEGG pathways, and 65 with CAZy annotations. All species-specific cores had multidrug resistance genes, metallobetalactamases, 2- thiouracil desulfurase enabling H2S production and contained various virulence factors. For example, *P. succinatutens* genomes contained amylovoran and holin-like protein genes (Table S8); *P.* sp 377 - holin-like protein genes (Table S9); and *P. faecium* - heme-binding protein, exfoliative toxin, hemolysis and immunity protein genes (Table S10).

There was an over-representation of genes within the porphyrin and chlorophyll metabolism KEGG pathway in *P. succinatutens*. Glyxoylate and diglyxolyate metabolism and glycine, serine and threonine metabolism KEGG pathways were over-represented in *P.* sp 377. *P. faecium* genomes were enriched in histidine metabolism, ABC transporters, two component system, phosphonate and phosphinate metabolism, and biosynthesis of amino acids KEGG pathway genes (all padj<0.05, Figure 5C, Table S11).

With regard to carbohydrate-active enzymes, two CAZy belonging to glycoside hydrolases family and one belonging to carbohydrate binding molecules family were significantly more prevalent in *P. succinatutens* compared to the two other species. Three CAZy belonging to glycoside hydrolases and four belonging to glycosyl transferases family were more prevalent in *P. faecium* compared to the two others (all padj<0.05, Figure 5D, Table S12). Glycoside hydrolase 171 was present in all *P. succinatutens* and *P. faecium,* but completely missing in *P. sp*. Glycoside hydrolase 33 was exclusively found in *P. succinatutens* (88% of genomes) and glycoside hydrolase 3 exclusively in *P. faecium* (98% of genomes).

## Discussion

Based on our findings in two independent Norwegian cohorts, we replicate an association between increased abundance of *P. succinatutens* and adenoma/CRC in the large international curatedMG dataset. Three species were identified within the *Phascolarctobacterium* genus to be nearly mutually exclusive, forming distinct microbial communities, potentially defining a CRC-relevant microbial state. *P. succinatutens* was more common in men, in line with their increased CRC risk. Together, this puts *P. succinatutens* on the list of highly relevant and reproducibly CRC-associated bacteria.

In this study, we describe three distinct species within the genus *Phascolarctobacterium*. These were *P. succinatutens*, *P. faecium* and one uncultured species referred to as *P. sp* 377, all with a between species ANI of <95% and a limited core genome. Using qPCR we linked > 200 high quality genomes from the species mentioned encompassing four datasets to our previously identified CRC-associated 16S rRNA gene ASVs. qPCR assay was more sensitive than NGS in detecting low abundant *Phascolarctobacterium*.

We observed a mutually exclusive relationship between *Phascolarctobacterium* species across datasets and regardless of methods. The three different species of *Phascolarctobacterium* formed species-specific bacterial and viral networks, in addition to different overall community structure.

*P. faecium* composition was more similar to those without any *Phascolarctobacterium*, whereas *P. succinatutens* was markedly distinct. These distinct community structures could indicate competition for resources or niche adaptation. Interestingly, all *Phascolarctobacterium* species were negatively correlated with *Dialister* and tended to have positive correlations with *Bacteroides*, suggesting that these community structures extend beyond the *Phascolarctobacterium* genus.

Bacteria in the large intestine ferment complex carbohydrates and fibers and produce short-chain fatty acids (SCFA), primarily acetate, butyrate and propionate. SCFAs, and especially butyrate, have been proposed as potential biomarkers for CRC as they play a role in strengthening of the gut barrier and modulation of immune responses 64. Succinate is an SCFA precursor and serves as a substrate for several bacteria, including *Phascolarctobacterium* and *Dialister*65. This common reliance on succinate makes them potential competitors and might explain the observed negative correlations. Positive feedback loop between succinate-producing *Bacteroides thetaiotaomicron* and both *Dialister hominis*66 and *P. faecium*10 has been demonstrated.

The three *Phascolarctobacterium* species shared only a small conserved genus level core genome of about 0.76% of their genes, supporting distinct niche adaptation. For example, we observed significant variations in metabolic capacity. Interestingly, glycoside hydrolase family 33 was found only in *P. succinatutens*. Glycoside hydrolase family 33 comprises sialidases that break down sialic acid from diet (mainly red meat) and potentially from the mucus layer in the intestine67 causing inflammation68,69. In contrast, Glycoside hydrolase family 3 was found exclusively, and in almost 100% of *P. faecium* genomes and is involved in a range of mechanisms including bacterial pathogen defense, cell-wall remodeling, energy metabolism, and cellulosic biomass degradation70. Carbon starvation protein, a membrane protein, was found to be unique to *P.* sp 377. Carbon starvation is exhibited by bacteria when they experience depletion of carbon sources for their metabolic process71 and may provide *P. sp* 377 a selective advantage in nutrient limited conditions.

Bacterial virulence factors are employed in bacterial warfare, and are often detrimental to host health72–74. We found different virulence factors for the three species. Holin-like protein was present in only *P. succinatutens* and *P.* sp 377. Holin-like proteins control cell wall lysis by producing pores in the cell membrane and can be involved in biofilm formation75 contributing to chronic inflammation in the colon, a known risk factor for CRC76,77. Another gene involved in biofilm formation, TabA, was specific to *P. succinatutens*. We also found an overrepresentation of porphyrin and chlorophyll metabolism in *P. succinatutens*. Succinate is the main precursor and porphyrin is an intermediate of heme production, which is closely linked to the TCA cycle. Succinyl-CoA is the intermediate compound of succinate in the TCA cycle and is released upon production of an ATP molecule78. In our previous work we showed a lower abundance of several pathways related to heme biosynthesis in high risk adenomas compared to healthy controls5. Haem-binding uptake protein (Tiki superfamily) and hemolysin III protein were identified as distinct to *P. faecium*. Tiki proteins may function as Wnt proteases, counteracting the Wnt signaling pathway79, a pathway which is commonly deregulated in CRC80. Hemolysin III exhibits hemolytic activity and contributes to the destruction of erythrocytes by pore formation81. Together, our findings from the pangenome analyses contribute to a deeper understanding of the functional diversity of *Phascolarctobacterium* species in the CRC microbiome.

We replicate our previous findings of an association between increased abundance of *P. succinatutens* and adenomas/CRC. Several studies have reported similar associations at the genus level13, Peters, 2016 #12,44,1, with few having looked at species level. Both our previous work including 17 years of follow-up5, and Yachida et al.12 found increased abundance of *P. succinatutens* in the early stages of CRC. We observed lower abundance of *P. faecium* in adenomas and also low levels of co-occurences between *P. succinatutens* and *P. faecium*. This could indicate that the gut community might shift from a low-risk *P. faecium* community to a high-risk *P. succinatutens* community in early cancerogenesis.

Noteworthy, we found a higher prevalence of *P. succinatutens* in men than in women across cohorts independent of the colonoscopy outcome. Men have an elevated risk for CRC82, often attributed to lifestyle and dietary factors83,84. We did, however, not find an association between *Phascolarctobacterium* abundance and host diet and lifestyle, nor with presence of blood in stool. On the contrary, the observed association with education could be a proxy for socioeconomic status where low socioeconomic status have been linked to increased risk of CRC85,86.

Here we report consistent findings of *Phascolarctobacterium* across cohorts with different methods, which emphasizes the reliability of our results and strengthens the validity of the study. However, this study has some limitations. All participants in the CRCbiome study are FIT positive and therefore have blood in their stool something which has been suggested to alter the microbiome composition87 and could also be a sign of colonic inflammation. It may also introduce selection bias in the cohort. This may provide a reason for why we did not observe an association between *Phascolarctobacterium* abundance and adenoma/CRC in the CRCbiome cohort.

External factors like smoking, diet and gut flora may influence different stages along the adenoma-carcinoma sequence of events leading to bowel cancer. The interplay between *Phascolarctobacterium* species revealed in this study adds further to this complexity revealing possible CRC-associated microbial networks and genomic characteristics.

## Conclusion

Our study reveals that three *Phascolarctobacterium* species form distinct microbial communities in the gut, each possessing different virulence factors and metabolic capabilities. We found that microbiome composition varies significantly according to which *Phascolarctobacterium* species is dominating. The verification of the *P. succinatutens* association with adenomas and CRC, and the observation of increased abundance of *P. faecium* in controls, suggests that the gut community might shift from a low-risk *P. faecium* community to a high-risk *P. succinatutens* community in early cancerogenesis.

## Funding

This work was funded by the South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority (project number 2020056 and 2022067), Oslo Metropolitan University (project number 202401) and Akershus University Hospital. The CRCbiome study was funded by grants from the Norwegian Cancer Society (project number 190179 and 198048). Sequencing of the NORCCAP samples was funded by the Cancer Registry of Norway funds.

## Disclosures

Authors have no conflict of interest to disclose.

## Author Contributions

TBR and HT designed the research.

CBJ, EB, EA, TBR, TS, HT and VB conducted the research.

CBJ, EB, EA and TS analyzed data or performed statistical analysis. CBJ and TS drafted the paper.

All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

## Data availability

Data from the CRCbiome project have been deposited in the database Federated EGA under accession code EGAS50000000170 ([https://ega-archive.org/studies/EGAS50000000170](https://ega-archive.org/studies/EGAS50000000170)) and the Curatedmetagenomedata is available here: [https://waldronlab.io/curatedMetagenomicData/index.html](https://waldronlab.io/curatedMetagenomicData/index.html). Due to the sensitive nature of the data derived from human subjects, including personal health information, analyses and sharing of data from cohorts in this project must comply with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Data processors must have approval from the Regional Committee for Medical Research in Norway (REC), legal basis according to GDPR Article 6 and 9 and the need for a Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) according to GDPR article 35 must be considered. Requests for data access can be directed to corresponding author Trine B Rounge. The custom R scripts used in this study are available at: [https://github.com/Rounge-lab/Phascolarctobacterium_CRC](https://github.com/Rounge-lab/Phascolarctobacterium_CRC).

## Supporting information

Supplementary information [[supplements/304214_file02.pdf]](pending:yes)

Supplementary Tables [[supplements/304214_file03.xlsx]](pending:yes)

## Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge Jan-Inge Nordby for his work on preparing both NORCCAP and CRCbiome samples, and for performing the DNA extractions. Elina Vinberg has also contributed with sample handling and project coordination in both NORCCAP and CRCbiome projects. Library preparation and sequencing of NORCCAP and CRCbiome samples were performed at the FIMM Technology Centre supported by HiLIFE and Biocenter Finland. Therefore, we would like to thank Tiina Hannunen, Harri A. Kangas, and Pekka J. Ellonen for their service and good cooperation. We would also like to thank the members of our research groups Maja Jacobsen, Ane Sørlie Kværner, Paula Berstad and Paula Istvan. Thank you for the great working environment and for fruitful discussions. We thank the Department of Multidisciplinary Laboratory Science and Medical Biochemistry at Akershus University Hospital for providing laboratory facilities. We are grateful to Tone M. Tanneæs, Aina E.F. Moen, Gro Gunderson, Eva Smedsrud and John Christopher Noone for their contribution in sample extraction and sequencing.

## Abbreviations

ASV
:   Amplicon sequence variant
BCSN
:   Bowel Cancer Screening in Norway
CAZy
:   Carbohydrate Active Enzymes
CRC
:   Colorectal cancer
FIT
:   Fecal immunochemical test
KEGG
:   Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes
MAG
:   Metagenome Assembled Genomes
NORCCAP
:   Norwegian Colorectal Cancer Prevention
PERMANOVA
:   Permutational multivariate analysis of variance
SCFA
:   short chain fatty-acids
TCA
:   Tricarboxylic Acid
vOTU
:   virus Operational Taxonomic Unit

*   Received March 13, 2024.
*   Revision received March 13, 2024.
*   Accepted March 15, 2024.


*   © 2024, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory

This pre-print is available under a Creative Commons License (Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International), CC BY-NC 4.0, as described at [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/)

## References

1.  1.Liang, S., et al. Gut microbiome associated with APC gene mutation in patients with intestinal adenomatous polyps. Int J Biol Sci 16, 135–146 (2020).
    
    

2.  2.Vacante, M., Ciuni, R., Basile, F. & Biondi, A. Gut Microbiota and Colorectal Cancer Development: A Closer Look to the Adenoma-Carcinoma Sequence. Biomedicines 8(2020).
    
    

3.  3.Muto, T., Bussey, H.J. & Morson, B.C. The evolution of cancer of the colon and rectum. Cancer 36, 2251–2270 (1975).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/cncr.2820360944&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=1203876&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F03%2F15%2F2024.03.13.24304214.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1975BC88200043&link_type=ISI) 

4.  4.Brenner, H., et al. Risk of progression of advanced adenomas to colorectal cancer by age and sex: estimates based on 840,149 screening colonoscopies. Gut 56, 1585–1589 (2007).
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NjoiZ3V0am5sIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjEwOiI1Ni8xMS8xNTg1IjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjQvMDMvMTUvMjAyNC4wMy4xMy4yNDMwNDIxNC5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 

5.  5.Bucher-Johannessen, C., et al. Long-term follow-up of colorectal cancer screening attendees identifies differences in Phascolarctobacterium spp. using 16S rRNA and metagenome sequencing. Frontiers in Oncology 13(2023).
    
    

6.  6.Senthakumaran, T., et al. Microbial dynamics with CRC progression: a study of the mucosal microbiota at multiple sites in cancers, adenomatous polyps, and healthy controls. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 42, 305–322 (2023).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1007/s10096-023-04551-7&link_type=DOI) 

7.  7.Shigeno, Y., Kitahara, M., Shime, M. & Benno, Y. Phascolarctobacterium wakonense sp. nov., isolated from common marmoset (Callithrix jacchus) faeces. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 69, 1941–1946 (2019).
    
    

8.  8.Wu, F., et al. Phascolarctobacterium faecium abundant colonization in human gastrointestinal tract. Exp Ther Med 14, 3122–3126 (2017).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.3892/etm.2017.4878&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=28912861&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F03%2F15%2F2024.03.13.24304214.atom) 

9.  9.Watanabe, Y., Nagai, F. & Morotomi, M. Characterization of Phascolarctobacterium succinatutens sp. nov., an asaccharolytic, succinate-utilizing bacterium isolated from human feces. Appl Environ Microbiol 78, 511–518 (2012).
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiYWVtIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjg6Ijc4LzIvNTExIjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjQvMDMvMTUvMjAyNC4wMy4xMy4yNDMwNDIxNC5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 

10. 10.Ikeyama, N., et al. Microbial interaction between the succinate-utilizing bacterium Phascolarctobacterium faecium and the gut commensal Bacteroides thetaiotaomicron. Microbiologyopen 9, e1111 (2020).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/mbo3.1111&link_type=DOI) 

11. 11.Ogata, Y., et al. Complete Genome Sequence of Phascolarctobacterium faecium JCM 30894, a Succinate-Utilizing Bacterium Isolated from Human Feces. Microbiol Resour Announc 8(2019).
    
    

12. 12.Yachida, S., et al. Metagenomic and metabolomic analyses reveal distinct stage-specific phenotypes of the gut microbiota in colorectal cancer. Nat Med 25, 968–976 (2019).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/s41591-019-0458-7&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F03%2F15%2F2024.03.13.24304214.atom) 

13. 13.Zackular, J.P., Rogers, M.A., Ruffin, M.T.t. & Schloss, P.D. The human gut microbiome as a screening tool for colorectal cancer. Cancer Prev Res (Phila*)* 7, 1112–1121 (2014).
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MTA6ImNhbnByZXZyZXMiO3M6NToicmVzaWQiO3M6OToiNy8xMS8xMTEyIjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjQvMDMvMTUvMjAyNC4wMy4xMy4yNDMwNDIxNC5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 

14. 14.Peters, B.A., et al. The gut microbiota in conventional and serrated precursors of colorectal cancer. Microbiome 4, 69 (2016).
    
    

15. 15.Sarhadi, V., et al. Gut Microbiota and Host Gene Mutations in Colorectal Cancer Patients and Controls of Iranian and Finnish Origin. Anticancer research 40, 1325–1334 (2020).
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MTA6ImFudGljYW5yZXMiO3M6NToicmVzaWQiO3M6OToiNDAvMy8xMzI1IjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjQvMDMvMTUvMjAyNC4wMy4xMy4yNDMwNDIxNC5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 

16. 16.Tunsjo, H.S., et al. Detection of Fusobacterium nucleatum in stool and colonic tissues from Norwegian colorectal cancer patients. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 38, 1367–1376 (2019).
    
    

17. 17.Holme, O., et al. Effect of flexible sigmoidoscopy screening on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 312, 606–615 (2014).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1001/jama.2014.8266&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=25117129&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F03%2F15%2F2024.03.13.24304214.atom) 

18. 18.Bretthauer, M., et al. NORCCAP (Norwegian colorectal cancer prevention): a randomised trial to assess the safety and efficacy of carbon dioxide versus air insufflation in colonoscopy. Gut 50, 604–607 (2002).
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NjoiZ3V0am5sIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjg6IjUwLzUvNjA0IjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjQvMDMvMTUvMjAyNC4wMy4xMy4yNDMwNDIxNC5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 

19. 19.Bretthauer, M., et al. Design, organization and management of a controlled population screening study for detection of colorectal neoplasia: attendance rates in the NORCCAP study (Norwegian Colorectal Cancer Prevention). Scand J Gastroenterol 37, 568–573 (2002).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1080/00365520252903125&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=12059059&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F03%2F15%2F2024.03.13.24304214.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000175701600012&link_type=ISI) 

20. 20.Kvaerner, A.S., et al. The CRCbiome study: a large prospective cohort study examining the role of lifestyle and the gut microbiome in colorectal cancer screening participants. BMC cancer (2020).
    
    

21. 21.Randel, K.R., et al. Colorectal cancer screening with repeated fecal immunochemical test versus sigmoidoscopy: baseline results from a randomized trial. Gastroenterology (2020).
    
    

22. 22.Kvaerner, A.S., et al. Associations of red and processed meat intake with screen-detected colorectal lesions. Br J Nutr, 1–36 (2022).
    
    

23. 23.Kvaerner, A.S., et al. Associations of the 2018 World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute of Cancer Research (WCRF/AICR) cancer prevention recommendations with stages of colorectal carcinogenesis. Cancer Med 12, 14806–14819 (2023).
    
    

24. 24.Pasolli, E., et al. Accessible, curated metagenomic data through ExperimentHub. in Nat Methods, Vol. 14 1023–1024 (2017).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/nmeth.4468&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=29088129&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F03%2F15%2F2024.03.13.24304214.atom) 

25. 25.Kozich, J.J., Westcott, S.L., Baxter, N.T., Highlander, S.K. & Schloss, P.D. Development of a dual-index sequencing strategy and curation pipeline for analyzing amplicon sequence data on the MiSeq Illumina sequencing platform. Appl Environ Microbiol 79, 5112–5120 (2013).
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiYWVtIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjEwOiI3OS8xNy81MTEyIjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjQvMDMvMTUvMjAyNC4wMy4xMy4yNDMwNDIxNC5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 

26. 26.Raju, S.C., et al. Reproducibility and repeatability of six high-throughput 16S rDNA sequencing protocols for microbiota profiling. J Microbiol Methods 147, 76–86 (2018).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.mimet.2018.03.003&link_type=DOI) 

27. 27.Klindworth, A., et al. Evaluation of general 16S ribosomal RNA gene PCR primers for classical and next-generation sequencing-based diversity studies. Nucleic Acids Res 41, e1 (2013).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/nar/gks808&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=22933715&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F03%2F15%2F2024.03.13.24304214.atom) 

28. 28.Rounge, T.B., et al. Evaluating gut microbiota profiles from archived fecal samples. BMC Gastroenterol 18, 171 (2018).
    
    

29. 29.Bolyen, E., et al. Reproducible, interactive, scalable and extensible microbiome data science using QIIME 2. Nat Biotechnol 37, 852–857 (2019).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/s41587-019-0209-9&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=31341288&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F03%2F15%2F2024.03.13.24304214.atom) 

30. 30.McMurdie, P.J. & Holmes, S. phyloseq: an R package for reproducible interactive analysis and graphics of microbiome census data. PloS one 8, e61217 (2013).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1371/journal.pone.0061217&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23630581&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F03%2F15%2F2024.03.13.24304214.atom) 

31. 31.Bolger, A.M., Lohse, M. & Usadel, B. Trimmomatic: a flexible trimmer for Illumina sequence data. Bioinformatics 30, 2114–2120 (2014).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/bioinformatics/btu170&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=24695404&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F03%2F15%2F2024.03.13.24304214.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000340049100004&link_type=ISI) 

32. 32.Langmead, B., Trapnell, C., Pop, M. & Salzberg, S.L. Ultrafast and memory-efficient alignment of short DNA sequences to the human genome. Genome Biol 10, R25 (2009).
    
    

33. 33.Li, H., et al. The Sequence Alignment/Map format and SAMtools. Bioinformatics 25, 2078–2079 (2009).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/bioinformatics/btp352&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=19505943&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F03%2F15%2F2024.03.13.24304214.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000268808600014&link_type=ISI) 

34. 34.Beghini, F., et al. Integrating taxonomic, functional, and strain-level profiling of diverse microbial communities with bioBakery 3. Elife 10(2021).
    
    

35. 35.Kieser, S., Brown, J., Zdobnov, E.M., Trajkovski, M. & McCue, L.A. ATLAS: a Snakemake workflow for assembly, annotation, and genomic binning of metagenome sequence data. BMC bioinformatics 21, 1–8 (2020).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/s12859-020-3475-0&link_type=DOI) 

36. 36.Bushnell, B. BBMap: a fast, accurate, splice-aware aligner. (Lawrence Berkeley National Lab.(LBNL), Berkeley, CA (United States), 2014).
    
    

37. 37.Nurk, S., Meleshko, D., Korobeynikov, A. & Pevzner, P.A. metaSPAdes: a new versatile metagenomic assembler. Genome research 27, 824–834 (2017).
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NjoiZ2Vub21lIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjg6IjI3LzUvODI0IjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjQvMDMvMTUvMjAyNC4wMy4xMy4yNDMwNDIxNC5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 

38. 38.Sieber, C.M., et al. Recovery of genomes from metagenomes via a dereplication, aggregation and scoring strategy. Nature microbiology 3, 836–843 (2018).
    
    

39. 39.Kang, D.D., et al. MetaBAT 2: an adaptive binning algorithm for robust and efficient genome reconstruction from metagenome assemblies. PeerJ 7, e7359 (2019).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.7717/peerj.7359&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=31388474&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F03%2F15%2F2024.03.13.24304214.atom) 

40. 40.Wu, Y.-W., Simmons, B.A. & Singer, S.W. MaxBin 2.0: an automated binning algorithm to recover genomes from multiple metagenomic datasets. Bioinformatics 32, 605–607 (2016).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/bioinformatics/btv638&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=26515820&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F03%2F15%2F2024.03.13.24304214.atom) 

41. 41.Olm, M.R., Brown, C.T., Brooks, B. & Banfield, J.F. dRep: a tool for fast and accurate genomic comparisons that enables improved genome recovery from metagenomes through de-replication. The ISME journal 11, 2864–2868 (2017).
    
    

42. 42.Parks, D.H., Imelfort, M., Skennerton, C.T., Hugenholtz, P. & Tyson, G.W. CheckM: assessing the quality of microbial genomes recovered from isolates, single cells, and metagenomes. Genome Res 25, 1043–1055 (2015).
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NjoiZ2Vub21lIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjk6IjI1LzcvMTA0MyI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDI0LzAzLzE1LzIwMjQuMDMuMTMuMjQzMDQyMTQuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 

43. 43.Chaumeil, P.A., Mussig, A.J., Hugenholtz, P. & Parks, D.H. GTDB-Tk: a toolkit to classify genomes with the Genome Taxonomy Database. Bioinformatics 36, 1925–1927 (2019).
    
    

44. 44.Brukner, I., Longtin, Y., Oughton, M., Forgetta, V. & Dascal, A. Assay for estimating total bacterial load: relative qPCR normalisation of bacterial load with associated clinical implications. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis 83, 1–6 (2015).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2015.04.005&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=26008123&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F03%2F15%2F2024.03.13.24304214.atom) 

45. 45.Information, N.C.f.B. & Camacho, C. BLAST (r) command line applications user manual, (National Center for Biotechnology Information (US), 2008).
    
    

46. 46.Madeira, F., et al. Search and sequence analysis tools services from EMBL-EBI in 2022. Nucleic Acids Res 50, W276–W279 (2022).
    
    

47. 47.Trifinopoulos, J., Nguyen, L.T., von Haeseler, A. & Minh, B.Q. W-IQ-TREE: a fast online phylogenetic tool for maximum likelihood analysis. Nucleic Acids Res 44, W232–235 (2016).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/nar/gkw256&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=27084950&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F03%2F15%2F2024.03.13.24304214.atom) 

48. 48.Letunic, I. & Bork, P. Interactive Tree Of Life (iTOL) v5: an online tool for phylogenetic tree display and annotation. Nucleic Acids Res 49, W293–W296 (2021).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/NAR/GKAB301&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F03%2F15%2F2024.03.13.24304214.atom) 

49. 49.Shaffer, M., et al. DRAM for distilling microbial metabolism to automate the curation of microbiome function. Nucleic Acids Res 48, 8883–8900 (2020).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/nar/gkaa621&link_type=DOI) 

50. 50.Aramaki, T., et al. KofamKOALA: KEGG Ortholog assignment based on profile HMM and adaptive score threshold. Bioinformatics 36, 2251–2252 (2020).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10/ghk6qt&link_type=DOI) 

51. 51.Zhang, H., et al. dbCAN2: a meta server for automated carbohydrate-active enzyme annotation. Nucleic Acids Res 46, W95–W101 (2018).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/nar/gky418&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=29771380&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F03%2F15%2F2024.03.13.24304214.atom) 

52. 52.Wang, Y., et al. A crowdsourcing open platform for literature curation in UniProt. PLoS biology 19, e3001464 (2021).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1371/journal.pbio.3001464&link_type=DOI) 

53. 53.Page, A.J., et al. Roary: rapid large-scale prokaryote pan genome analysis. Bioinformatics 31, 3691–3693 (2015).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/bioinformatics/btv421&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=26198102&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F03%2F15%2F2024.03.13.24304214.atom) 

54. 54.Katoh, K., Rozewicki, J. & Yamada, K.D. MAFFT online service: multiple sequence alignment, interactive sequence choice and visualization. Brief Bioinform 20, 1160–1166 (2019).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/bib/bbx108&link_type=DOI) 

55. 55.Istvan, P., et al. Exploring the gut DNA virome in fecal immunochemical test stool samples reveals associations with lifestyle in a large population-based study. Nature Communications 15(2024).
    
    

56. 56.Ripley, B., et al. Package ‘mass’. Cran r 538, 113–120 (2013).
    
    

57. 57.Oksanen, J., et al. Vegan: community ecology package. Ordination methods, diversity analysis and other functions for community and vegetation ecologists. 2.3–1 (2015).
    
    

58. 58.Kassambara, A. rstatix: Pipe-friendly framework for basic statistical tests. R package version .*6*. ** (2020).
    
    

59. 59.Shannon, P., et al. Cytoscape: a software environment for integrated models of biomolecular interaction networks. Genome research 13, 2498–2504 (2003).
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NjoiZ2Vub21lIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjEwOiIxMy8xMS8yNDk4IjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjQvMDMvMTUvMjAyNC4wMy4xMy4yNDMwNDIxNC5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 

60. 60.Chen, M. & Yu, G. MicrobiomeProfiler: An R/shiny package for microbiome functional enrichment analysis. (2023).
    
    

61. 61.Wickham, H., et al. Welcome to the Tidyverse. Journal of open source software 4, 1686 (2019).
    
    

62. 62.Benjamini, Y. & Hochberg, Y. Controlling the False Discovery Rate: A Practical and Powerful Approach to Multiple Testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological*)* 57, 289–300 (1995).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.2307/2346101&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=WOS:A1995QE4&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F03%2F15%2F2024.03.13.24304214.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1995QE45300017&link_type=ISI) 

63. 63.Istvan, P., et al. Exploring the gut virome in fecal immunochemical test stool samples reveals novel associations with lifestyle in a large population-based study. medRxiv, 2023.2008. 2024.23294548 (2023).
    
    

64. 64.Hou, H., et al. Gut microbiota-derived short-chain fatty acids and colorectal cancer: Ready for clinical translation? Cancer Lett 526, 225–235 (2022).
    
    

65. 65.Wei, Y.H., Ma, X., Zhao, J.C., Wang, X.Q. & Gao, C.Q. Succinate metabolism and its regulation of host-microbe interactions. Gut Microbes 15, 2190300 (2023).
    
    

66. 66.Sakamoto, M., et al. Alistipes communis sp. nov., Alistipes dispar sp. nov. and Alistipes onderdonkii subsp. vulgaris subsp. nov., isolated from human faeces, and creation of Alistipes onderdonkii subsp. onderdonkii subsp. nov. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 70, 473–480 (2020).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1099/ijsem.0.003778&link_type=DOI) 

67. 67.Lipnicanova, S., Chmelova, D., Ondrejovic, M., Frecer, V. & Miertus, S. Diversity of sialidases found in the human body - A review. Int J Biol Macromol 148, 857–868 (2020).
    
    

68. 68.Bell, A., Severi, E., Owen, C.D., Latousakis, D. & Juge, N. Biochemical and structural basis of sialic acid utilization by gut microbes. The Journal of biological chemistry 299, 102989 (2023).
    
    

69. 69.Juge, N., Tailford, L. & Owen, C.D. Sialidases from gut bacteria: a mini-review. Biochem Soc Trans 44, 166–175 (2016).
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NzoicHBiaW9zdCI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czo4OiI0NC8xLzE2NiI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDI0LzAzLzE1LzIwMjQuMDMuMTMuMjQzMDQyMTQuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 

70. 70. Geoff Fincher,  B.M., Harry Brumer. Glycoside Hydrolase Family 3 in *CAZypedia*, Vol. 2024 (2023).
    
    

71. 71.Rasmussen, J.J., et al. Campylobacter jejuni carbon starvation protein A (CstA) is involved in peptide utilization, motility and agglutination, and has a role in stimulation of dendritic cells. J Med Microbiol 62, 1135–1143 (2013).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1099/jmm.0.059345-0&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23682166&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F03%2F15%2F2024.03.13.24304214.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000323865200003&link_type=ISI) 

72. 72.Cheng, W.T., Kantilal, H.K. & Davamani, F. The Mechanism of Bacteroides fragilis Toxin Contributes to Colon Cancer Formation. Malays J Med Sci 27, 9–21 (2020).
    
    

73. 73.Pleguezuelos-Manzano, C., et al. Mutational signature in colorectal cancer caused by genotoxic pks(+) E. coli. Nature 580, 269–273 (2020).
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F03%2F15%2F2024.03.13.24304214.atom) 

74. 74.Casterline, B.W., Hecht, A.L., Choi, V.M. & Bubeck Wardenburg, J. The Bacteroides fragilis pathogenicity island links virulence and strain competition. Gut Microbes 8, 374–383 (2017).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1080/19490976.2017.1290758&link_type=DOI) 

75. 75. Saier Jr,  M.H. & Reddy, B.L. Holins in bacteria, eukaryotes, and archaea: multifunctional xenologues with potential biotechnological and biomedical applications. Journal of bacteriology 197, 7–17 (2015).
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MjoiamIiO3M6NToicmVzaWQiO3M6NzoiMTk3LzEvNyI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDI0LzAzLzE1LzIwMjQuMDMuMTMuMjQzMDQyMTQuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 

76. 76.Dejea, C.M., et al. Microbiota organization is a distinct feature of proximal colorectal cancers. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 111, 18321–18326 (2014).
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NDoicG5hcyI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoxMjoiMTExLzUxLzE4MzIxIjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjQvMDMvMTUvMjAyNC4wMy4xMy4yNDMwNDIxNC5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 

77. 77.Raskov, H., Kragh, K.N., Bjarnsholt, T., Alamili, M. & Gogenur, I. Bacterial biofilm formation inside colonic crypts may accelerate colorectal carcinogenesis. Clin Transl Med 7, 30 (2018).
    
    

78. 78.Stojanovski, B.M., et al. 5-Aminolevulinate synthase catalysis: The catcher in heme biosynthesis. Mol Genet Metab 128, 178–189 (2019).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.ymgme.2019.06.003&link_type=DOI) 

79. 79.Sanchez-Pulido, L. & Ponting, C.P. Tiki, at the head of a new superfamily of enzymes. Bioinformatics 29, 2371–2374 (2013).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/bioinformatics/btt412&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23868957&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F03%2F15%2F2024.03.13.24304214.atom) 

80. 80.Bienz, M. & Clevers, H. Linking colorectal cancer to Wnt signaling. Cell 103, 311–320 (2000).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S0092-8674(00)00122-7&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=11057903&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F03%2F15%2F2024.03.13.24304214.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000089864300014&link_type=ISI) 

81. 81.Ramarao, N. & Sanchis, V. The pore-forming haemolysins of bacillus cereus: a review. Toxins (Basel*)* 5, 1119–1139 (2013).
    
    

82. 82.Siegel, R.L., Wagle, N.S., Cercek, A., Smith, R.A. & Jemal, A. Colorectal cancer statistics, 2023. CA Cancer J Clin 73, 233–254 (2023).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.3322/caac.21772&link_type=DOI) 

83. 83.Rawla, P., Sunkara, T. & Barsouk, A. Epidemiology of colorectal cancer: incidence, mortality, survival, and risk factors. Prz Gastroenterol 14, 89–103 (2019).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.5114/pg.2018.81072&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F03%2F15%2F2024.03.13.24304214.atom) 

84. 84.Gunter, M.J., et al. Meeting report from the joint IARC-NCI international cancer seminar series: a focus on colorectal cancer. Ann Oncol 30, 510–519 (2019).
    
    

85. 85.Doubeni, C.A., et al. Socioeconomic status and the risk of colorectal cancer: an analysis of more than a half million adults in the National Institutes of Health-AARP Diet and Health Study. Cancer 118, 3636–3644 (2012).
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/cncr.26677&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=22898918&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2024%2F03%2F15%2F2024.03.13.24304214.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000305890900024&link_type=ISI) 

86. 86.Aarts, M.J., Lemmens, V.E., Louwman, M.W., Kunst, A.E. & Coebergh, J.W. Socioeconomic status and changing inequalities in colorectal cancer? A review of the associations with risk, treatment and outcome. European journal of cancer (Oxford, England : 1990) 46, 2681–2695 (2010).
    
    

87. 87.Chenard, T., Malick, M., Dube, J. & Masse, E. The influence of blood on the human gut microbiome. BMC Microbiol 20, 44 (2020).