Skip to main content

Table 1 The candidate taxa with differential abundance between tumor and tumor-adjacent tissues in ESCCa

From: Characteristics and interplay of esophageal microbiota in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma

Phylum

Class

Order

Family

Genus

Species

Relative abundance (%)b

FCc

ANCOM’s W

(normalized W)d

Association with other covariatese

T

TA

Region

Season

Location

RI

Actinobacteria

Actinobacteria

Actinomycetales

Micrococcaceae

Rothia

Mucilaginosa

0.291

0.043

6.767

644 (0.850)

FALSE

FALSE

FALSE

FALSE

Bacteroidetes

Bacteroidia

Bacteroidales

Porphyromonadaceae

Porphyromonas

Endodontalis

0.286

0.027

10.593

465 (0.613)

FALSE

FALSE

FALSE

FALSE

Firmicutes

Bacilli

–

–

–

–

0.009

0.482

0.019

608 (0.802)

FALSE

FALSE

FALSE

FALSE

Fusobacteria

Fusobacteriia

Fusobacteriales

Leptotrichiaceae

Leptotrichia

UC

0.482

0.148

3.257

147 (0.194)

TRUE

FALSE

FALSE

FALSE

Fusobacteria

Fusobacteriia

Fusobacteriales

Leptotrichiaceae

Leptotrichia

UC

0.287

0.037

7.757

686 (0.905)

FALSE

FALSE

FALSE

FALSE

Proteobacteria

α-Proteobacteria

Rhizobiales

Phyllobacteriaceae

Phyllobacterium

UC

8.805

0.953

9.239

678 (0.894)

FALSE

FALSE

FALSE

FALSE

Proteobacteria

α-Proteobacteria

Sphingomonadales

Sphingomonadaceae

Sphingomonas

UC

2.736

0.412

6.641

532 (0.702)

TRUE

FALSE

FALSE

FALSE

Proteobacteria

β-Proteobacteria

Neisseriales

Neisseriaceae

Neisseria

Subflava

0.458

0.950

0.482

608 (0.802)

FALSE

FALSE

FALSE

FALSE

Proteobacteria

ε-Proteobacteria

Campylobacterales

Campylobacteraceae

Campylobacter

UC

0.253

0.555

0.456

686 (0.905)

FALSE

TRUE

TRUE

FALSE

Proteobacteria

ε-Proteobacteria

Campylobacterales

Helicobacteraceae

Helicobacter

Pylori

0.322

0.904

0.356

732 (0.966)

FALSE

FALSE

FALSE

FALSE

Proteobacteria

γ-Proteobacteria

Pasteurellales

Pasteurellaceae

Actinobacillus

Parahaemolyticus

0.685

1.452

0.472

678 (0.894)

FALSE

FALSE

FALSE

FALSE

Proteobacteria

γ-Proteobacteria

Pasteurellales

Pasteurellaceae

Haemophilus

UC

0.068

0.171

0.398

532 (0.702)

FALSE

FALSE

FALSE

FALSE

Proteobacteria

γ-Proteobacteria

Pseudomonadales

Moraxellaceae

Acinetobacter

Rhizosphaerae

0.057

0.233

0.245

644 (0.850)

TRUE

FALSE

FALSE

FALSE

  1. UC unclassified, T tumor tissue, TA tumor-adjacent tissue, FC fold change, RI risk index
  2. a The candidate differential taxa were selected according to the following two conditions: 1) pass the ANCOM tests conducted in patients from Zhangzhou City (50 pairs) or the other regions (70 pairs), or the pooled population (120 pairs) (Fig. 4G); 2) the grand means of relative abundance were exceeded 0.1%
  3. b Mean relative abundance were presented
  4. c Fold change (FC) = mean relative abundance in tumor/ mean relative abundance in tumor-adjacent tissue
  5. d The differential abundant taxa between tumor and tumor-adjacent tissues were selected by the ANCOM2 algorithm under detected cut-off at 0.7, and were adjusted for sex, age, risk index, TNM, season, tumor location and regions. The normalized ANCOM’s W statistics were calculated by divided the W over the number of total taxa which were identified as none-structural zero
  6. e The ANCOM2 algorithm was applied for association detection. The detected cut-off at 0.7 was adopt for all analyses. The variables included in ANCOM2 comparisons were in line with those included in differential abundant taxa detection. TRUE or FALSE indicated that the relative abundance of candidate taxa could be or not be influenced by specific factors, respectively
Back to article page

BMC Cancer

ISSN: 1471-2407

Contact us