Abstract:Diversity and heterogeneity are hallmarks of any ecosystems including cancer ecosystems. Tumor heterogeneities have been a hot spot in cancer research because of their critical roles in promoting clonal evolution and metastasis of cancer cells and in influencing cancer progression and therapy efficacy. Cancer tissue microbiome as part of tumor microenvironment can influence tumor heterogeneities both directly and indirectly through their “intimate” intracellular and intercellular interactions with human cells including tumor, immune and normal cells. From an ecological perspective, the relationship between tumor microenvironment and tumor heterogeneity is not unlike that between habitat heterogeneity and community heterogeneity. That is, their heterogeneities should be interwoven with each other, and then the net effects of the microbiomes on cancer development, malignant progression, and therapy responses can be either promotive or suppressive depending on the so-termed immune-oncology-microbiome axis or trio. The objective of this study is to assess and interpret the heterogeneity and often conflated diversity of tumor microbiomes. Our findings, from reanalyzing a big microbiome dataset originally distilled from the TCGA (The Cancer Genome Atlas) database by , Nature) including 16555 tumor microbiome samples from the primary tumor (PT), solid tissue normal (SN) and blood derived normal (B) of 32 cancer types, include: ( ) The tumor microbiome heterogeneity (diversity) cancer relationship HCR (DCR), the heterogeneity (diversity) differences between PT SN (B) are only significantly in approximately 10%-40% depending on the cancer types. ( ) The pan-tumor HCR (DCR), microbiome heterogeneity/diversity differences of same tissue type ( ., PT) across cancer types (e.g., lung vs. breast cancers) are approximately twice the range of previous tumor-HCR (DCR) ( ., 30%-80% for pan-tumor . 10%-40% of tumor scale). In both tumor and pan-tumor scales, the heterogeneity differences ranges are wider than the diversity ranges. ( ) The NSR values range between 0.4 and 0.8 and in 75% cases NSR>0.5, suggesting that tumor selection plays a dominant role than stochastic drifts in shaping microbiome diversity/heterogeneity patterns. Furthermore, the NSR values are significantly different between PT and NT (B) in 50%-100% (mostly 70%-80%) cases across 32 cancer types, further confirming that it should be the tumor growth that is largely responsible for the dominance of selection forces. Finally, we postulate that the HCR (DCR) should be dynamic with tumor types, progression, microbial taxa, host genomics and physiology, therapy and diets.

Assessing and Interpreting the Metagenome Heterogeneity With Power Law

Power Law Analysis of the Human Milk Microbiome

Cross‐scale scaling‐law analyses for the heterogeneity and diversity of animal gut microbiomes from community to landscape

Spatial heterogeneity and co-occurrence patterns of human mucosal-associated intestinal microbiota

Microbiome, Metagenomics, and High-Dimensional Compositional Data Analysis

Tumor and pan-tumor diversity and heterogeneity of cancer tissue microbiomes: a medical ecology analysis across 32 cancer types

An Introduction to Next Generation Sequencing Bioinformatic Analysis in Gut Microbiome Studies

Heterogeneity Between Primary Colon Carcinoma and Paired Lymphatic and Hepatic Metastases.

Measuring metagenome diversity and similarity with Hill numbers

Adapting functional genomic tools to metagenomic analyses: investigating the role of gut bacteria in relation to obesity.

Characterization of the Gut Microbiome Using 16S or Shotgun Metagenomics

Network analyses in microbiome based on high-throughput multi-omics data.

Detecting microbiome species unique or enriched in 20+ cancer types and building cancer microbiome heterogeneity networks

Statistical Analysis of Metagenomics Data

Exploring the Major Sources and Extent of Heterogeneity in A Genome-Wide Association Meta-Analysis

Species-Level Analysis of Human Gut Microbiota With Metataxonomics

Comparison of the effectiveness of different normalization methods for metagenomic cross-study phenotype prediction under heterogeneity

MicrobiomeGWAS: A Tool for Identifying Host Genetic Variants Associated with Microbiome Composition

Heterogeneity in Meta-Analyses of Genome-Wide Association Investigations

Towards a unified medical microbiome ecology of the OMU for metagenomes and the OTU for microbes