ÓÄÊ 616-056:616.34-008.87
Alterations in Gut Microbiota Composition in Familial
Mediterranean Fever
(Submitted by academician K. G. Karageuzyan 16/IX 2006)
   Keywords: familial Mediterranean fever, gut microbiota, phylogenetic analysis    Familial Mediterranean fever (FMF; MIM249100) is a 
recessively inherited disorder of the inflammatory pathway, manifested by acute 
self-limited recurrent episodes of fever and polyserositis [1]. The 
Mediterranean fever gene (MEFV), responsible for the disease, has been recently 
identified by positional cloning [2, 3]. Pyrin, the protein product of MEFV, 
consists of several conserved domains, including the N-terminal pyrin domain (PYD), 
which is found in a number of autoinflammatory proteins involved in the 
regulation of inflammation and apoptosis [4]. According to recent studies, 
autoinflammatory genes, such as MEFV, may represent an exaggerated innate immune 
response to various signals in vitro, including microbial products [5]. Indeed, 
the CARD15/NOD2 gene product belongs to the same superfamily of proteins [6], 
and its mutations have been found to underlie inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD), 
such as Crohn's disease, in which an inappropriate immune response to components 
of the commensal microbiota exists [7]. In this regard, it has been proposed to 
investigate the composition of gut microbiota in FMF to reveal a possible 
contribution of commensal bacteria to the onset and maintenance of the disease. Òable 1 
   As a large majority of bacterial species is effectively 
unculturable, it is impossible for detailed examination of gut microorganisms to 
be achieved through traditional culture techniques. Molecular-genetic analyses 
of bacterial microbiota based on 16S ribosomal ribonucleic acid (rRNA) genes 
obviate the need for culture and have been shown to be powerful tools in 
determining microbial diversity in complex samples [8].
   In 
the present study, the fecal bacterial composition has been for the first time 
examined in FMF by using microbial community analysis through sequencing of 16S 
rDNA libraries.
   Fecal samples were collected from 
genetically ascertained FMF patients (12 patients in remission, 3 patients in 
attack periods) and 7 healthy individuals.
   DNA was extracted from fecal samples of FMF patients and healthy 
subjects using QIAamp DNA Stool Mini Kit (Qiagen, UK), according to the 
manufacturer's instructions. DNA samples were transferred to the Rowett Research 
Institute (UK) where 16S rDNA clone libraries were generated, and phylogenetic 
analysis was performed. Bacterial 16S rDNA was PCR-amplified with universal 
primers covering most intestinal bacterial species (Table 1). The amplicons were 
cloned into Escherichia coli chemically competent cells using the pCR-4 
TOPO TA Cloning Kit (Invitrogen, UK), according to the manufacturer's 
instructions. Recombinant colonies were randomly picked and sequenced on the 
automated DNA-sequencer (Beckman, USA) with 926R bacterial primer (Table 1). 
Alignment of sequences with reference 16S rDNA gene sequences from healthy gut 
microflora was performed using the multiple sequence alignment programme 
CLUSTALX v. 1.83 [9]. Phylogenetic analyses were performed using the 
neighbor-joining algorithm [10]. Operational taxonomic units (OTUs) were 
identified by online Basic Local Alignment Search Tool (BLAST) program at the 
NCBI website [11], using search results of at least 99% sequence similarity.
| Application | Primer | Position | Sequences (5'-3') | 
| PCR | Fd1 | 8-271 | AGAGTTTGATCMTGGCTCAG | 
| PCR | Rp2 | 1492-15101 | ACGGCTACCTTGTTACGACTT | 
| Sequencing | 926R | 907-9261 | CCGTCAATTCCTTTGAGTTT | 
   Using a molecular approach, for the first time, the 
composition of fecal microbiota in FMF patients with both inactive and active 
stages of the disease, as well as in healthy subjects, was determined. It was 
demonstrated that fecal microbiota in FMF differed from that of the healthy 
state both in remission and attack periods of the disease.
   Three 
16S rDNA libraries from fecal samples of FMF remissions, acute FMF and healthy 
controls were generated. A total of 1328 clones (572 for healthy controls, 629 
for FMF remission and 127 for FMF attack) were analyzed, and phylogenetic 
relationships of main bacterial phyla in each studied group were established 
(Fig. 1 A, B, C). Among the 1328 clones analyzed, there were 268 distinct OTUs, 
which fell into three major phyla: Cytophaga-flavobacter-bacteroides (CFB) 
group, Firmicutes, and Proteobacteria. The overall distribution of 
the three dominant bacterial phyla among the three subsets of subjects is shown 
in Table 2.
| 
     
 
     
      | 
  
Òable 2
| 
     
  | 
  
   As shown in Table 2, Bacteroides was the most 
abundant group in all three cohorts, followed by the Firmicutes. The 
relative proportions of CFB and Firmicutes were not markedly different 
among the three groups; however, significant differences were detected in 
bacterial subgroups within these main phyla (Fig. 1A, B, C). In Fig. 1B groups 
of FMF patients in remission were determined according to the biodiversity in 
the main phylogenetic groups, demonstrating high variability, in contrast to 
stable composition of gut bacteria in healthy state (Fig. 1A). Particularly, 
there is a group (FMF2, FMF4, FMF5, FMF6, FMF9, FMF11, and FMF12) 
overrepresented by OTUs belonging to the CFB phylum, which amounted up to 50-55% 
of gut bacteria in healthy subjects (Fig. 1A) and acute FMF (Fig. 1C). In the 
second group of FMF remissions (FMF1, FMF7, FMF8, and FMF10) there is a 
substantially higher proportion of cluster IX of Propionate-producing bacteria, 
as compared to healthy controls. Interestingly, these bacteria tended to 
disappear during the attack period (Fig. 1C). The pairwise comparisons of each 
16S rDNA library to every other library also revealed significant alterations in 
gut microbiota composition in FMF compared to the norm (Table 3). In particular, 
the Prevotellaceae subgroup (within CFB) was significantly low in active 
stage of FMF as compared to FMF remission and healthy state (16.5%, 22% and 
27.6%, respectively), in contrast to Bacteroidaceae (within CFB) subgroup 
(30.7%, 17.8% and 21.7%, acute, remission and healthy, respectively). The 
Butyrate-producing Faecalibacterium group was higher in active FMF 
compared to both FMF remissions and controls (14.2% in attack vs. 6.5%). 
Gamma-proteobacteria were 0.2% and 2.1%, in healthy controls and FMF 
remission, respectively, and there was a complete loss of these bacteria in the 
acute phase. The most striking difference was observed in the 
Propionate-producing Acidaminococcaceae subgroup (Clostridial cluster IX 
within Firmicutes). These bacteria were overrepresented in remission 
period compared to controls (16% vs. 10%), and tended to disappear in attack 
(3%), found only in FMF15 (Fig. 1C). Although in the latter group the bacterial 
sequences were the least diverse, which might be the consequence of a general 
inflammatory process, however representatives of the Butyrate-producing 
Faecalibacterium group in attack were significantly high compared to both 
FMF remission and healthy state (Table 3). Butyrate, which is produced by 
bacterial fermentation, has been shown to reduce inflammation in experimental 
colitis in animal models. It reduces inflammation through an inhibitory effect 
on proinflammatory cytokine expression, thus demonstrating anti-inflammatory 
properties [12]. Such increase of butyrate producers among acute patients 
implies that it could correspond to a compensative response. 
 Òable 3
| Bacterial subgroups | Healthy | Remission | Attack | 
| Prevotellaceae (CFB)* | 27.6% | 22% | 16.5% | 
| Bacteroidaceae (CFB)** | 21.7% | 17.8% | 30.7% | 
| Faecalibacterium (Cluster IV)*,**,*** | 6.5% | 6.5% | 14.2% | 
| Acidaminococcaceae (Cluster IX)*,**,*** | 10% | 16% | 3% | 
| Gamma-proteobacteria*** | 0.2% | 2.1% | 0 | 
We observed no specific microbial group pointing to the presence of bacteria, which could be specifically involved in disease activity. The 16S rDNA profile of the fecal microbiota was very stable under healthy conditions but unstable in FMF patients. It seems the alterations in gut microflora composition reflect a metabolic imbalance of the complex microbial ecosystem with severe consequences for the host immune system. How some bacteria may exert an inflammatory effect and others a protective role in FMF is yet uncertain. Is a breakdown in the balance between putative "protective" and "harmful" intestinal bacteria simply a secondary phenomenon in FMF, or is altered composition a primary modification, that is to say genetically determined, leading to an inflammatory process? Further studies may help to explain the complex relationships among bacteria, inflammation and genetics, which could provide new insights into the pathogenesis and treatment of FMF.
Institute of Molecular Biology NAS RA
    1. Sohar E., Gafni J., Pras M., Heller H. - 
Am. J. Med. 1967. V. 43. P. 227-253. 
    2. The International FMF Consortium. - Cell. 1997. V. 90. 
P. 797-807. 
    3. The French FMF Consortium. - 
Nat. Genet. 1997. V. 17. P. 25-31. 
    4. Dowds T. A., Masumoto J., Chen F. F., Ogura Y., Inohara N., Nunez G. 
- Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 2003. V. 302. P. 575-580. 
    5. Shoham N. G., Centola M., Mansfield E., 
Hull K. M., Wood G., Wise C. A., Kastner D. L. - PNAS. 2003. V. 
100. P. 13501-13506. 
    6. Ogura Y., Inohara 
N., Benito A., Chen F. F., Yamaoka S., Nunez G. - J. Biol. Chem. 
2001. V. 276. P. 4812-4818. 
    7. Ogura Y., Bonen D. K., Inohara N., Nicolae D. L., Chen F. F., Ramos R., Britton H., Moran 
T., Duerr R. H., Achkar J. P., Brant S. R., Bayless T. M., Kirschner B. S., 
Hanauer S. B., Nunez G., Cho J. H. - Nature. 2001. V. 411. P. 
603-606. 
    8. Eckburg P. B., Bik E. M., 
Bernstein C. N., Purdom E., Dethlefsen L., Sargent M., Gill S. R., Nelson K. E., 
Relman D. A. - Science. 2005. V. 308. P. 1635-1638. 
    9. Thompson J. D., Gibson T. J., Plewniak 
F., Jeanmougin F., Higgins D. G. - Nucleic Acids Research. 1997. 
V. 24. P. 4876-4882. 
    10. Saitou N., Nei M. 
- Mol. Biol. Evol. 1987. V. 4. P. 406-425. 
    
11. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/BLAST/ 
    12. 
Segain J. P., Raingeard 
Bletiere D., Bourreille A., Leray V., Gervois N., Rosales C., Ferrier L., Bonnet 
C., Blottiere H. M., Galmiche J. P. - Gut. 2000. V. 47. P. 
397-403.