Microbiome-based solutions to address new and existing threats to food security, nutrition, health and agrifood systems' sustainability

In addition to challenges like climate change and biodiversity loss, the sustainability and resilience of agrifood systems worldwide are currently challenged by new threats, such as the COVID-19 pandemic and the Ukraine war. Furthermore, the resilience and sustainability of our agrifood systems need to be enhanced in ways that simultaneously increase agricultural production, decrease post-harvest food losses and food waste, protect the climate, environment and health, and preserve biodiversity. The precarious situation of agrifood systems is also illustrated by the fact that overall, around 3 billion people worldwide still do not have regular access to a healthy diet. This results in various forms of malnutrition, as well as increasing number of people suffering from overweight and obesity, and diet-related, non-communicable diseases (NCDs) around the world. Findings from microbiome research have shown that the human gut microbiome plays a key role in nutrition and diet-related diseases and thus human health. Furthermore, the microbiome of soils, plants, and animals play an equally important role in environmental health and agricultural production. Upcoming, microbiome-based solutions hold great potential for more resilient, sustainable, and productive agrifood systems and open avenues toward preventive health management. Microbiome-based solutions will also be key to make better use of natural resources and increase the resilience of agrifood systems to future emerging and already-known crises. To realize the promises of microbiome science and innovation, there is a need to invest in enhancing the role of microbiomes in agrifood systems in a holistic One Health approach and to accelerate knowledge translation and implementation.YS, KD'H, LL, HS, LO, TK, EM, AM, IS, and AS received funding from the European Union's H2020 Research and Innovation Programme under Grant No. 818116 (Microbiome Support).Peer reviewe

Microbiome ethics, guiding principles for microbiome research, use and knowledge management

peer-reviewedThe overarching biological impact of microbiomes on their hosts, and more generally their environment, reflects the co-evolution of a mutualistic symbiosis, generating fitness for both. Knowledge of microbiomes, their systemic role, interactions, and impact grows exponentially. When a research field of importance for planetary health evolves so rapidly, it is essential to consider it from an ethical holistic perspective. However, to date, the topic of microbiome ethics has received relatively little attention considering its importance. Here, ethical analysis of microbiome research, innovation, use, and potential impact is structured around the four cornerstone principles of ethics: Do Good; Don’t Harm; Respect; Act Justly. This simple, but not simplistic approach allows ethical issues to be communicative and operational. The essence of the paper is captured in a set of eleven microbiome ethics recommendations, e.g., proposing gut microbiome status as common global heritage, similar to the internationally agreed status of major food crops

Adjunctive rifampicin for Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia (ARREST): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia is a common cause of severe community-acquired and hospital-acquired infection worldwide. We tested the hypothesis that adjunctive rifampicin would reduce bacteriologically confirmed treatment failure or disease recurrence, or death, by enhancing early S aureus killing, sterilising infected foci and blood faster, and reducing risks of dissemination and metastatic infection. METHODS: In this multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, adults (≥18 years) with S aureus bacteraemia who had received ≤96 h of active antibiotic therapy were recruited from 29 UK hospitals. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via a computer-generated sequential randomisation list to receive 2 weeks of adjunctive rifampicin (600 mg or 900 mg per day according to weight, oral or intravenous) versus identical placebo, together with standard antibiotic therapy. Randomisation was stratified by centre. Patients, investigators, and those caring for the patients were masked to group allocation. The primary outcome was time to bacteriologically confirmed treatment failure or disease recurrence, or death (all-cause), from randomisation to 12 weeks, adjudicated by an independent review committee masked to the treatment. Analysis was intention to treat. This trial was registered, number ISRCTN37666216, and is closed to new participants. FINDINGS: Between Dec 10, 2012, and Oct 25, 2016, 758 eligible participants were randomly assigned: 370 to rifampicin and 388 to placebo. 485 (64%) participants had community-acquired S aureus infections, and 132 (17%) had nosocomial S aureus infections. 47 (6%) had meticillin-resistant infections. 301 (40%) participants had an initial deep infection focus. Standard antibiotics were given for 29 (IQR 18-45) days; 619 (82%) participants received flucloxacillin. By week 12, 62 (17%) of participants who received rifampicin versus 71 (18%) who received placebo experienced treatment failure or disease recurrence, or died (absolute risk difference -1·4%, 95% CI -7·0 to 4·3; hazard ratio 0·96, 0·68-1·35, p=0·81). From randomisation to 12 weeks, no evidence of differences in serious (p=0·17) or grade 3-4 (p=0·36) adverse events were observed; however, 63 (17%) participants in the rifampicin group versus 39 (10%) in the placebo group had antibiotic or trial drug-modifying adverse events (p=0·004), and 24 (6%) versus six (2%) had drug interactions (p=0·0005). INTERPRETATION: Adjunctive rifampicin provided no overall benefit over standard antibiotic therapy in adults with S aureus bacteraemia. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment

The rs4646 and rs12592697 Polymorphisms in CYP19A1 Are Associated with Disease Progression among Patients with Breast Cancer from Different Racial/ethnic Backgrounds.

Given the racial/ethnic disparities in breast cancer, we evaluated the association between CYP19A1 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) on disease progression in women with breast cancer from different racial/ethnic backgrounds. This is a cross-sectional analysis of data from 327 women with breast cancer in the Expanded Breast Cancer Registry program of the University of New Mexico. Stored DNA samples were analyzed for CYP19A1 SNPs using a custom designed microarray panel. Genotype-phenotype correlations were analyzed. Of the 384 SNPs, 2 were associated with clinically significant outcomes, the rs4646 and rs12592697. The T allele for the rs4646 was associated with advanced stage of the disease at the time of presentation (odds ratio OR:1.8, confidence intervals CI: 1.05-3.13, p<0.05) and a more progressive disease (OR: 2.1 CI: 1.1-4.0, p=0.04). For the rs12592697, the variant T allele was more frequent in Hispanic women and associated with a more progressive disease (OR: 2.05 CI: 1.0-4.0, p=0.04). However, further analysis according to menopausal status showed that the association between these 2 SNPs with disease progression or the stage at diagnosis are confined only to postmenopausal women. The odds ratios of disease progression among postmenopausal women carrying the T allele for the rs4646 and rs12592697 are 3.05 (1.21, 7.74, p=0.02) and 3.80 (1.24, 11.6, p=0.02), respectively. Regardless, differences in disease progression among the different genotypes for both SNPs disappeared after adjustment for treatment. In summary, the rs4646 and the rs12592697 SNPs in CYP19A1 are associated with differences in disease progression in postmenopausal women. However, treatment appears to mitigate the differences in genetic risk.ClinicalTrials.govs Identifier: NCT00322894(https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00322894?term=new+mexico+breast+cancer+registry&rank=1

KRAS biomarker testing disparities in colorectal cancer patients in New Mexico

Introduction: American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guidelines recommend that all patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) receive KRAS testing to guide anti-EGFR monoclonal antibody treatment. The aim of this study was to assess for disparities in KRAS testing and mutational status. Methods: The New Mexico Tumor Registry (NMTR), a population-based cancer registry participating in the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results program, was queried to identify all incident cases of CRC diagnosed among New Mexico residents from 2010 to 2013. Results: Six hundred thirty-seven patients were diagnosed with mCRC from 2010–2013. As expected, KRAS testing in Stage 4 patients presented the highest frequency (38.4%), though testing in stage 3 (8.5%), stage 2 (3.4%) and stage 1 (1.2%) was also observed. In those with metastatic disease, younger patients (≤ 64 years) were more likely to have had testing than patients 65 years and older (p < 0.0001). Patients residing in urban areas received KRAS testing more often than patients living in rural areas (p = 0.019). No significant racial/ethnic disparities were observed (p = 0.66). No significant differences were seen by year of testing. Conclusion: Age and geographic disparities exist in the rates of KRAS testing, while sex, race/ethnicity and the year tested were not significantly associated with testing. Further study is required to assess the reasons for these disparities and continued suboptimal adherence to current ASCO KRAS testing guidelines

Food Insecurity and Forgone Medical Care Among Cancer Survivors.

PURPOSE: Financial hardship is increasingly understood as a negative consequence of cancer and its treatment. As patients with cancer face financial challenges, they may be forced to make a trade-off between food and medical care. We characterized food insecurity and its relationship to treatment adherence in a population-based sample of cancer survivors. METHODS: Individuals 21 to 64 years old, diagnosed between 2008 and 2016 with stage I-III breast, colorectal, or prostate cancer were identified from the New Mexico Tumor Registry and invited to complete a survey, recalling their financial experience in the year before and the year after cancer diagnosis. Multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratios (ORs) and 95%CIs. RESULTS: Among 394 cancer survivors, 229 (58%) were food secure in both the year before and the year after cancer diagnosis (persistently food secure), 38 (10%) were food secure in the year before and food insecure in the year after diagnosis (newly food insecure), and 101 (26%) were food insecure at both times (persistently food insecure). Newly food-insecure (OR, 2.82; 95% CI, 1.02 to 7.79) and persistently food-insecure (OR, 3.04; 95% CI,1.36 to 6.77) cancer survivors were considerably more likely to forgo, delay, or make changes to prescription medication than persistently food-secure survivors. In addition, compared with persistently food-secure cancer survivors, newly food-insecure (OR, 9.23; 95% CI, 2.90 to 29.3), and persistently food-insecure (OR, 9.93; 95% CI, 3.53 to 27.9) cancer survivors were substantially more likely to forgo, delay, or make changes to treatment other than prescription medication. CONCLUSION: New and persistent food insecurity are negatively associated with treatment adherence. Efforts to screen for and address food insecurity among individuals undergoing cancer treatment should be investigated as a strategy to reduce socioeconomic disparities in cancer outcomes