
==== Front
Sci Rep
Sci Rep
Scientific Reports
2045-2322
Nature Publishing Group UK London

38678119
60081
10.1038/s41598-024-60081-y
Article
Effect of metformin and metformin/linagliptin on gut microbiota in patients with prediabetes
Martínez-López Yoscelina Estrella 123
Neri-Rosario Daniel 14
Esquivel-Hernández Diego Armando 1
Padron-Manrique Cristian 15
Vázquez-Jiménez Aarón 1
Sánchez-Castañeda Jean Paul 14
Girón-Villalobos David 14
Mendoza-Ortíz Cristian 14
Reyes-Escogido María de Lourdes 3
Evia-Viscarra Maria Lola 6
Aguilar-Garcia Alberto 6
Resendis-Antonio Osbaldo oresendis@inmegen.gob.mx

17
Guardado-Mendoza Rodolfo rguardado@ugto.mx

3
1 grid.452651.1 0000 0004 0627 7633 Human Systems Biology Laboratory. Instituto Nacional de Medicina Genómica (INMEGEN), México City, Mexico
2 https://ror.org/01tmp8f25 grid.9486.3 0000 0001 2159 0001 Programa de Doctorado en Ciencias Médicas, Odontológicas y de la Salud, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM), Ciudad de México, Mexico
3 https://ror.org/058cjye32 grid.412891.7 0000 0001 0561 8457 Metabolic Research Laboratory, Department of Medicine and Nutrition, University of Guanajuato, León, Guanajuato, Mexico
4 https://ror.org/01tmp8f25 grid.9486.3 0000 0001 2159 0001 Programa de Maestría en Ciencias Bioquímicas, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM), Ciudad de México, Mexico
5 https://ror.org/01tmp8f25 grid.9486.3 0000 0001 2159 0001 Programa de Doctorado en Ciencias Biomédicas, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM), Ciudad de México, Mexico
6 https://ror.org/03hre7f61 grid.452473.3 0000 0004 0426 5591 Endocrinology Department Hospital Regional de Alta Especialidad del Bajío, León, Mexico
7 https://ror.org/01tmp8f25 grid.9486.3 0000 0001 2159 0001 Coordinación de la Investigación Científica – Red de Apoyo a la Investigación - Centro de Ciencias de la Complejidad, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM), Ciudad de México, Mexico
27 4 2024
27 4 2024
2024
14 967823 9 2023
18 4 2024
© The Author(s) 2024, corrected publication 2024
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Lifestyle modifications, metformin, and linagliptin reduce the incidence of type 2 diabetes (T2D) in people with prediabetes. The gut microbiota (GM) may enhance such interventions' efficacy. We determined the effect of linagliptin/metformin (LM) vs metformin (M) on GM composition and its relationship to insulin sensitivity (IS) and pancreatic β-cell function (Pβf) in patients with prediabetes. A cross-sectional study was conducted at different times: basal, six, and twelve months in 167 Mexican adults with prediabetes. These treatments increased the abundance of GM SCFA-producing bacteria M (Fusicatenibacter and Blautia) and LM (Roseburia, Bifidobacterium, and [Eubacterium] hallii group). We performed a mediation analysis with structural equation models (SEM). In conclusion, M and LM therapies improve insulin sensitivity and Pβf in prediabetics. GM is partially associated with these improvements since the SEM models suggest a weak association between specific bacterial genera and improvements in IS and Pβf.

Keywords

Gut microbiota
Metformin
Linagliptin/metformin
Insulin resistance
Pancreatic β-cell function
Subject terms

Systems biology
Endocrinology
Consejo Nacional de Humanidades Ciencias y Tecnologías, México425859/2020 http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100006054 Universidad de Guanajuato 1098/2016 http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100017497 Hospital Regional de Alta Especialidad del Bajío CEI-22-16 Martínez-López Yoscelina Estrella issue-copyright-statement© Springer Nature Limited 2024
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

Prediabetes precedes Type 2 diabetes (T2D) and involves impaired fasting glucose (IFG) and/or impaired glucose tolerance (IGT)1,2. Those with prediabetes exhibit insulin resistance (IR), pancreatic β-cell and α-cell dysfunction, and reduced incretin effect3. Lifestyle and pharmacological interventions can achieve glycemic control, preventing or delaying T2D and its complications4–6.

Lifestyle intervention is the standard treatment for prediabetes, and certain drugs have also demonstrated efficacy in preventing T2D. The combination of linagliptin, metformin, and lifestyle modifications significantly improved glucose metabolism and pancreatic β-cell function (Pβf), reducing T2D incidence in prediabetic individuals compared to metformin and lifestyle intervention7. Studies in humans and animals have highlighted the influence of gut microbiota (GM) on the pharmacological effects of metformin and Dipeptidyl Peptidase 4 inhibitors (DPP-4is) (e.g., vildagliptin, sitagliptin, and liraglutide); however, the precise mechanisms by which GM affects the patient's metabolic condition remain unclear8–13.

Metformin, a biguanide, is commonly used as a first-line treatment for T2D and prediabetes14. Research suggests that metformin reduces GM diversity in murine models of induced T2D while promoting the growth of mucin-degrading bacteria (e.g., Akkermansia muciniphila) and SCFA-producing bacteria (e.g., Roseburia and Faecalibacterium prausnitzii)9. The increased abundance of these bacteria is associated with higher levels of goblet cells (mucin-producing), improved glucose tolerance, and reduced proinflammatory interleukin-6 (IL-6)15.

On the other hand, linagliptin, a widely used DPP-4i in T2D, is known for its cardiovascular and renal safety. Its efficacy in prediabetes has been demonstrated, improving glucose metabolism and pancreatic islet function7,16. Incretin-based therapies utilizing DPP-4is are based on the insulinotropic action of glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1)17. By increasing endogenous GLP-1 and insulin levels and reducing glucagon secretion18, DPP-4i effectively lowers postprandial blood glucose levels by inhibiting incretin hormone degradation. Although some studies suggest a link between DPP-4is and GM, their exact mechanisms remain unclear.

To evaluate how changes in GM are associated with the clinical response, we assessed the impact of linagliptin/metformin (LM) versus metformin alone (M) on GM composition and its association with insulin sensitivity (Matsuda Index, IS) and pancreatic β-cell function (Pβf) in Mexican patients with prediabetes. Our results indicate that linagliptin/metformin is more clinically effective than metformin alone, and the contribution of GM to the clinical response is relatively low.

Results

Participants and clinical outcomes after the intervention

The patients in this study were part of the diabetes prevention trial PRELLIM, a double-blind, randomized parallel clinical trial comparing linagliptin + metformin + lifestyle (LM) to metformin + lifestyle (M) in terms of their effects on glucose metabolism, insulin resistance (IR), and pancreatic islet function [ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT03004612 (22/12/2016)]7. All participants in PRELLIM were encouraged to participate in the microbiome study. Then, between August 2018 and December 2019, 222 participants were assessed for eligibility and 167 eligible participants were included. These participants were randomly assigned to one of two distinct treatment groups. Specifically, 51 participants were included in the no-treatment group (basal evaluation), 55 at six months follow-up (35 in the M group and 20 in the LM group), and 61 at 12 months follow-up (28 in the M group and 33 in the LM group) (Fig. 1). Unfortunately, not all participants provided a stool sample during follow-up, and some did not complete the prescribed number of follow-up sessions. Accordingly, we organized the data for analysis as a cross-sectional study of groups at different points in time. Specifically, 205 samples were included in the analysis: 65 in the untreated group (baseline evaluation), 77 at the six-month follow-up (44 in the M group and 33 in the LM group), and 63 at the 12-month follow-up (28 in the group M and 35 in group LM). Since the original objective of the study was to observe changes in GM composition over time and its implications on clinical response, we obtained 38 stool samples corresponding to the participants' follow-up at months 6 (n = 12) and 12 (n = 24). Additional results from a dependent contrast analysis are shown in the supplementary material only in the subgroup of 24 participants who completed follow-up at 6 and 12 months (Table S3). Multiple cardio-metabolic risk factors were present in the whole studied population: obesity (51.6%), high total cholesterol (32%), low-HDL (72%), high triglycerides (63.7%), and high blood pressure (25.5%), without any significant difference between groups. None of the patients took medications or supplements affecting glucose metabolism or gut microbiota composition.Figure 1 Study profile. This work analyzed the data into two distinct analytical categories: (1) The participants were 51 in the no-treatment group during the baseline evaluation, 55 at the six-month follow-up (with 35 in the M group and 20 in the LM group), and 61 at the 12-month follow-up (comprising 28 in the M group and 33 in the LM group). (2) The gut microbiota samples were 65 in the untreated group (baseline evaluation), 77 at the six-month follow-up (44 in the M group and 33 in the LM group), and 63 at the 12-month follow-up (28 in the group M and 35 in group LM). Created with BioRender.com. LM: The combination of linagliptin + metformin + lifestyle. M: only metformin + lifestyle.

Insulin sensitivity and pancreatic β-cell function improved at six and 12 months of follow-up

Age was lower in subjects without pharmacological treatment than at six and 12 months of follow-up (p = 0.0347). Consistent with the original PRELLIM publication, BMI and adiposity showed progressive reductions in this subset of patients at 6 and 12 months. Glucose levels, insulin resistance (IR) index and Pβf significantly improved at six and 12 months of follow-up compared to the baseline group (Table 1) (Tables S1, S2, and S3). Pβf significantly improved in both treatment groups at six months [C-d 1.113 (0.716–1.507), p = 0.00001] and 12 months [C-d 1.056 (0.650–1.457), p = 0.00001], with a more pronounced improvement in the LM group at both six months [G-Δ 0.3597 (0.189–0.798)] and 12 months [C-d 0.2537 (0.104–0.659)] (Fig. 2 and Table S4).Table 1 Characteristics of the study populations.

Variables	N	Basal	N	Treatment (6 months)	N	Treatment (12 months)	p-value	
Age (years)	65	44.08 ± 11.37	77	48.21 ± 9.85ª	63	47.60 ± 12.11a	0.0347*	
Sex (Femenine %)	65	48(73.85)	77	47(61.04)	63	45(71.43)	0.237	
SBP (mmHg)	65	123.90 ± 17.93ª	76	116.45 ± 15.37b	61	115.80 ± 15.10b	0.0036*	
DBP (mmHg)	65	80.90 ± 11.50ª	76	77.02 ± 10.10b	61	73.64 ± 10.58c	0.0024*	
Anthropometric characteristics	
 Weight (kg)	65	82.55 ± 18.57ª	77	73.49 ± 14.40b	63	73.95 ± 15.02b	0.0006*	
 BMI (kg/m2)	65	32.02 ± 6.79ª	77	27.90 ± 4.55b	63	28.32 ± 4.35b	0.0001*	
 Waist circumference (cm)	61	97.64 ± 13.58ª	77	89.45 ± 12.80b	59	90.63 ± 10.49b	0.0004*	
 Hip circumference (cm)	61	110.57 ± 14.78ª	77	102.70 ± 10.33b	59	103.27 ± 10.64b	0.0002*	
 Waist/hip ratio	61	0.88 ± 0.08	77	0.87 ± 0.01	59	0.87 ± 0.08	0.5883	
 Body fat (%)	64	38.30 ± 8.81ª	77	33.77 ± 8.39b	62	34.69 ± 7.49b	0.0020*	
 Visceral fat (AU)	54	9.97 ± 3.99	62	8.76 ± 3.69	58	9.93 ± 3.70	0.2333	
Biochemical characteristics	
 Fasting glucose (mg/dl)	65	108.47 ± 20.72ª	77	96.05 ± 9.62b	63	93.91 ± 9.50b	0.0001*	
 Glucose 120 min (mg/dl)	65	163.58 ± 46.83ª	77	128.60 ± 36.63b	63	132.18 ± 33.86b	0.0001*	
 HbA1c (%)	56	5.72 ± 0.79ª	72	5.49 ± 0.39b	60	5.48 ± 0.33b	0.0119*	
 AUC glucose (OGTT)	65	20,569.75 ± 4299.47ª	75	16,872.64 ± 3710.32b	61	17,410.17 ± 3023.66b	0.0001*	
 Matsuda Index	51	2.45 ± 2.03ª	64	3.95 ± 3.25b	57	3.89 ± 3.02b	0.0006*	
 HOMA-IR	52	4.35 ± 3.94ª	64	2.01 ± 2.93b	57	1.90 ± 1.43b	0.0001*	
 QUICKI	51	0.32 ± 0.04ª	64	0.35 ± 0.04b	57	0.35 ± 0.04b	0.0001*	
 HOMA-B	51	106.25 ± 98.13	64	93.63 ± 136.27	57	103.96 ± 135.36	0.3251	
 Insulin basal	51	12.92 ± 10.67ª	64	8.45 ± 12.15b	57	8.54 ± 13.05b	0.0390*	
 Insulin 30 minutos (OGTT)	51	60.24 ± 43.47	64	57.06 ± 41.66	56	63.84 ± 48.81	0.7727	
 Insulin 60 minutos (OGTT)	51	92.52 ± 60.30	64	74.04 ± 70.01	56	79.80 ± 59.00	0.2989	
 Insulin 90 minutos (OGTT)	51	91.71 ± 60.44ª	64	68.44 ± 58.96c	55	82.15 ± 48.51b	0.0365*	
 Insulin 120 minutos (OGTT)	51	91.56 ± 66.55ª	64	65.90 ± 50.08c	57	75.71 ± 56.45b	0.0120*	
 AUC insulin (OGTT)	51	9216.52 ± 5431.34ª	64	7546.25 ± 4982.75b	57	7738.98 ± 4775.64b	0.0013*	
 AIR (DI0_30/DG0_30)	51	0.72 ± 0.70	64	0.95 ± 2.81	57	0.84 ± 0.74	0.1388	
 Oral_DI (AIR*1/insulin)	51	0.06 ± 0.09	64	0.11 ± 0.26	57	0.10 ± 0.12	0.0623	
 Insulin secretion (AUCins0-120/AUCgluc0-120)	51	0.445 ± 0.28ª	64	0.448 ± 0.28b	57	0.444 ± 0.26b	0.0020*	
 β-Cell function1 (Matsuda*(AUCins0-120/AUCgluc0-120)	51	2.63 ± 1.20	64	5.18 ± 5.08	56	4.49 ± 5.51	0.1356	
 β-Cell function2 (Matsuda*(IncAUCins0-120/IncAUCgluc0-120))	51	1.09 ± 0.43b	64	1.77 ± 0.71ª	57	1.73 ± 0.66ª	0.0001*	
 Total cholesterol (mg/dl)	62	182.17 ± 35.08	77	182.13 ± 35.93	63	178.71 ± 36.92	0.9864	
 HDL-c (mg/dl)	61	38.11 ± 11.58b	76	43.97 ± 21.87ª	63	43.13 ± 11.82ª	0.0215*	
 LDL-c (mg/dl)	48	108.09 ± 29.61	38	103.58 ± 42.39	20	106.95 ± 37.43	0.9147	
 VLDL-c (mg/dl)	47	32.52 ± 13.88	32	33.39 ± 23.09	18	30.04 ± 14.73	0.5294	
 Triglycerides (mg/dl)	62	163.32 ± 69.82	78	147.20 ± 91.85	63	153.09 ± 120.71	0.4744	
ISBP systolic blood pressure, DBP diastolic blood pressure, BMI body mass index, WC waist circumference, AC hip circumference, AUC area under the curve, IncAUC increase in area under the curve, OGTT curve of oral glucose tolerance, AIR acute insulin response, HOMA-IR homeostasis model assessment for insulin resistance, HOMA-B homeostasis model assessment beta-cell, Oral_DI insulin disposition index, HDL-c cholesterol high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, LDL-c low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, VLDL-c very low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, Size effect = Cohen’s D. *p < 0.05.

Figure 2 Insulin sensitivity and pancreatic β-cells function. (A) IS upper panel; Matsuda index and lower panel; HOMA-IR at baseline, six and 12 months in groups M and LM. (B) Basal Pβf, six and 12 months in groups M and LM. Upper left panel; AIR, upper right panel; ORAL-DI, lower left panel; Disp_Index2 and lower right panel; AUCinsgluc_OGTT. (C) Glucose and insulin levels during baseline OGTT, six-month and 12-month follow-up: upper panel; glucose and lower panel; insulin. The monthly follow-up was compared with the monthly follow-up. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01 and ***P < 0.001, one-way ANOVA. IS insulin sensitivity, Pβf pancreatic β-cells function, HOMA-IR Insulin Resistance Index, AIR acute insulin response, β-Cell function2 (Matsuda*(IncAUCins0-120/IncAUCgluc0-120)), Oral_DI insulin disposition index, AUCinsgluc_OGTT glucose area under the curve, OGTT curve of oral glucose tolerance.

Gut microbiome analysis showed a significant impact of hypoglycemic drugs on humans

A total of 17,355,182 quality reads were generated from 203 samples, resulting in 3,713 amplicon sequence variants (ASVs). Individual rarefaction curves indicated high sampling coverage in all samples (Fig. S1). Ecological analysis evaluated α diversity using the non-parametric Kruskal–Wallis test and found no significant changes between groups for Indices Chao 1 (p = 0.550) (Fig. S2A), Simpson (p = 0.817) (Fig. S2B), Shannon (p = 0.796) (Fig. S2C), and Pielou (p = 0.469) (Fig. S2D). β diversity analysis with Jaccard distances showed no discernible grouping pattern in microbial diversity between the analysis groups (Fig. S3).

Spervised machine learning: explainable analysis approach

Using the Random Forest algorithm with post-hoc explanations, we classified different hypoglycemic drugs (LM and M) (Fig. 3). Therapeutic interventions modified GM composition at six and 12 months of follow-up. AUC-ROC (Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve) mean values were 0.79 and 0.74 for basal vs. M groups at six and 12 months, respectively (Table S5). Genera Subdoligranulum, Ruminococcaceae_DTU089, Catabacter, Ruminiclostridium 5, and Escherichia-Shigella identified the basal vs. M group at six months (Fig. 4A). Relevant bacterial genera (Fusicatenibacter, Blautia, and [Ruminococcus] gauvreauii group), all SCFA producers, identified prediabetes subjects treated for six months with M (Fig. 4A). In contrast, we found eight relevant SCFA-producing bacterial genera (Fusicatenibacter, Atopobiaceae_uncultured, Coprococcus 1, Lachnospiraceae ND3007 group, Anaerostipes, Dorea, Lachnospiraceae FCS020 group, and Blautia) in patients treated with M for 12 months (Fig. 4B). The effect of M at 12 months suggests cumulative impact, restructuring GM composition and favoring increased SCFA-producing genera abundance22.Figure 3 Schematic diagram of the proposed procedure for the data's clinical and GM analysis. It consists of (A) PRELLIM data, (B) Taxonomic and ecological analysis, and (C) Explainable Machine Learning analysis, generalized linear mixed models (GLMM), and structural equation models (SEM). The sequences obtained in the sequencing were processed using the QIIME2 (Quantitative Insights Into Microbial Ecology) analysis platform19. The taxonomic classification for end sequence variants was performed using the SILVA database (version 132). The analysis of the GM was performed using the phyloseq object20; through this object, the α and β diversity of the study groups in the different months of follow-up was obtained. Subsequently, with the abundance of the other bacterial genera, the genera that classify each pharmacological treatment in the different months of follow-up were obtained using machine learning algorithms (random forest)21. Once the bacteria that classified the subjects with M and LM treatment were identified, hierarchical linear regression models were performed to eliminate the effect of confounding variables (obesity, age, and gender). In addition, GLMM and, finally, mediation analysis using SEM. Created with BioRender.com.

Figure 4 SHAP graph for each hypoglycemic drug and month of follow-up. The figure shows the first ten bacterial genera with the most significant contribution to classifying patients without hypoglycemic drugs (baseline) and those treated with M and LM at six and 12 months of follow-up and between treatments. We have ordered the bacterial genera from most to least relevant from top to bottom. Blue and red represent bacterial genera's low and high abundance, respectively. The higher positive values on the SHAP axis establish the relevance of bacterial genera to classify patients with M or LM at six or 12 months of follow-up, while the negative values establish the relevance of bacterial genera for patients with prediabetes without treatment. (A) Baseline vs M with six-month follow-up. (B) Baseline vs M with 12-month follow-up. (C) Baseline vs LM with six-month follow-up. (D) Baseline vs LM with 12-month follow-up. (E) M vs LM with a six-month follow-up, and (F) M vs LM with a 12-month follow-up.

Next, we compared the basal groups with the LM group at six and 12 months of follow-up; the mean AUC-ROC was 0.6 and 0.66, respectively (Table S5). Seven relevant bacterial genera were identified for classifying subjects with six months of LM treatment: Barnesiella, Coprococcus 1, Rhotia, Roseburia, [Eubacterium] hallii group, Coprococcus 2, and Bifidobacterium. Escherichia-Shigella classified the basal group and reduced it with hypoglycemic drugs23. [Eubacterium] hallii group classified subjects treated with LM at both times. Fusicatenibacter, Lachnospiraceae FCS020 group, and Enterorhabdus were characteristic in the LM group, all SCFA-producing genera11,24–26 (Fig. 4C,D).

On the other hand, we identified bacterial genera in both M and LM intervention groups at six and 12 months of follow-up. At six months, Rothia, [Eubacterium] Ruminantium group, Christensenellaceae_uncultured, Ruminiclostridium 5, Turicibacter, Ruminococcaceae UCG-002, Barnesiella, Clostridium Sensu Stricto 1, and Oscillibacter classified the LM group (Fig. 4E). In contrast, at 12 months with LM, Enterobacteriaceae, Holdemania, and Christensenellaceae_uncultured were characteristic genera (Fig. 4F). The mean AUC-ROC for the M vs LM comparison was 0.66 and 0.74, respectively. Interestingly, we observed that the compositional change produced by LM at six and 12 months is more significant in pathogenic bacteria involved in developing T2D. SCFA-producing genera favor classifying subjects who consumed M, regardless of follow-up month.

Hypoglycemic drugs and the change in the clinical-metabolic condition explain the increase in insulin sensitivity and pancreatic β-cell function

After machine learning analysis and classifying bacteria based on hypoglycemic drugs and months of follow-up, we conducted Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMM) considering IS indices and Pβf. Thirty-five significant genera were identified for IS (Matsuda index)27: Roseburia (b = − 0.042), Erysipelotrichaceae UCG-003 (b = 0.048), Butyrycicoccus (b = 0.041), [Eubacterium] xylanophilum group (b = − 0.045), and Eggerthellaceae uncultured (b = − 0.055)27. For Pβf (Disp_Index2), significant bacteria included Dorea (b = 0.101), Parabacteroides (b = − 0.111), Catenibacterium (b = 0.233), and Holdemania (b = 0.126) (Table 2) (Fig. 5A). We considered a bidirectional relationship between the response variables (IS and Pβf) and bacteria with statistical significance. The abundance of bacterial genera Butyrycicoccus (b = 0.666), [Eubacterium] xylanophilum group (b = − 0.630), Granulicatella (b = 0.544), Ruminococcaceae UCG-008 (b = − 0.366), Prevotella 6 (b = −  0.480), and Catabacter (b = − 0.508) was modified by the change in IS. Conversely, Negativibacillus (b = 0.972) and Lachnospiraceae UCG-004 (b = − 1.069) were statistically significant for increased Pβf. Models were adjusted for months of follow-up, hypoglycemic drugs, sex, age, BMI, IS, and Pβf (Table S6).Table 2 GLMM for IS, IR, and Pβf indices and effect size and confidence interval for each bacterium.

Fixed effects	β	SE	p-value	95% CI	Eta-Squared	95%CI	
Matsuda Index	
Roseburia	− 0.042	0.022	0.050	− 0.084	0.001	0.023	0.0001	0.094	
Erysipelotrichaceae UCG-003	0.048	0.022	0.031	0.005	0.091	0.021	0.0001	0.089	
Butyrycicoccus	0.041	0.020	0.044	0.001	0.080	0.027	0.0001	0.099	
[Eubacterium] xylanophilum group	− 0.045	0.022	0.043	− 0.089	− 0.001	0.029	0.0001	0.104	
Eggerthellaceae uncultured	− 0.055	0.028	0.049	− 0.109	− 0.001	0.024	0.0001	0.095	
HOMA-IR	
Clostridiales vadinBB60 group_metagenome	0.061	0.030	0.040	0.003	0.119	0.006	0.0001	0.057	
Lachnospiraceae NK4A136 group	0.052	0.026	0.049	0.0001	0.103	0.026	0.0001	0.099	
Actinomyces	− 0.069	0.025	0.005	− 0.118	− 0.021	0.052	0.004	0.139	
Negativibacillus	− 0.061	0.030	0.043	− 0.119	− 0.002	0.027	0.0001	0.100	
AIR	
Fournierella	0.067	0.032	0.038	0.004	0.130	0.030	0.0001	0.107	
ORAL-DI	
Gnavus group	0.050	0.020	0.013	0.011	0.090	0.016	0.0001	0.080	
Turicibacter	0.035	0.017	0.043	0.001	0.069	0.016	0.0001	0.082	
Mogibacterium	0.045	0.020	0.022	0.006	0.084	0.063	0.007	0.156	
Pβf	
Dorea	0.101	0.051	0.049	0.001	0.201	0.005	0.0001	0.053	
Parabacteroides	− 0.111	0.054	0.040	− 0.218	− 0.005	0.017	0.0001	0.083	
Catenibacterium	0.233	0.073	0.001	0.090	0.376	0.045	0.002	0.129	
Holdemania	0.126	0.064	0.049	0.001	0.251	0.021	0.0001	0.089	
AUCinsgluc_OGTT	
Butyricicoccus	− 0.038	0.019	0.043	− 0.075	− 0.001	0.027	0.0001	0.101	
[Eubacterium] xylanophilum group	0.041	0.021	0.049	0.001	0.082	0.026	0.0001	0.100	
Atopobiaceae uncultured	0.048	0.024	0.048	0.001	0.096	0.025	0.0001	0.097	
Peptococcaceae unclutured	0.046	0.022	0.041	0.002	0.089	0.028	0.0001	0.103	
Lachnospiraceae UCG-004	− 0.054	0.026	0.038	− 0.105	− 0.003	0.029	0.0001	0.103	
N	142				

Figure 5 Heatmap resulted from the analysis of GLMM and SEM with standardized path coefficients. (A) The color scale represents the β coefficient of the GLMM; when it is red, it means a positive β, and negative when it is blue. All bacteria represented in the heatmap are statistically significant. (B) Catabacter SEM, the baseline model, showed a relationship between BMI and IS (Matsuda index) and the relationship between BMI and the genus Catabacter. Lachnospiraceae UCG-004 SEM; the baseline model shows a relationship between BMI and IS (Matsuda index) and the relationship between BMI and the genus Lachnospiraceae UCG-004. M is a model for metformin treatment, and LM is the model for linagliptin/metformin treatment. **p < 0.05**p < 0.05.

We evaluated the Bacteria X Treatment and Bacteria X Time interaction for IS and Pβf. In the Bacteria X Treatment interaction, we found a significant increase in IS in the LM group associated with Erysipelotrichaceae UCG-003 (p = 0.008). For Pβf, Erysipelotrichaceae UCG-003 showed statistical significance in the interaction with both LM (p = 0.025) and M (p = 0.048), while Lachnospiraceae UCG-004 (p = 0.032) and Turicibacter (p = 0.003) showed significance with M. In the Bacteria X Time interaction, a significant increase in IS at six months was observed with LM treatment for the bacterial genera Roseburia (p = 0.031), Erysipelotrichaceae UCG-003 (p = 0.018), Lachnospiraceae NK4A136 (p = 0.035), and Bilophila (p = 0.035). For Pβf, Erysipelotrichaceae UCG-003 (p = 0.004), Lachnospiraceae NK4A136 (p = 0.048), Granulicatella (p = 0.044), and Turicibacter (p = 0.046) showed significance at 6 months, and Bilophila (p = 0.028) and Lachnospiraceae UCG-004 (p = 0.011) showed significance at 12 months. There was no effect of treatment by time interaction.

Statistically significant bacteria from the GLMM models (with bidirectional effects) were used in subsequent statistical analyses: hierarchical linear regression and structural equations model (SEM). These analyses explored the relationship between GM composition, IS, and Pβf in prediabetes patients treated with hypoglycemic drugs. Hierarchical block models for linear regression revealed that hypoglycemic drugs and BMI significantly explained the increase in IS and Pβf. In the IS model, hypoglycemic drugs contributed a 10% increase (model 1 in Table 3). The addition of gender and age increased the explanation to 14% (model 2 in Table 3), and BMI further increased it to 25% (model 3 in Table 3). However, including the 17 representative genera raised the explanation to 33% (model 4 in Table 3). Among the bacteria analyzed, two were statistically significant: Catenibacterium (β = 0.079, p < 0.05) and Catabacter (β = − 0.083, p < 0.05).Table 3 A hierarchical model for the IS (Matsuda Index).

Variable	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4	
V6 Tmet	0.240***	0.242***	0.147*	0.063	
V12 Tmet	0.245***	0.252***	0.204**	0.159*	
V6 Tlina + met	0.168**	0.160**	0.106	0.095	
V12 Tlina + met	0.169**	0.161**	0.074	0.040	
Sex		0.093	0.104*	0.107*	
Age		0.360	0.276	0.383*	
BMI			− 1.331***	− 1.233***	
Erysypelotrichaceae UCG-00 3				0.032	
Catanibacterium				0.079*	
Butyricicoccus				0.010	
Xylanophilum group				− 0.038	
Bilophila				0.025	
Eggerthellaceae_uncultured				− 0.051	
Actinomyces				0.020	
Negativibacilis				0.009	
Mogibacterium				− 0.007	
Peptococcaceae_uncultured				− 0.003	
Lachnospiraceae UCG-004				0.012	
Granulicatella				0.027	
Fournierella				0.009	
Ruminococcaceae UCG-008				− 0.079	
Prevotella 6				− 0.044	
Atopobium				− 0.026	
Catabacter				− 0.083*	
Constant	0.391***	− 0.272	1.864**	1.582*	
N	166	166	166	166	
R2	0.102	0.137	0.249	0.327	
*Adjustment for hypoglycemic drugs was set for all models. The intro method was selected, and all block variables were introduced in a single step. Stepwise regression: hypoglycemic drugs in model 1; genera and age in model 2; BMI in model 3; and bacterial genera in model 4.

For Pβf, hypoglycemic drugs explain 22% (model 1 in Table 4). Including gender and age, they reduced the explanation to 21% (model 2 in Table 4), while the addition of BMI explained only 23% (model 3 in Table 4). However, by incorporating the bacterial genera, the variability in the model increased to 35% (model 4 in Table 4). Two bacteria were statistically significant: Negativibacilis (β = 0.061, p < 0.05) and Lachnospiraceae UCG-004 (β = − 0.083, p < 0.001).Table 4 A hierarchical model for the Pβf. Adjustment for hypoglycemic drugs was set for all models.

Variable	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4	
V6 Tmet	0.252***	0.256***	0.209**	0.241***	
V12 Tmet	0.217***	0.219***	0.196***	0.220***	
V6 Tlina + met	0.349***	0.352***	0.325**	0.412***	
V12 Tlina + met	0.344***	0.347***	0.304***	0.329***	
Sex		0.035	0.041***	0.058	
Age		0.036	− 0.005	− 0.058	
BMI			− 0.653*	− 0.560	
Erysypelotrichaceae UCG-003				0.004	
Catanibacterium				0.034	
Butyricicoccus				0.006	
Xylanophilum group				0.007	
Bilophila				− 0.007	
Eggerthellaceae_uncultured				− 0.014	
Actinomyces				0.004	
Negativibacilis				0.061*	
Mogibacterium				0.017	
Peptococcaceae_uncultured				0.028	
Lachnospiraceae UCG-004				− 0.103**	
Granulicatella				0.030	
Fournierella				0.017	
Ruminococcaceae UCG-008				− 0.072	
Prevotella 6				0.023	
Atopobium				0.031	
Catabacter				− 0.063	
Constant	0.299***	0.213	1.261**	1.173*	
N	169	169	169	169	
R2	0.221	0.213	0.234	0.347	

The intro method was selected in which all block variables are introduced in a single step. Stepwise regression: hypoglycemic drugs in model 1; gender and age in model 2; BMI in model 3; and bacterial genera in model 4.

Structural equation modeling (SEM)

To assess the mediating effect of GM on the increase in IS and Pβf in subjects treated with hypoglycemic drugs, we conducted SEM using two significant genera from the GLMM analysis along with a hierarchical model. The SEM also considered BMI to evaluate the impact of weight reduction on clinical variables. Catabacter and Lachnospiraceae UCG-004 were selected as mediator genera for IS and Pβf, respectively, based on the highest beta values and statistical significance obtained in model four of the hierarchical model (see Tables 3 and 4).

In the following SEM, the Matsuda index (IS) is considered the dependent variable, and the genus Catabacter is the mediating variable. BMI is strongly associated with the Matsuda index, with significant coefficients in the basal group (b = − 0.24, p = 0.022), the M group (b = − 0.27, p = 0.170), and the LM group (b = 0.48, p = 0.001). However, BMI showed a weak effect on the genus Catabacter in all groups (b = 0.23, p = 0.917 basal group; b = − 0.14, p = 0.411 M group; b = − 0.19, p = 0.960 LM group) and a negligible impact on the Matsuda index (b = − 0.27, p = 0.062 baseline group; b = − 0.064, p = 0.095 M group; b = − 0.18, p = 0.510 LM group), except for the LM group, where it was statistically significant (Fig. 5B).

In contrast, we assessed Pβf with the genus Lachnospiraceae UCG-004 as the mediating variable. BMI had a minor effect on Pβf [BMI—> Pβf (b = − 0.13, p = 0.022) in the basal group, (b = − 0.12, p = 0.170) for the M group, and (b = 0.22, p = 0.001) in the LM group]. BMI did not impact the genus Lachnospiraceae UCG-004 (b = 0.19 basal group, p = − 0.06; b = − 0.64, p = 0.411 M group; b = 0.16, p = 0.960 LM group). Conversely, Lachnospiraceae UCG-004 strongly correlated with Pβf (b = 0.057, p = 0.062 reference group; b = − 0.44, p = 0.095 M group; b = − 0.37, p = 0.510 LM group) in the hypoglycemic drug treatment groups, where they were statistically significant (Fig. 5B). These genera have been classified as keystone taxa in other studies with T2D patients28–30. These SEMs reveal that bacterial genera partially mediate clinical indices. Conversely, BMI and hypoglycemic drugs are strongly associated with IS and Pβf indices. Additionally, bacterial genera exhibited a weak association with IS and a strong association with Pβf.

To examine the impact of hypoglycemic drugs and the new metabolic condition on bacterial genera abundance, we conducted GLMM (Tweedie distribution) with bacterial genera as the dependent variable and hypoglycemic drugs as the independent variable. The model was adjusted for gender, age, BMI, and the Matsuda index or Pβf. We observed negative effects for Catabacter on both IS (β = − 0.503, Eta-Squared = 0.031, p = 0.031) (Table S7) and Pβf (β = − 0.990, Eta-Squared = 0.064, p = 0.002) (Table S8). These results indicate that the drug-induced changes in clinical indices significantly influence the abundance of the bacteria. It underscores the importance of considering the variation in the metabolic condition to comprehend the complexity of the ecological structure of the intestinal microbiota in subjects with prediabetes.

Discussion

PRELLIM study was the first randomized clinical trial to evaluate the effect of combined (linagliptin/metformin) therapy on GM in prediabetes subjects with a basal control and metformin monotherapy as a comparator. Consistent with previous reports7, at six and 12 months, both drugs significantly improved anthropometric, biochemical, and clinical parameters. The M group increased IS more, while LM favored Pβf. M and LM interventions impacted GM composition at the genus level, resembling findings in T2D. However, novel and specific changes in microbial structure were identified at six and 12 months with both drugs, affecting bacterial genera and ASVs.

The LM intervention impacts GM composition at the genus level, similar to effects observed in animal models using other DPP-4is. Qian Zhang et al. demonstrated vildagliptin's ability to increase butyrate-producing bacteria in rats induced to T2D31. Lin Wang et al. explored GM modulation by liraglutide (GLP-1 receptor agonist) and saxagliptin (DPP-4i); they reported increased levels of Lactobacillus, Allobaculum, and Turicibacter in mice treated with saxagliptin, indicating possible increment in incretins and their effect on glucose homeostasis32. Our study results are consistent with an enrichment of butyrate-producing bacteria, including Lactobacillus, Roseburia, Fusicatenibacter, and Blautia. These genera promote peptide production in the ileum, indirectly reducing hepatic expression of proinflammatory cytokines in T2D13,33. Notably, changes in GM composition with each hypoglycemic drug over time differed, particularly in the number of increased SCFA-producing bacteria in each group. Nevertheless, microbial functionality was maintained in each group, a characteristic of GM known as redundancy functions, suggesting species interchangeability within a given microbiota in terms of function34.

Current knowledge has established that metformin reduces GM diversity in diabetic mice fed with a high-fat diet, which increases Akkermansia muciniphila abundance and other SCFA-producing and mucin-degrading genera9. A meta-analysis confirmed the alteration of GM composition by metformin35. In our study, Metformin induces GM changes over time in prediabetes patients, partly differing from T2D evidence. At six months, SCFA-producing bacteria (Fusicatenibacter, Blautia, and [Ruminococcus] gauvreauii) increased, inhibiting enteropathogenic and LPS-producing bacteria (Proteobacteria, Escherichia-Shigella, and Enterococcus). These differences may result from distinct physiopathological deterioration between prediabetes and T2D36.

Interestingly, after a 12-month follow-up, we identified eight abundant SCFA-producing genera: Fusicatenibacter, Atopobiaceae, Coprococcus 1, Lachnospiraceae ND 3007 group, Anaerostipes, Dorea, Lachnospiraceae FCS020 group, and Blautia. Surprisingly, Akkermansia and other mucin-degrading bacteria were not significant in subjects with prediabetes, contrary to T2D reports37–39. However, the reduction in opportunistic pathogens and T2D-associated genera found in the M-treated group for 12 months aligns with worldwide studies23,38. Contrasting both interventions, LM increased bacterial genera, including SCFA producers and opportunistic pathogens, without establishing a clear pattern on the functional redundancy of the GM. Our results suggest that multiple coexisting and taxonomically distinct organisms perform diverse metabolic functions34,40,41 (see Fig. 4). We observed that the increase in SCFA-producing genera mediated the change in GM composition.

SCFA-producing genera are crucial for host health. Butyrate is vital to human insulin sensitivity (IS) through incretins. In a high-fat diet mouse model, butyrate supplementation prevents weight gain and increases IS. Butyrate and propionate induce intestinal gluconeogenesis, improving peripheral glucose production and IS42. GM changes influence the gut metabolome, affecting butyrate and acetate production43, key gut-derived metabolites in insulin resistance (IR) and glycemic control. Increased intestinal gluconeogenesis from these SCFAs in rodents reduces hepatic gluconeogenesis, appetite, and weight, leading to better glucose homeostasis44.

Most studies focus on short-term GM and glucose homeostasis associations. Moreover, the impact of hypoglycemic drugs on GM changes and metabolic improvement remains unclear45. Our findings show low associations (r = 0.1–0.2) between bacterial abundance of specific genera and clinical variables (fasting glucose, postprandial glucose, glucose AUC, HOMA-RI, or Matsuda Index) in diverse populations and study models. However, hypoglycemic drugs affect GM structure, anthropometric (reduced weight, body fat, and waist circumference), biochemical (increased IS and Pβf), and clinical (lower systolic and diastolic blood pressure) parameters, influencing the associations. In our study, hypoglycemic drugs improved clinical indices with a low GM contribution, as previously reported46. Using SEM, we found a strong relationship between BMI (not total adiposity) with IS and Pβf. Metformin and linagliptin effectively reduced weight and fat percentage in overweight and obese insulin-resistant outpatients47. Weight loss was the primary predictor of improved IS, while weight regain predicted reduced IS. Weight loss maintenance programs are crucial for preserving metabolic benefits. Physical activity and a balanced diet increase IS in patients with obesity and T2D48.

On the other hand, the bacterial abundance of SCFA-producing genera weakly explained the changes in IS and Pβf, with an eta squared of 0.01 in both cases, compared to the effects of hypoglycemic drugs and weight loss (See Table S6 and S7). Thus, we conclude that hypoglycemic drugs strongly impact metabolic conditions (IS and secretion) and moderately influence GM's composition. On the other hand, GM has a lower effect on metabolic changes. To reinforce this, we evaluated bacterial genera abundance using a GLMM, adjusting for hypoglycemic drugs, change in IS, and increased Pβf. We found that the shift in metabolic condition modifies the GM's structure.

Recent findings suggest that gut dysbiosis is linked to metabolic diseases like obesity, diabetes, and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease49. These discoveries support the coevolution theory between humans and the GM, profoundly affecting various host responses. It is clear that multiple variables influence glucose metabolism in prediabetes and diabetes prevention, and it cannot be explained by only one factor; in this context, GM seems to play a limited role, which still has to be elucidated in more detail. A limitation of our study is that we only measured GM composition and didn't analyze metabolites or other microbiota functionality measures. Nonetheless, our study provides the first evaluation of the effect of DPP-4 inhibitors on GM composition in humans with prediabetes.

Conclusions

Our study reveals that changes in GM have a low impact in mediating the effect of lifestyle, metformin, and linagliptin/metformin on glucose metabolism, IS, and Pβf in individuals with prediabetes. Despite the observed increase in SCFA-producing bacteria in the GM following these treatments, the SEM suggests a weak association between specific bacterial genera and improvements in IS and Pβf. Therefore, the primary mechanism of metabolic improvement in prediabetic patients is more directly attributable to the pharmacological effects of the hypoglycemic drugs with only a partial modulation of the GM. Future omics studies with long-term follow-up will determine the extent of drugs' hypoglycemic effect via GM modifications and its role in T2D development and progression.

Methods

Trial design and oversight

This study was part of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial [ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT03004612 (22/12/2016)]. Participants were enrolled between August 2018 and December 2019 as part of the PRELLIM project7 (Prevention of diabetes with linagliptin, lifestyle, and metformin). Further details are in the PRELLIM article7.

Participants and intervention procedure

Eligible participants with prediabetes (per ADA criteria) and no prior glycemic medication were randomly assigned to two groups in a 1:1 ratio: (i) Linagliptin + metformin + lifestyle (LM group): patients started on linagliptin/metformin 2.5/850 mg once daily for a month, then increased to twice daily until study end. (ii) Metformin + lifestyle (group M): patients began with 850 mg metformin once daily, then increased to twice daily. Identical envelopes contained metformin 850 mg and linagliptin/metformin 2.5/850 mg. Both groups received the same lifestyle program. Monthly follow-up visits assessed adherence and side effects and included nutritional evaluation. OGTTs were done at baseline, six, and 12 months. Primary outcomes were changes in the GM composition; Glucose levels, insulin resistance, and pancreatic β-cell function were secondary outcomes7.

The detailed inclusion criteria

167 patients were screened with anthropometric, nutritional, biochemical, and metabolic evaluation, including oral glucose tolerance test and hyperglycemic clamp at the Metabolic Research Laboratory, Hospital Regional de Alta Especialidad del Bajío. Patients were eligible for enrollment in the study based on the following criteria: (i) IGT (two h glucose levels 140–199 mg/dL) during oral glucose tolerance test, ± IFG (fasting glucose 100–125 mg/dL); (ii) age 18–65 years; (iii) ≥ 2 T2D risk factors per ADA50.

Exclusion criteria: (i) glucose-affecting treatments in past three months; (ii) glucose/metabolism-related conditions; (iii) recent use of antibiotics, proton pump inhibitors, or pharmaceutical-grade probiotics; (iv) fasting plasma triglycerides > 400 mg/dL; (v) pregnancy; (vi) systolic blood pressure > 180 mm Hg or diastolic > 105 mm Hg; (vii) glucose homeostasis-affecting meds/conditions (e.g., thiazides, beta-blockers, glucocorticoids, weight-reducing drugs, Cushing's syndrome, thyrotoxicosis).

To carry out this research, the ethical standards, the Regulations of the General Health Law on Research for Health, and the Declaration of Helsinki of the World Medical Association of the 52nd General Assembly, Edinburgh, Scotland, October 2000 have been considered with clarification note on paragraph 29 added by the General Assembly, Washington 2002 and current international codes and standards of good clinical research practice. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants before enrollment in this study. The Research and Ethical Committee approved the study at the Hospital Regional de Alta Especialidad del Bajío (CI-HRAEB-2017-048 and CEI-22-16 extension), registered with the Mexico Secretary of Health.

Anthropometric measures

Weight and body composition were assessed via the Tanita SC-240 Scale: Monthly weight recording and bioimpedance every six months in fasting conditions. Total body fat was measured in %, and visceral fat was measured in arbitrary units7.

Oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT)

Subjects arrived at the University of Guanajuato's Metabolic Research Laboratory between 7 and 8 a.m., fasting. An intravenous catheter was placed, and the first blood sample was drawn. Next, they ingested 75 g of glucose. Serum samples for glucose and insulin measurement were drawn at − 15 and 0 min and every 30 min afterward for two hours, with 4 ml of blood taken each time7.

Measurements

Glucose was measured with Analox glucoanalyzer GM9 and colorimetric glucose oxidase (Vitros 5600; Ortho Clinical Diagnostics). Lipid levels were measured by dry chemistry with colorimetric method (Vitros 5600; Ortho Clinical Diagnostics). Insulin (μU/ml) and C-peptide (ng/ml) were measured by chemiluminescent immunometric assay (IMMULITE 2000 Immunoassay system, Siemens). HbA1c was determined using high-performance liquid chromatography with DS-5 Analyzer (Drew Scientific, Inc. Miami, FL, USA). Personnel performing measurements were blinded to treatment allocation7.

Calculations

OGTT measurements: Incremental and AUC calculated via trapezoidal rule. Insulin secretion derived from AUCinsulin0_120 (μU/ml) divided by AUCglucose0_120 (mg/dl) during OGTT. Pβf measurements obtained: (i) AIR calculated as insulin change (μU/ml) from 0 to 30 min divided by glucose change (mg/dl) from 0 to 30 min during OGTT; (ii) IS/IR index (DI) during OGTT calculated as (AUCinsulin0_120 (μU/ml)/AUCglucose0_120 (mg/dl))*Matsuda index and (IncAUCinsulin0_120 (μU/ml)/IncAUCglucose0_120 (mg/dl))*Matsuda index; (iii) Oral disposition index calculated as the product of AIR and 1/fasting insulin (μU/ml). Insulin sensitivity during OGTT calculated with Matsuda index (10,000 √[(Glucosefasting (mg/dl) insulinfasting (μU/ml)) × (Glucosemean × Insulinmean)]) and fasting with homeostasis model assessment (HOMA-IR = fasting insulin (μU/ml) × fasting glucose (mg/dl)/405)51.

Randomization and masking

Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive a fixed combination of linagliptin/metformin 2.5/850 mg every 12 h + lifestyle modification program or metformin pills of 850 mg every 12 h + lifestyle modification program. Randomization was performed by a nutritionist who was not involved in the patient's follow-up using an electronic random numbers assignment system. Participants and investigators involved in the patient’s follow-up and outcome measurements were masked to treatment allocation during the entire study using identical envelopes for pills7.

Interventions

(i) Linagliptin + metformin + lifestyle (LM group): Patients allocated to this group started fixed combination pills of linagliptin/metformin 2.5/850 mg once daily during the first month, and after that, the dose was increased to 2.5/850 mg twice daily until the end of the study. (ii) Metformin + lifestyle (M group): Patients in this group started taking metformin pills of 850 mg once daily during the first month and increased to 850 mg twice daily until the end of the study. Pills of metformin 850 mg and linagliptin/metformin 2.5/850 mg were prepared using identical envelopes. Both groups received the same lifestyle implementation program based on a prescribed diet to reduce their body weight by at least 5–7%, adjusting their energy requirements based on their weight, and composed from 55 to 60% of carbohydrates, 25–30% fat, and 10–15% proteins. Patients were advised to start with 45 min/week of mild-moderate exercise and increase the duration and frequency or intensity of exercise every two weeks until reaching 150 min/week of moderate activity or 75 min/week of intense activity7.

Fecal sample collection and processing protocol

Fecal samples from intervention and control groups were collected in sterile containers at zero, six, and twelve months. Samples were homogenized and stored at  − 80 °C in sterile 1 ml screw-cap tubes before DNA extraction. DNA extraction and 16S rRNA Gene Amplification and sequencing protocol are shown in supplementary material protocol S123.

Processing of 16S sequencing data

Demultiplexed MiSeq FASTQ files were analyzed in QIIME2 using the DADA2 workflow. High read quality is ensured by filtering and trimming reads before processing. The first 5′ 10 bp of all reads were trimmed, and reads truncated on 3' to max 240 and 200 bp for forward and reverse reads, respectively, due to quality dip. Reads with > 2 expected errors under Illumina base model removed. Filtered and trimmed reads are grouped by sequencing run, and the error model fits separately for each run using DADA2 default parameters. Sequence variants were obtained for each run separately using calculated error models and dereplicated input sequences. Sequence variants and counts joined across all runs in the complete sequence table, and de novo chimera removal runs on the entire table23.

The final sequence variants taxonomy was assigned to DADA2's RDP classifier using the SILVA database (version 132). Species are identified separately via exact sequence matches (SILVA version 132). Joined with clinical metadata and saved as a phyloseq object for downstream analyses23.

Taxonomic and ecological analysis

A Phyloseq object was used to calculate alpha diversity indexes (i.e., Chao 1, Simpson, Shannon, and Pielou indexes) and β diversity index (Jaccard), computed by R Phyloseq library 1.34.052.

Supervised machine-learning: explainability analysis approach

To identify bacterial genera associated with different treatments (LM and M), we used the Random Forest algorithm, an ensemble method based on uncorrelated decision trees using the bagging technique. We compared various algorithms (decision tree, logistic regression, naive Bayes, and XGBoost) and selected Random Forest for its predictive performance and interpretability with SHAP values. Python3 (version 3.9.7) with the software library was used for calculations. We labeled data count matrices for M and LM-treated patients as 0 and 1, respectively. 75% of the samples were randomly chosen as the training dataset and the rest as the test dataset. To validate, the Random Forest model was built and evaluated with K-fold cross-validation (n_split = 5) to ensure independent results (Figueroa et al., 2012; Mentch and Hooker, 2016). This involved dividing the data into five equal proportions, using four for training and one for testing each run. Model performance was assessed with the AUC of ROC curves (see Table S5).

Random Forest classifiers that support the (place which) in the main text are reported in the machine learning section at https://github.com/resendislab/Microbiome_two_treatments_Metformine-Linagliptine.

Moreover, we assess the relevance of bacterial genera with Shap values (Shapley additive explanations) using TreeExplainer for the Random Forest algorithm53. Shap values use a game-theoretic approach for the best model interpretation and explanation.

Finally, we pairwise compared baseline groups vs both treatments (M and LM) and treatments (M vs LM) at 6 and 12 months of follow-up. SHAP values were used to explore the relevance of the classification process for each genus, quantifying its contribution to classification53. Microbiota data faces challenges of technical noise, zero-inflated abundance distribution, and high-dimensionality54. However, the random forest model effectively classifies and analyzes microbiome data under these conditions55. AUC-ROC was 0.79 and 0.74 for the basal vs M group at 6 and 12 months, respectively, indicating successful training and test data set selection.

Statistical analyses for 16S metagenomics and their correlations with clinical parameters

Statistical analyses for clinical parameters

We estimated the required sample size to observe an effect on GM changes among the treated groups. Briefly, the sample size for this study was determined both a priori and a posteriori using different analytical approaches. In the a priori analysis, we employed an ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) with repeated measures, factoring in two effective groups and three time-point measurements. We aimed for an effect size of 0.25 and set the β error (Type II error) at 20%. This calculation indicated a required sample size of 48 patients. To account for potential dropouts and ensure robustness in our data, we increased this number by 20%, including 167 subjects. For a posteriori analysis, our approach differed slightly. We utilized an ANOVA without repeated measures and considered three effective groups. The effect size was set at 0.01 (eta squared). Under these parameters, the power of our sample was calculated to be 75%. Primary analysis: GM composition change and its relation to IR and insulin secretion in prediabetes patients. The effect of hypoglycemic drugs on IS and β-cells function is analyzed at two levels: (1) changes over follow-up months, and (2) considering drugs and follow-up months. The student's t-test for the first level included independent contrast between basal and 6/12-month groups and dependent contrast between 6 to 12-month subjects. Cohen's d (C-d) and 100-repetition bootstrap 95% confidence intervals were calculated as standardized effect sizes. For the second level, one-way ANOVA was performed, comparing means of clinical parameters for three treatment groups and follow-up months. Two-way ANOVA examined the Time X Treatment impact, and Scheffe's post-hoc was used to identify differences between groups. Logarithmic transformation (base 10) for quantitative variables normalization with bias, and Van der Wader transformation for bacterial abundances.

After machine learning analysis identifying bacteria classifying each group by hypoglycemic drugs and follow-up months, GLMM was performed with IS indices and Pβf as dependent variables. Fixed factors included study group, follow-up month, sex, age, bacteria genera used for classification (Random Forest), and anthropometric parameters (BMI, weight, % body fat, waist circumference). Random factors were stool samples of study subjects. Eta-squared and 95% confidence intervals were calculated with 100 repetitions bootstrap. Interactions (bacteria X Treatment, Bacteria X Time, and Treatment X Time) evaluated. For bidirectional effect, models are executed with diversity and microbial abundance as dependent variables, including study groups, sex, age, IS and Pβf indices, or anthropometric parameters (BMI, weight, % body fat, waist circumference) as fixed factors. Bacteria with significance in both models were considered for subsequent statistical and structural equation modeling (SEM) analysis. Statistical analysis used Stata/SE 16.0, IBM-SPSS version 25, and RStudio version 4.1.1.

Statistical analysis of 16S metagenomics and its relationship with clinical parameters

To establish GM composition's relationship with IR and insulin secretion in prediabetes patients on hypoglycemic drugs, hierarchical linear regression, GLMM, and structural equation modeling tests were performed. Van der Wader transformation was applied to each bacterial genus for the tests. Statistical analysis was done using Stata/SE 16.0, IBM-SPSS version 25, and RStudio version 4.1.1.

Linear regression was used with IS indices and Pβf as dependent variables. Initially, regression models estimated treatment and follow-up months (by subject) as the main effects and interactions. Subsequently, models were estimated by visiting, sex, and age. Residuals and effect size estimated for each.

The structural equation model (SEM) was used to mediate between BMI, bacterial abundance, significant components, insulin secretion, and IS indices. Coefficients are estimated by a robust method.

Mixed models were used to study hypoglycemic drugs and the effects of new metabolic conditions on bacterial genera. GLMM (Tweedie distribution) was used, with bacterial genera as the dependent variable and hypoglycemic drugs as the independent variable. The model was adjusted for gender, age, BMI, and Matsuda index or Pβf. A stool sample is used as a random effect to consider the within-patient correlation with repeated measures.

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Information 1.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1038/s41598-024-60081-y.

Acknowledgements

YEM-L is a doctoral student. This paper is part of the requirements to obtain the degree of Doctor in Science program in Ciencias Médicas, Odontológicas y de la Salud by Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM) and received CONACyT fellowship 629384. DN-R is a student from the Master in Sciences program in Ciencias Bioquímicas, UNAM, and received a CONACyT fellowship to CVU 1083211. DAE-H is a postdoctoral research associate at INMEGEN and received a CONACyT fellowship to CVU 420693. JPS-C is a student from the Master in Sciences program in Ciencias Bioquímicas, UNAM, and received a CONACyT fellowship to CVU 1005702. CP-M is a doctoral student from the Doctor in Science program in Ciencias Biomédicas, UNAM, and received CONACyT fellowship 855825. We thank all the patients, technical personnel, and students from the Metabolic Research Laboratory at the University of Guanajuato who participated in this study.

Author contributions

Y.E.M.-L., D.G.-.V., C.M.-O., D.A.E.-H., A.V.-J., J.P.S.-C., R.G.-M., M.L.E.-V., A.A.-G. and O.R.-A. supervised the findings. Y.E.M.-L., D.N.-R., R.G.-M., C.P.-M., and O.R.-A. contributed to data collection, extraction, and analysis. R.G.-M. and O.R.-A. made critical contributions and final approval of the manuscript. Y.E.M.-L. and D.N.-R. performed the statistical analysis and, with D.A.E.-H. developed the theory. Y.E.M.-L. and M.R.-E. extracted the samples. All authors discussed the results and contributed to the final manuscript.

Funding

The authors thank CONACYT (Grant Ciencia de Frontera 2019, FORDECYT-PRONACES/425859/2020), PAPIIT-UNAM (425859 & IN213824), and an internal grant from the National Institute of Genomic Medicine (INMEGEN, México) for their financial support. Hospital Regional de Alta Especialidad del Bajio (CEI-22-16) and the University of Guanajuato, Mexico (1098/2016) also supported this study.

Data availability

The GM datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are available in the NCBI repository, [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bioproject/1019716], from the corresponding author, Osbaldo Resendis-Antonio (oresendis047@gmail.com), for gut microbiota data. The clinical datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author, Dr. Rodolfo Guardado-Mendoza (guardamen@gmail.com), upon reasonable request.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

The original online version of this Article was revised: In the original version of this Article the authors’ given names and surnames were reversed.

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Change history

9/10/2024

A Correction to this paper has been published: 10.1038/s41598-024-72292-4
==== Refs
References

1. Wu H The gut microbiota in prediabetes and diabetes: A population-based cross-sectional study Cell Metab. 2020 32 379 390.e3 10.1016/j.cmet.2020.06.011 32652044
Wu, H. et al. The gut microbiota in prediabetes and diabetes: A population-based cross-sectional study. Cell Metab. 32, 379-390.e3 (2020).32652044 10.1016/j.cmet.2020.06.011
2. Tabák AG Herder C Rathmann W Brunner EJ Kivimäki M Prediabetes: A high-risk state for diabetes development The Lancet 2012 379 2279 2290 10.1016/s0140-6736(12)60283-9
Tabák, A. G., Herder, C., Rathmann, W., Brunner, E. J. & Kivimäki, M. Prediabetes: A high-risk state for diabetes development. The Lancet 379, 2279–2290. 10.1016/s0140-6736(12)60283-9 (2012).10.1016/s0140-6736(12)60283-9
3. Cerf ME Beta cell dysfunction and insulin resistance Front. Endocrinol. 2013 10.3389/fendo.2013.00037
Cerf, M. E. Beta cell dysfunction and insulin resistance. Front. Endocrinol.10.3389/fendo.2013.00037 (2013).10.3389/fendo.2013.00037
4. Glechner A Effects of lifestyle changes on adults with prediabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis Prim. Care Diabetes 2018 12 393 408 10.1016/j.pcd.2018.07.003 30076075
Glechner, A. et al. Effects of lifestyle changes on adults with prediabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Prim. Care Diabetes 12, 393–408 (2018).30076075 10.1016/j.pcd.2018.07.003
5. Shubrook JH Chen W Lim A Evidence for the prevention of type 2 diabetes mellitus Int. J. Osteopath. Med. 2018 118 730 737 10.7556/jaoa.2018.158
Shubrook, J. H., Chen, W. & Lim, A. Evidence for the prevention of type 2 diabetes mellitus. Int. J. Osteopath. Med. 118, 730–737 (2018).10.7556/jaoa.2018.158
6. Fonseca VA Identification and treatment of prediabetes to prevent progression to type 2 diabetes Clin. Cornerstone 2007 8 10 8 10.1016/S1098-3597(09)60004-1 18357952
Fonseca, V. A. Identification and treatment of prediabetes to prevent progression to type 2 diabetes. Clin. Cornerstone 8, 10–8 (2007).18357952 10.1016/S1098-3597(09)60004-1
7. Guardado-Mendoza R The combination of linagliptin, metformin and lifestyle modification to prevent type 2 diabetes (PRELLIM). A randomized clinical trial Metabolism 2020 104 154054 10.1016/j.metabol.2019.154054 31887309
Guardado-Mendoza, R. et al. The combination of linagliptin, metformin and lifestyle modification to prevent type 2 diabetes (PRELLIM). A randomized clinical trial. Metabolism 104, 154054 (2020).31887309 10.1016/j.metabol.2019.154054
8. Liao X Alteration of gut microbiota induced by DPP-4i treatment improves glucose homeostasis EBioMedicine 2019 44 665 674 10.1016/j.ebiom.2019.03.057 30922964
Liao, X. et al. Alteration of gut microbiota induced by DPP-4i treatment improves glucose homeostasis. EBioMedicine 44, 665–674 (2019).30922964 10.1016/j.ebiom.2019.03.057
9. Lee CB Chae SU Jo SJ Jerng UM Bae SK The relationship between the gut microbiome and metformin as a key for treating type 2 diabetes mellitus Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021 22 3566 10.3390/ijms22073566 33808194
Lee, C. B., Chae, S. U., Jo, S. J., Jerng, U. M. & Bae, S. K. The relationship between the gut microbiome and metformin as a key for treating type 2 diabetes mellitus. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 22, 3566 (2021).33808194 10.3390/ijms22073566
10. Olivares M The Potential role of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4-like activity from the gut microbiota on the host health Front. Microbiol. 2018 9 1900 10.3389/fmicb.2018.01900 30186247
Olivares, M. et al. The Potential role of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4-like activity from the gut microbiota on the host health. Front. Microbiol. 9, 1900 (2018).30186247 10.3389/fmicb.2018.01900
11. Díaz-Perdigones CM Muñoz-Garach A Álvarez-Bermúdez MD Moreno-Indias I Tinahones FJ Gut microbiota of patients with type 2 diabetes and gastrointestinal intolerance to metformin differs in composition and functionality from tolerant patients Biomed. Pharmacother. 2022 145 112448 10.1016/j.biopha.2021.112448 34844104
Díaz-Perdigones, C. M., Muñoz-Garach, A., Álvarez-Bermúdez, M. D., Moreno-Indias, I. & Tinahones, F. J. Gut microbiota of patients with type 2 diabetes and gastrointestinal intolerance to metformin differs in composition and functionality from tolerant patients. Biomed. Pharmacother. 145, 112448 (2022).34844104 10.1016/j.biopha.2021.112448
12. Smits MM Liraglutide and sitagliptin have no effect on intestinal microbiota composition: A 12-week randomized placebo-controlled trial in adults with type 2 diabetes Diabetes Metab. 2021 47 101223 10.1016/j.diabet.2021.101223 33429063
Smits, M. M. et al. Liraglutide and sitagliptin have no effect on intestinal microbiota composition: A 12-week randomized placebo-controlled trial in adults with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Metab. 47, 101223 (2021).33429063 10.1016/j.diabet.2021.101223
13. Iatcu CO Steen A Covasa M Gut Microbiota and Complications of Type-2 Diabetes Nutrients 2021 14 166 10.3390/nu14010166 35011044
Iatcu, C. O., Steen, A. & Covasa, M. Gut Microbiota and Complications of Type-2 Diabetes. Nutrients 14, 166 (2021).35011044 10.3390/nu14010166
14. Baker C Should metformin remain the first-line therapy for treatment of type 2 diabetes? Ther. Adv. Endocrinol. Metab. 2021 12 2042018820980225 10.1177/2042018820980225 33489086
Baker, C. et al. Should metformin remain the first-line therapy for treatment of type 2 diabetes?. Ther. Adv. Endocrinol. Metab. 12, 2042018820980225 (2021).33489086 10.1177/2042018820980225
15. Shin N-R An increase in the Akkermansia spp. Population induced by metformin treatment improves glucose homeostasis in diet-induced obese mice Gut 2014 63 727 735 10.1136/gutjnl-2012-303839 23804561
Shin, N.-R. et al. An increase in the Akkermansia spp. Population induced by metformin treatment improves glucose homeostasis in diet-induced obese mice. Gut 63, 727–735 (2014).23804561 10.1136/gutjnl-2012-303839
16. Alvarez-Canales MFL Effect of linagliptin on glucose metabolism and pancreatic beta cell function in patients with persistent prediabetes after metformin and lifestyle Sci. Rep. 2021 10.1038/s41598-021-88108-8 33888772
Alvarez-Canales, M. F. L. et al. Effect of linagliptin on glucose metabolism and pancreatic beta cell function in patients with persistent prediabetes after metformin and lifestyle. Sci. Rep.10.1038/s41598-021-88108-8 (2021).33888772 10.1038/s41598-021-88108-8
17. Deacon CF Incretin-based treatment of type 2 diabetes: Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors Diabetes Obes. Metab. 2007 9 Suppl 1 23 31 10.1111/j.1463-1326.2007.00765.x 17877544
Deacon, C. F. Incretin-based treatment of type 2 diabetes: Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors. Diabetes Obes. Metab. 9(Suppl 1), 23–31 (2007).17877544 10.1111/j.1463-1326.2007.00765.x
18. Singh AK Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors: Novel mechanism of actions Indian J. Endocrinol. Metab. 2014 18 753 759 10.4103/2230-8210.141319 25364668
Singh, A. K. Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors: Novel mechanism of actions. Indian J. Endocrinol. Metab. 18, 753–759 (2014).25364668 10.4103/2230-8210.141319
19. Caporaso JG QIIME allows analysis of high-throughput community sequencing data Nat. Methods 2010 7 335 336 10.1038/nmeth.f.303 20383131
Caporaso, J. G. et al. QIIME allows analysis of high-throughput community sequencing data. Nat. Methods 7, 335–336 (2010).20383131 10.1038/nmeth.f.303
20. McMurdie PJ Holmes S Shiny-phyloseq: Web application for interactive microbiome analysis with provenance tracking Bioinformatics 2015 31 282 283 10.1093/bioinformatics/btu616 25262154
McMurdie, P. J. & Holmes, S. Shiny-phyloseq: Web application for interactive microbiome analysis with provenance tracking. Bioinformatics 31, 282–283 (2015).25262154 10.1093/bioinformatics/btu616
21. Breiman L Random forests Mach. Learn. 2001 45 5 32 10.1023/A:1010933404324
Breiman, L. Random forests. Mach. Learn. 45, 5–32 (2001).10.1023/A:1010933404324
22. Saleem A Unique Pakistani gut microbiota highlights population-specific microbiota signatures of type 2 diabetes mellitus Biorxiv. 2022 10.1101/2022.06.23.497392
Saleem, A. et al. Unique Pakistani gut microbiota highlights population-specific microbiota signatures of type 2 diabetes mellitus. Biorxiv.10.1101/2022.06.23.497392 (2022).10.1101/2022.06.23.497392
23. Diener C Progressive shifts in the gut microbiome reflect prediabetes and diabetes development in a treatment-naive mexican cohort Front. Endocrinol. 2021 8 11 602326 10.3389/fendo.2020.602326
Diener, C. et al. Progressive shifts in the gut microbiome reflect prediabetes and diabetes development in a treatment-naive mexican cohort. Front. Endocrinol. 8(11), 602326. 10.3389/fendo.2020.602326 (2021).10.3389/fendo.2020.602326
24. Udayappan S Oral treatment with Eubacterium hallii improves insulin sensitivity in db/db mice Npj Biofilms Microbiomes 2016 10.1038/npjbiofilms.2016.9 28721246
Udayappan, S. et al. Oral treatment with Eubacterium hallii improves insulin sensitivity in db/db mice. Npj Biofilms Microbiomes10.1038/npjbiofilms.2016.9 (2016).28721246 10.1038/npjbiofilms.2016.9
25. Gurung M Role of gut microbiota in type 2 diabetes pathophysiology EBioMedicine 2020 51 102590 10.1016/j.ebiom.2019.11.051 31901868
Gurung, M. et al. Role of gut microbiota in type 2 diabetes pathophysiology. EBioMedicine 51, 102590 (2020).31901868 10.1016/j.ebiom.2019.11.051
26. Zhang Q Hu N Effects of metformin on the gut microbiota in obesity and type 2 diabetes mellitus Diabetes Metab. Syndr. Obes. 2020 13 5003 5014 10.2147/DMSO.S286430 33364804
Zhang, Q. & Hu, N. Effects of metformin on the gut microbiota in obesity and type 2 diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Metab. Syndr. Obes. 13, 5003–5014 (2020).33364804 10.2147/DMSO.S286430
27. Almeida A A new genomic blueprint of the human gut microbiota Nature 2019 568 499 504 10.1038/s41586-019-0965-1 30745586
Almeida, A. et al. A new genomic blueprint of the human gut microbiota. Nature 568, 499–504 (2019).30745586 10.1038/s41586-019-0965-1
28. Gibbons SM Publisher Correction: Keystone taxa indispensable for microbiome recovery Nat. Microbiol. 2020 5 1307 10.1038/s41564-020-00792-w 32879463
Gibbons, S. M. Publisher Correction: Keystone taxa indispensable for microbiome recovery. Nat. Microbiol. 5, 1307 (2020).32879463 10.1038/s41564-020-00792-w
29. Tudela H Claus SP Saleh M Next generation microbiome research: Identification of keystone species in the metabolic regulation of host-gut microbiota interplay Front. Cell Dev. Biol. 2021 9 719072 10.3389/fcell.2021.719072 34540837
Tudela, H., Claus, S. P. & Saleh, M. Next generation microbiome research: Identification of keystone species in the metabolic regulation of host-gut microbiota interplay. Front. Cell Dev. Biol. 9, 719072 (2021).34540837 10.3389/fcell.2021.719072
30. Schwiertz, A. Microbiota of the Human Body: Implications in Health and Disease (Springer 2016).
31. Zhang Q Vildagliptin increases butyrate-producing bacteria in the gut of diabetic rats PLoS ONE 2017 12 e0184735 10.1371/journal.pone.0184735 29036231
Zhang, Q. et al. Vildagliptin increases butyrate-producing bacteria in the gut of diabetic rats. PLoS ONE 12, e0184735 (2017).29036231 10.1371/journal.pone.0184735
32. Wang L Li P Tang Z Yan X Feng B Structural modulation of the gut microbiota and the relationship with body weight: Compared evaluation of liraglutide and saxagliptin treatment Sci. Rep. 2016 6 33251 10.1038/srep33251 27633081
Wang, L., Li, P., Tang, Z., Yan, X. & Feng, B. Structural modulation of the gut microbiota and the relationship with body weight: Compared evaluation of liraglutide and saxagliptin treatment. Sci. Rep. 6, 33251 (2016).27633081 10.1038/srep33251
33. Zhu L-B Zhang Y-C Huang H-H Lin J Prospects for clinical applications of butyrate-producing bacteria World J. Clin. Pediatr. 2021 10 84 92 10.5409/wjcp.v10.i5.84 34616650
Zhu, L.-B., Zhang, Y.-C., Huang, H.-H. & Lin, J. Prospects for clinical applications of butyrate-producing bacteria. World J. Clin. Pediatr. 10, 84–92 (2021).34616650 10.5409/wjcp.v10.i5.84
34. Moya A Ferrer M Functional redundancy-induced stability of gut microbiota subjected to disturbance Trends Microbiol. 2016 24 402 413 10.1016/j.tim.2016.02.002 26996765
Moya, A. & Ferrer, M. Functional redundancy-induced stability of gut microbiota subjected to disturbance. Trends Microbiol. 24, 402–413 (2016).26996765 10.1016/j.tim.2016.02.002
35. Induri SNR The gut microbiome, metformin, and aging Annu. Rev. Pharmacol. Toxicol. 2022 62 85 108 10.1146/annurev-pharmtox-051920-093829 34449247
Induri, S. N. R. et al. The gut microbiome, metformin, and aging. Annu. Rev. Pharmacol. Toxicol. 62, 85–108 (2022).34449247 10.1146/annurev-pharmtox-051920-093829
36. Mueller NT Metformin affects gut microbiome composition and function and circulating short-chain fatty acids: A randomized trial Diabetes Care 2021 44 1462 1471 10.2337/dc20-2257 34006565
Mueller, N. T. et al. Metformin affects gut microbiome composition and function and circulating short-chain fatty acids: A randomized trial. Diabetes Care 44, 1462–1471 (2021).34006565 10.2337/dc20-2257
37. Kim CH Microbiota or short-chain fatty acids: Which regulates diabetes? Cell. Mol. Immunol. 2018 15 88 91 10.1038/cmi.2017.57 28713163
Kim, C. H. Microbiota or short-chain fatty acids: Which regulates diabetes?. Cell. Mol. Immunol. 15, 88–91. 10.1038/cmi.2017.57 (2018).28713163 10.1038/cmi.2017.57
38. Rodriguez J Hiel S Delzenne NM Metformin: Old friend, new ways of action-implication of the gut microbiome? Curr. Opin. Clin. Nutr. Metab. Care 2018 21 294 301 10.1097/MCO.0000000000000468 29634493
Rodriguez, J., Hiel, S. & Delzenne, N. M. Metformin: Old friend, new ways of action-implication of the gut microbiome?. Curr. Opin. Clin. Nutr. Metab. Care 21, 294–301 (2018).29634493 10.1097/MCO.0000000000000468
39. van der Ark KCH Model-driven design of a minimal medium for Akkermansia muciniphila confirms mucus adaptation Microb. Biotechnol. 2018 11 476 485 10.1111/1751-7915.13033 29377524
van der Ark, K. C. H. et al. Model-driven design of a minimal medium for Akkermansia muciniphila confirms mucus adaptation. Microb. Biotechnol. 11, 476–485 (2018).29377524 10.1111/1751-7915.13033
40. Le Moigne A Randegger F Gupta A Petchey OL Pernthaler J Stochasticity causes high β-diversity and functional divergence of bacterial assemblages in closed systems Ecology 2023 104 e4005 10.1002/ecy.4005 36807130
Le Moigne, A., Randegger, F., Gupta, A., Petchey, O. L. & Pernthaler, J. Stochasticity causes high β-diversity and functional divergence of bacterial assemblages in closed systems. Ecology 104, e4005 (2023).36807130 10.1002/ecy.4005
41. Vieira-Silva S Species-function relationships shape ecological properties of the human gut microbiome Nat. Microbiol. 2016 1 16088 10.1038/nmicrobiol.2016.88 27573110
Vieira-Silva, S. et al. Species-function relationships shape ecological properties of the human gut microbiome. Nat. Microbiol. 1, 16088 (2016).27573110 10.1038/nmicrobiol.2016.88
42. Martínez-López YE Type 2 diabetes, gut microbiome, and systems biology: A novel perspective for a new era Gut Microbes 2022 14 2111952 10.1080/19490976.2022.2111952 36004400
Martínez-López, Y. E. et al. Type 2 diabetes, gut microbiome, and systems biology: A novel perspective for a new era. Gut Microbes 14, 2111952 (2022).36004400 10.1080/19490976.2022.2111952
43. Salamone D Rivellese AA Vetrani C The relationship between gut microbiota, short-chain fatty acids and type 2 diabetes mellitus: The possible role of dietary fibre Acta Diabetol. 2021 58 1131 1138 10.1007/s00592-021-01727-5 33970303
Salamone, D., Rivellese, A. A. & Vetrani, C. The relationship between gut microbiota, short-chain fatty acids and type 2 diabetes mellitus: The possible role of dietary fibre. Acta Diabetol. 58, 1131–1138 (2021).33970303 10.1007/s00592-021-01727-5
44. Bastos RMC Rangel ÉB Gut microbiota-derived metabolites are novel targets for improving insulin resistance World J. Diabetes 2022 13 65 69 10.4239/wjd.v13.i1.65 35070060
Bastos, R. M. C. & Rangel, É. B. Gut microbiota-derived metabolites are novel targets for improving insulin resistance. World J. Diabetes 13, 65–69 (2022).35070060 10.4239/wjd.v13.i1.65
45. Lee H Ko G Effect of metformin on metabolic improvement and gut microbiota Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2014 80 5935 5943 10.1128/AEM.01357-14 25038099
Lee, H. & Ko, G. Effect of metformin on metabolic improvement and gut microbiota. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 80, 5935–5943 (2014).25038099 10.1128/AEM.01357-14
46. Haak T Combination of Linagliptin and Metformin for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes Clin. Med. Insights 2015 10.4137/cmed.s10360
Haak, T. Combination of Linagliptin and Metformin for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes. Clin. Med. Insights10.4137/cmed.s10360 (2015).10.4137/cmed.s10360
47. Seifarth C Schehler B Schneider HJ Effectiveness of metformin on weight loss in non-diabetic individuals with obesity Exp. Clin. Endocrinol. Diabetes 2013 121 27 31 23147210
Seifarth, C., Schehler, B. & Schneider, H. J. Effectiveness of metformin on weight loss in non-diabetic individuals with obesity. Exp. Clin. Endocrinol. Diabetes 121, 27–31 (2013).23147210
48. Clamp LD Hume DJ Lambert EV Kroff J Enhanced insulin sensitivity in successful, long-term weight loss maintainers compared with matched controls with no weight loss history Nutr. Diabetes 2017 7 e282 10.1038/nutd.2017.31 28628125
Clamp, L. D., Hume, D. J., Lambert, E. V. & Kroff, J. Enhanced insulin sensitivity in successful, long-term weight loss maintainers compared with matched controls with no weight loss history. Nutr. Diabetes 7, e282 (2017).28628125 10.1038/nutd.2017.31
49. Martin AM Sun EW Rogers GB Keating DJ The influence of the gut microbiome on host metabolism through the regulation of gut hormone release Front. Physiol. 2019 10 428 10.3389/fphys.2019.00428 31057420
Martin, A. M., Sun, E. W., Rogers, G. B. & Keating, D. J. The influence of the gut microbiome on host metabolism through the regulation of gut hormone release. Front. Physiol. 10, 428 (2019).31057420 10.3389/fphys.2019.00428
50. American Diabetes Association Standards of medical care in diabetes—2022 abridged for primary care providers Clin. Diabetes 2022 40 10 38 10.2337/cd22-as01 35221470
American Diabetes Association. Standards of medical care in diabetes—2022 abridged for primary care providers. Clin. Diabetes 40, 10–38. 10.2337/cd22-as01 (2022).35221470 10.2337/cd22-as01
51. Abdul-Ghani MA Jenkinson CP Richardson DK Tripathy D DeFronzo RA Insulin secretion and action in subjects with impaired fasting glucose and impaired glucose tolerance: Results from the Veterans Administration Genetic Epidemiology Study Diabetes 2006 55 1430 1435 10.2337/db05-1200 16644701
Abdul-Ghani, M. A., Jenkinson, C. P., Richardson, D. K., Tripathy, D. & DeFronzo, R. A. Insulin secretion and action in subjects with impaired fasting glucose and impaired glucose tolerance: Results from the Veterans Administration Genetic Epidemiology Study. Diabetes 55, 1430–1435 (2006).16644701 10.2337/db05-1200
52. McMurdie PJ Holmes S phyloseq: An R package for reproducible interactive analysis and graphics of microbiome census data PLoS ONE 2013 8 e61217 10.1371/journal.pone.0061217 23630581
McMurdie, P. J. & Holmes, S. phyloseq: An R package for reproducible interactive analysis and graphics of microbiome census data. PLoS ONE 8, e61217. 10.1371/journal.pone.0061217 (2013).23630581 10.1371/journal.pone.0061217
53. Lundberg SM From local explanations to global understanding with explainable AI for trees Nat. Mach. Intell. 2020 2 56 67 10.1038/s42256-019-0138-9 32607472
Lundberg, S. M. et al. From local explanations to global understanding with explainable AI for trees. Nat. Mach. Intell. 2, 56–67 (2020).32607472 10.1038/s42256-019-0138-9
54. Padron-Manrique C mb-PHENIX: Diffusion and supervised uniform manifold approximation for denoising microbiota data Bioinformatics 2022 10.1101/2022.06.23.497285
Padron-Manrique, C. et al. mb-PHENIX: Diffusion and supervised uniform manifold approximation for denoising microbiota data. Bioinformatics10.1101/2022.06.23.497285 (2022).10.1101/2022.06.23.497285
55. Statnikov A A comprehensive evaluation of multicategory classification methods for microbiomic data Microbiome 2013 1 11 10.1186/2049-2618-1-11 24456583
Statnikov, A. et al. A comprehensive evaluation of multicategory classification methods for microbiomic data. Microbiome 1, 11 (2013).24456583 10.1186/2049-2618-1-11
