What this is
- This research investigates the interplay between () and () in females.
- It utilizes a multi-omics approach, integrating clinical, neuroimaging, and gut microbiome data to identify unique signatures.
- Findings reveal that high are linked to worsened mental health and distinct microbiota profiles in patients.
Essence
- High in female patients correlate with increased psychological distress and specific gut microbiota alterations, impacting health outcomes.
Key takeaways
- patients with high report worse psychological symptoms compared to healthy controls, including increased anxiety and depression.
- Distinct gut microbiota profiles are observed in patients with high , indicating a link between early life stress and microbial dysbiosis.
- The predictive model accurately distinguishes patients with high , achieving an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.87, suggesting strong predictive validity.
Caveats
- The study's cross-sectional design limits causal inferences about the relationship between and outcomes.
- Sample size distribution across subgroups was uneven, particularly for high ACE participants, which may affect generalizability.
- Findings are limited to female participants, restricting the ability to assess sex-specific differences in multi-omic profiles.
Definitions
- Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs): Psychosocial stressors occurring during childhood, including abuse and household dysfunction, impacting long-term health.
- Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS): A chronic gastrointestinal disorder characterized by abdominal pain and altered bowel habits, often influenced by psychological factors.
AI simplified
Introduction
Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS) is a stress-sensitive, female-predominant disorder characterized by chronic abdominal pain and altered bowel habits. Evidence supports that IBS is a disorder of gut-brain Interactions (DGBI), which can be attributed to dysregulation of central nervous system (CNS) processing, dysbiosis of the gut microbiota, altered mucosal and immune function, motility disturbance, and visceral hypersensitivity [1]. There is a higher prevalence of IBS in women compared to men across various diagnostic criteria with an odds ratio of 1.67 (95% CI: 1.53β1.82.53.82) [2]. Estrogen and progesterone, the primary female sex hormones, have been shown to modulate gastrointestinal (GI) function and visceral sensitivity, potentially worsening IBS symptoms [3, 4]. These hormones impact the brain-gut system, influencing gut motility, pain perception, and stress responses, all of which are central to IBS pathophysiology [4].
Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) are strongly associated with the development and exacerbation of IBS symptoms, mediated through psychological factors such as anxiety, depression, and stress response mechanisms [5]. Several studies have demonstrated that individuals with a history of ACEs are more likely to develop IBS and experience greater severity of GI and extraintestinal symptoms [6]. ACEs are psychosocial stressors that intersect with social determinants of health (SDoH). SDoH comprise non-medical factors that affect health outcomes, including the conditions in which people are born and grow (pertinent to childhood), work and age (pertinent to adulthood), as well as the wider systems shaping these conditions (e.g. policies) [7]. ACEs include childhood poverty/food insecurity and various forms of household dysfunction such as neglect, incarceration, and violence [8]. Childhood poverty and food insecurity have long-lasting effects on health [9], and the family system is a powerful social context affecting long-term health [10]. Thus, ACEs may be considered as adverse SDoH [11].
The gut microbiome and its metabolites play a crucial role in the pathophysiology of IBS, particularly in individuals with a history of ACEs. ACEs can lead to long-lasting alterations in gut microbiota composition and diversity, disrupting intestinal homeostasis. One mechanism involves early life stress activating nerve growth factor (NGF)-TrkA signaling (neurotrophic tyrosine kinase receptor type 1), which increases serotonin (5-HT) production and contributes to visceral hyperalgesia [12]. Given that gut-microbiota interact with key neurochemical messengers such as 5-HT, produced both in neural cells and the GI system [13], these alterations may drive symptoms in IBS. High levels of ACEs may also impact intestinal tissue integrity [14]. Sex differences further contribute to distinct microbiome profiles in IBS, with variations in genus-level bacteria in women compared to men with IBS [15, 16]. The concept of βmicrogenderomeβ suggests that sex hormones influence gut microbial composition and function, contributing to the pathophysiology of IBS [4]. These findings collectively highlight the need for personalized microbiome-targeted approaches in managing IBS, particularly in high-risk female patients with a history of ACE.
Neuroimaging studies have provided valuable insights into brain-gut microbiome (BGM) alterations in IBS patients with a history of ACEs [17]. ACEs can lead to long-lasting changes in brain structure and function, particularly in regions involved in the stress response and emotional regulation, such as the prefrontal cortex, amygdala, and hippocampus [18]. Sex-specific differences have also been observed, with women showing decreased centrality (measure of how connected and influential a brain region is within a network) in salience and emotion regulation regions, while men exhibit increased salience network (SAL) centrality and segregation, changes linked to higher somatization [19], suggesting distinct sex-related differences in the neurodevelopmental consequences to ACEs. Women with IBS have demonstrated increased axonal strength and myelination within and between pain and sensory processing circuits, particularly in sensorimotor, corticothalamic, and basal ganglia pathways [20]. These neurobiological adaptations correlated with heightened IBS symptom severity, somatic awareness, and sensory sensitivity. Compared to men with IBS, women with IBS have exhibited greater activation in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex, right anterior cingulate cortex, and left amygdala in response to visceral stimuli [21]. This suggests that sex differences in the salience, sensorimotor, and emotional-arousal brain networks among IBS patients, potentially contributes to the heightened visceral sensitivity and altered pain perception in female IBS patients [22].
Given the clinical predominance and associated microbiome and neuroimaging changes in female IBS patients, this study aimed to identify a multi-omic (clinical, brain, gut microbiome) signature based on ACE exposure in female IBS patients compared to female HCs. Considering the role of ACEs in influencing the microbiome and brain, we hypothesized that compared to healthy females, females with IBS and a high number of ACEs would show the following: (1) greater symptoms such as GI-symptom related symptom severity, anxiety, worse, quality of life, and higher perceived stress levels, (2) gut dysbiosis as evidenced by altered bacterial metagenomics; (3) brain morphometry and connectivity signatures, reflecting regions important for stress and emotional regulation, sensory processing, and autonomic control. Unlike prior studies, this is the first study to examine clinical and behavioral outcomes in the context of gut microbial profiles and brain network connectivity, enabling a systems-level understanding of how early life adversity may shape the gut-brain axis in IBS.
Methods
Participant inclusion and enrollment
Premenopausal female participants with IBS or HCs were recruited by the G Oppenheimer Center for Neurobiology of Stress and Resilience at University of California Los Angeles (UCLA). All IBS patients were evaluated by a gastroenterologist or nurse practitioner with expertise in IBS for presence of a Rome IV diagnosis of IBS [23]. Rome IV diagnostic criteria for IBS is the current international standard for symptom-based diagnosis of IBS, developed by a multinational expert consensus including. The criteria require the presence of recurrent abdominal pain, on average, at least 1 day per week in the last 3 months, associated with at least two of the following: pain related to defecation, associated with a change in stool frequency, or associated with a change in stool form. The symptom onset must have occurred at least 6 months before diagnosis. Participants were excluded for the following reasons: pregnant or lactating, substance use, abdominal surgery, tobacco dependence (half a pack or more daily), extreme strenuous exercise (> 8 h of continuous exercise per week such as marathon runners), and major medical or neurological conditions. Participants taking medications that interfere with the central nervous system (unless on a steady dose for more than 3 months) or regular use of analgesic drugs were excluded. To avoid potential cofounders in microbiome analyses, included participants were required to not have taken antibiotics for at least 3 months and probiotics for at least 1 month prior to enrolling in the study. Only premenopausal females were enrolled and were scanned during the follicular phase of their menstrual cycles as determined by the self-report of their last day of the cycle. No participants exceeded 400lbs due to MRI scanning weight limits.
Participants underwent multimodal brain-imaging studies at UCLA and provided fresh stool samples for 16βs ribosomal RNA gene sequencing collected within a week of the scan. All procedures complied with the principles of the UCLA Institutional Review Board and informed consent was obtained from all participants.
Questionnaires
Multiple validated questionnaires were used to measure baseline clinical and behavioral characteristics. We utilized multiple complementary constructs, including measures of general health, somatic symptoms, visceral sensitivity mood, anxiety, stress, and IBS-related symptoms and quality of life, as relevant to a multidimensional analysis of IBS and ACE exposure.
Adverse childhood experiences (ACE) questionnaire
We identified an ACE score with the 18-item expanded ACE questionnaire, which is a retrospective, self-reported, dichotomous measure designed to assess a broad spectrum of adverse experiences during childhood up to 18 years of age [8]. The cumulative score represents the overall burden of childhood adversity. It consists of two main subscales including childhood abuse and household dysfunction. It consists of three categories of childhood abuse: emotional abuse, physical abuse, and sexual abuse. It also measures four categories of exposure to household dysfunction including: substance abuse, mental illness in household, parent treated violently, parental separation or divorce, and incarcerated household member [8]. While trauma exposure assessed by the ACE Questionnaire comprise SDoH, it is not a general assessment of SDoH. The original 10-item ACE questionnaire by Felitti et al. [8], covers 10 categories of adversity which has demonstrated strong psychometric properties with a high internal consistency, with a Cronbachβs alpha of 0.88, indicating good reliability [8]. The questionnaire has also shown good test-retest reliability, with stability coefficients over time being modest to high (e.g., r=0.71). Confirmatory factor analysis has supported a two-factor structure, with factors representing child maltreatment and household dysfunction, which are highly correlated [24]. This structure has been validated in various populations, including adolescents and parent, confirming its utility across different demographic groups [24]. Our expanded questionnaire includes 18 primary questions with several sub-questions but reduces them into 8 scored categories. The score range was 0 to 8. The expanded version is helpful in clinical and research settings because it includes frequency scales and adds contextual detail to capture severity and characteristics of trauma, not just presence/absence. Both questionnaires include the same core domains listed above except for emotional and physical neglect. Overall, the ACE questionnaire is a robust instrument for evaluating childhood adversities and their long-term effects on health, offering a comprehensive measure applicable in both clinical practice and research contexts. In the present study, high ACE was defined as an ACE score of at least 2, as several studies have shown increased health risks in individuals with 2 or more ACEs [25, 26].
Hospital anxiety and depression scale (HADS)
The HADS is a 14-item self-report questionnaire designed to assess anxiety (HADS-A) and depression (HADS-D) without including somatic symptoms, making it particularly suitable for medically ill populations, including IBS patients, as it minimizes the risk of symptoms overlap [27]. It has good internal consistency (\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\alpha$$\end{document} = 0.83 for anxiety and \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\alpha$$\end{document} = 0.82 for depression) and has been validated for various populations [28]. The HADS shows good validity in IBS patients, with the depression subscale (HADS-D) demonstrating high correlation with other depression measures like the PHQ-9, suggesting it effectively captures depressive symptoms specific to IBS [27]. The recommended cutoff score \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\ge$$\end{document} 8 indicating possible cases of anxiety or depression and \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\ge$$\end{document} 11 indicating probable cases [27]. Higher scores on the HADS-D subscale are associated with greater psychological distress and poorer health-related quality of life, highlighting its utility in identifying comorbid anxiety and depression that may exacerbate gastrointestinal symptoms [29]. The HADS scores were used as continuous variables in the present study.
12-item short form health survey (SF-12)
The SF-12 is a validated tool for capturing physical and mental health dimensions relevant to IBS patients [30]. It is effective in distinguishing impairments in IBS patients compared to the general population and other chronic diseases, particularly in areas such as energy/fatigue, role limitations due to physical health, and bodily pain [30]. The SF-12 demonstrates robust validity and reliability in IBS populations, providing a comprehensive measure of the significant impact of IBS on functional status and fell being [30]. SF-12 physical and mental health scores were used as continuous variables in the present study.
IBS quality of life (IBS-QOL) questionnaire
The IBS-QOL is a validated, disease-specific questionnaire designed to measure health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in patients with IBS, assessing eight domains relevant to IBS patients, including dysphoria, interference with activities, body image, health worry, food avoidance, social reactions, sexual health, and effect on relationships [31]. It demonstrates excellent psychometric properties, including internal consistency, construct validity, and responsiveness to clinical changes, making it a reliable tool for assessing the impact of IBS on quality of life and detecting changes due to therapeutic interventions [32]. Higher scores indicate better quality of life, with scores ranging from 0 to 100; a lower score suggests a greater negative impact of IBS symptoms on the patientβs quality of life, which a higher score indicates better overall well-being and fewer limitations in daily life [33]. Absolute cut-off values to categorize patients as having "good" or "poor" quality of life have not been validated or recommended in the medical literature. Instead, the IBS-QOL is primarily used to assess changes over time or in response to interventions, rather than to dichotomize patients at a specific score. The IBS-QOL score was used as a continuous variable in the present study.
Visceral sensitivity index (VSI)
The VSI is a 15-item self-reported scale validated in adult IBS patients to measure GI symptom-specific anxiety (GSA) [34]. It encompasses the cognitive, affective, and behavioral responses to fear of gastrointestinal sensations, symptoms, and related contexts, particularly in IBS patients [35, 36]. The VSI has demonstrated strong psychometric properties, including good internal consistency, reliability, and validity, and it effectively distinguishes between IBS patients, non-patients, and HCs while correlating with symptom severity and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) [35, 36]. Higher VSI scores, which range from 0 to 75, are associated with increased gastrointestinal symptom severity and poorer physical symptoms in IBS patients, suggesting that GI-specific anxiety is a critical mediator of IBS symptom presentation and persistence [35, 36]. It shows utility not only in understanding anxietyβs role in symptom severity and persistence but also as a potential outcome measure in therapeutic interventions [35, 36]. The VSI was used as a continuous variable in the present study.
Perceived stress scale (PSS)
The PSS measures the degree to which individuals perceive situations in their lives as stressful, capturing the central components of stress experience, including feelings of unpredictability, uncontrollability, and overload [37]. In IBS patients, the PSS is a valid and reliable measure for assessing perceived stress, showing significant correlations with psychological distress, including anxiety, depression, and visceral sensitivity, which are known to exacerbate IBS symptoms [38]. Higher PSS scores indicate greater perceived stress, which is associated with increased severity of IBS symptoms, poorer quality of life, and a heightened perception of symptom burden, emphasizing the importance of stress management in IBS treatment [38]. The PSS score was used as a continuous variable in the present study.
Patient health questionnaire-15 (PHQ-15)
The PHQ-15 is a self-administered questionnaire designed to measure the severity of somatic symptoms, with scores ranging from 0 to 30; higher scores indicate greater somatic symptom severity [39]. It has been validated as a reliable measure for assessing somatization in IBS patients, showing strong associations with psychological distress, functional impairment, and healthcare utilization [39]. In IBS populations, higher PHQ-15 scores are associated with increased psychological distress, including anxiety and depression, as well as greater severity of gastrointestinal symptoms and reduced quality of life [29]. It categorizes somatic symptom severity as minimal (0β4), low (5β9), medium (10β14), and high (15β30), with scores of 15 or higher indicating clinically significant somatic symptom severity that may require psychological intervention [39]. The PHQ-15 score was used as a continuous variable in the present study [40].
Irritable bowel syndrome severity scoring system (IBS-SSS)
The IBS-SSS is a quantitative tool designed to assess IBS severity based on five key symptom domains: abdominal pain intensity, abdominal pain frequency, distension, stool frequency and consistency, and quality of life interference. Each of the 5 items are scored on a visual analog scale from 0 to 100 and the total score ranges from 0 to 500, with severity categorized as mild (<175), moderate (175β300), or severe (300), allowing for standardized assessment of symptom burden and treatment response. The scale demonstrated high reliability, construct validity, and sensitivity to change, with a50-point reduction considered clinically meaningful for symptom improvement. Given its simplicity and responsiveness, the IBS-SSS is a validated and widely used tool in both clinical and research settings. The IBS-SSS was used as a continuous variable in the present study. \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\ge$$\end{document} \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\ge$$\end{document}
Gut microbiome
Participantsβ stool samples were collected using standardized procedures to ensure sample integrity and minimize contamination. To avoid cross-contamination, participants were instructed to collect the sample without allowing contact with urine or toilet water. Following collection, the samples were immediately sealed, labeled with the participantβs unique study identifier, and stored at 4βΒ°C until transportation to the laboratory. Samples were processed within 24 hours of collection, aliquoted into sterile cryovials, and stored at β80Β°C for subsequent microbiome analyses.
DNA from stool was extracted using the DNA Fecal Microbe Miniprep Kit (Zymo Research). The V4 region of 16S ribosomal RNA was amplified and underwent paired end sequencing on an Illumina HiSeq 2500. Sequences were processed through the DADA2 pipeline to generate exact amplicon sequence variants (ASVs) and taxonomy was assigned based upon the SILVA 138 database. Predicted metagenomics was performed using PICRUSt2 in QIIME2 with the default settings to predict abundances of bacterial gene families annotated as KEGG orthologs (KO) based on nearest reference genomes to 16S sequences.
Structural and functional brain imaging
Acquisition: Whole brain structural and resting-state scans were acquired at the Ahmanson-Lovelace Brain Mapping Center on a 3.0 Tesla Siemens Prisma MRI Scanner (Siemens, Erlangen, Germany). Comprehensive information on the standardized acquisition protocols, quality control measures, and image preprocessing can be found in previously published studies [41β43]. High-resolution T1-weighted images were obtained with the following parameters: echo time/repetition time (TE/TR) = 3.26 ms/2200 ms, field of view = 220 Γ 220 mm, slice thickness = 1 mm, 176 slices, a 256 Γ 256 voxel matrix, and a voxel size of 0.86 Γ 0.86 Γ 1 mm. Whole-brain resting-state images were acquired with participantsβ eyes closed using an echo-planar sequence with the following parameters: echo time/repetition time (TE/TR) = 28 ms/2000 ms, flip angle = 77Β°, scan duration = 10 minutes 6 seconds, field of view (FOV) = 220 mm, 40 slices, and a slice thickness of 4.0 mm. A diffusion weighted image was acquired to assess white matter anatomical connectivity (64 noncollinear directions, b = 1000 s/mm2, 9 b = 0 s/mm2 images, TR: 9500ms, TE: 88ms, field of view: 2304 x 2304, acquisition matrix: 128 x 128, slice thickness: 2 mm, spacing between slices: 2 mm).
Structural Processing: Cortical reconstruction and volumetric segmentation was done using FreeSurfer 7 [44]. FreeSurfer-processed structural images were parcellated using the Destrieux cortical atlas [45], Harvard-Oxford subcortical atlas [46] and Ascending Arousal atlas [47β49], and values of cortical thickness, surface area, mean curvature and volume for cortical regions, and volume for subcortical regions, were extracted.
Functional Image Processing. All functional images were preprocessed using a pipeline for volume-based resting-state functional connectivity (rs-FC) analyses in CONN [50]. All functional images underwent realignment and unwarping, slice-timing correction, and ART-based identification of outlier scans for scrubbing. Using structural image data, functional images were normalized and segmented into grey matter, white matter, and CSF tissue [51]. Functional images were then denoised by using ordinary least squares (OLS) regression of potential confounders and temporal band-pass filtering. Specifically, we used the default anatomical component-based noise correction procedure (aCompCor), which includes noise components from white-matter, cerebrospinal fluid [52], estimated subject-motion parameters [53], scrubbing of outlier scans based on framewise displacement [54], and removal of potential ramping effects at the start of the session [55]. A temporal band-pass filter of 0.008β0.09 Hz after regression was used to minimize the influence of physiological and head motion, and other noise sources [56]. Fisher-transformed correlations (Z) between the functional time series of each pair of regions, for all parcellated regions, were computed in CONN to derive a 165 x 165 matrix for each participant. The bottom half of the undirected matrix was then concatenated into one vector for each participant, representing the resting-state functional connectivity between every ROI pair.
Diffusion Processing: All diffusion weighted images were corrected using DiPyβs Median Otsu algorithm for skull stripping and denoising. Each scan underwent translation, rigid, and affine registration using the aforementioned atlases. The resulting homography was also used to transform the b-vectors and b-values. Finally, diffusion tensors were fit, and fractional anisotropy was calculated. This process resulted in a 188x76 matrix, with each row representing a participant and each column representing a diffusion feature.
Statistical analyses
To capture the complex relationship between ACEs and IBS, the model integrated multiple omics and behavioral assessments through Stacked Ensemble Modeling [57β59], with Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) as base models and a Support Vector Machine (SVM) as the meta-learner. Given the variability in range and dimensionality across the 5 datasets, hyperparameters such as L1 and L2 regularization were optimized for each omic. Regularization penalized redundant or weak predictors, enhancing interpretability and reducing overfitting. Importantly, decision tree-based methods, including XGBoost, are inherently robust to multicollinearity because splits are determined by maximizing information gain rather than relying on linear correlations, thereby minimizing bias introduced by overlapping constructs.{Piramuthu, 2008 #4051} This approach ensured that overlapping behavioral measures did not disproportionately influence the models while retaining complementary predictive information.
Model implementation
The data underwent 5-fold cross validation. Each iteration involved an 80% training set (n=150 or 151) and a 20% testing set (n=37 or 38). Within each training fold, the data was further partitioned into five sub-folds to facilitate meta-model training and hyperparameter optimization. During the training of each base model, optimal training parameters were identified through an iterative tuning process, ensuring the selection of parameters that maximized model performance prior to their application in the final base models.
Data preparation
Each data block was examined for response variables that could disrupt the analysis. From the clinical dataset, columns ACE Total Score and Group (IBS or HC) were removed as they were directly related to the response variable. IBS-QOL and IBS-SSS metrics were only measured for participants labeled as IBS and were imputed with a 0 for HCs. For the metagenomic dataset, to mitigate skewed distributions of bacterial counts, log transformation was applied, and outputs were then z-normalized across subjects for each bacterial strain. Through the base-model training step of the architecture, the features were reduced in the following way: 52 clinical variables down to 50, 2661 metagenomic variables down to 183, 658 structural brain features down to 168, 76 diffusion fractional anisotropy (dti.fa) features down to 60, and 15753 resting-state functional features (rspw) down to 111.
Evaluation and interpretation methods
Gain analysis was used to identify the features that contributed the most to the modelβs loss reduction and were visualized through bar plots. To further elucidate the associations between each high-gain variable and subject classes, SHAP and SHAP dependence analysis were utilized. Associations visualized through tile plots, highlighting the contribution of selected features to each subject class [60]. To report significant pairwise Pearson correlations between each data modality, connectograms were used to depict the relationships between features with correlation r >=0.4. For reader interpretability purposes, only the top variables responsible for 30% of each base modelβs gain are provided in all visualizations.
To assess the predictive performance of our model, we report the Cohenβs kappa coefficient as a measure of agreement between predicted and actual classifications [61]. Kappa values serve as more interpretable alternatives to error rate in the context of multiclass classification, though for further interpretability, simple accuracies were also calculated and reported.
We also utilized the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve and the Area Under the Curve (AUC) metric. Since our task involved multiclass classification, we employed a one-vs-rest (OvR) approach, where an ROC curve was generated for each class against the remaining classes. An ROC curve was also generated for the meta model.
Clinical and behavioral differences
To identify clinical measures that demonstrated statistically significant differences between groups, analyses of variance (ANOVA) and chi-squared tests were applied. To further elucidate between-group differences, results of pairwise linear contrasts were also calculated.
Results
Participant demographics and clinical measures
| Variable | HC, Low ACE, nβ=β77 | HC, High ACE, nβ=β19 | IBS, Low ACE, nβ=β55 | IBS, High ACE, nβ=β37 | All Class, nβ=β188 | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | SD | Range | Mean | SD | Range | Mean | SD | Range | Mean | SD | Range | Mean | SD | Range | |
| Age | 30.49 | 12.26 | [,] [18] [58] | 29.79 | 11.76 | [,] [18] [60] | 28.76 | 10.16 | [,] [18] [59] | 33.3 | 10.18 | [,] [18] [60] | 30.47 | 11.25 | [,] [18] [60] |
| Bowel Habits (BH) | |||||||||||||||
| Weight | 155.27 | 32.77 | [102,234] | 158.79 | 32.54 | [109,209.39] | 148.92 | 32.07 | [105,239] | 147.16 | 25.71 | [95,196.80] | 152.2 | 31.28 | [95,239] |
| Adverse Childhood Experience (ACE) Questionnaire | |||||||||||||||
| Emotional Abuse | 0.01 | 0.11 | [0,1] | 0.53 | 0.51 | [0,1] | 0.04 | 0.19 | [0,1] | 0.3 | 0.46 | [0,1] | 0.13 | 0.33 | [0,1] |
| Physical Abuse | 0 | 0 | [0,0] | 0.21 | 0.42 | [0,1] | 0 | 0 | [0,0] | 0.08 | 0.28 | [0,1] | 0.04 | 0.19 | [0,1] |
| Sexual Abuse | 0.04 | 0.19 | [0,1] | 0.11 | 0.32 | [0,1] | 0.07 | 0.26 | [0,1] | 0.24 | 0.43 | [0,1] | 0.1 | 0.3 | [0,1] |
| Substance Abuse | 0.06 | 0.25 | [0,1] | 0.53 | 0.51 | [0,1] | 0.05 | 0.23 | [0,1] | 0.43 | 0.5 | [0,1] | 0.18 | 0.39 | [0,1] |
| Parental Divorce/Separation | 0.19 | 0.4 | [0,1] | 0.63 | 0.5 | [0,1] | 0.11 | 0.31 | [0,1] | 0.68 | 0.47 | [0,1] | 0.31 | 0.46 | [0,1] |
| Household Mental Illness | 0.04 | 0.19 | [0,1] | 0.63 | 0.5 | [0,1] | 0.18 | 0.39 | [0,1] | 0.65 | 0.48 | [0,1] | 0.26 | 0.44 | [0,1] |
| Incarcerated Household Member | 0.01 | 0.11 | [0,1] | 0.11 | 0.32 | [0,1] | 0.02 | 0.13 | [0,1] | 0.08 | 0.28 | [0,1] | 0.04 | 0.19 | [0,1] |
| Parents Treated Violently | 0.01 | 0.11 | [0,1] | 0.11 | 0.32 | [0,1] | 0 | 0 | [0,0] | 0.24 | 0.43 | [0,1] | 0.06 | 0.25 | [0,1] |
| Hospital Anxiety and Depression (HAD) Questionnaire | |||||||||||||||
| Anxiety | 3.48 | 2.71 | [0,10] | 4.11 | 3.28 | [0,13] | 7.44 | 4.42 | [0,18] | 6.57 | 3.63 | [,] [1] [16] | 5.33 | 3.91 | [0,18] |
| Depression | 1.52 | 2.05 | [0,11] | 1.32 | 1.73 | [0,7] | 3.11 | 3.22 | [0,16] | 3.03 | 2.4 | [0,9] | 2.26 | 2.6 | [0,16] |
| HAD Total | 5.02 | 4.26 | [0,21] | 5.42 | 4.29 | [0,16] | 10.55 | 6.56 | [0,34] | 9.59 | 5.22 | [,] [2] [23] | 7.58 | 5.78 | [0,34] |
| SF12 Questionnaire | |||||||||||||||
| SF12 PCS | 54.83 | 4.93 | [32.10,64.83] | 54.98 | 2.57 | [46.48,57.94] | 52.26 | 5.26 | [34.26,61.37] | 50.07 | 7.21 | [28.33,61.54] | 53.18 | 5.66 | [28.33,64.83] |
| SF12 MCS | 53.02 | 6.06 | [34.13,60.91] | 53.05 | 5.39 | [38.481,59.83] | 47.49 | 8.45 | [28.33,62.03] | 46.04 | 9.27 | [23.20,60.77] | 50.06 | 8.02 | [23.20,62.03] |
| Irritable Bowel Syndrome Quality of Life (IBSQoL) Questionnaire | |||||||||||||||
| Dysphoria | 16.13 | 6.86 | [,] [8] [35] | 18.35 | 9.07 | [0,39] | 8.33 | 10.14 | [0,39] | ||||||
| Interference | 15.85 | 6.63 | [,] [7] [32] | 15.65 | 7.52 | [0,35] | 7.72 | 9.28 | [0,35] | ||||||
| Body Image | 8.71 | 3.41 | [,] [4] [18] | 8.92 | 4.05 | [0,19] | 4.3 | 5.09 | [0,19] | ||||||
| Health Worry | 7 | 2.82 | [,] [3] [14] | 6.86 | 3.42 | [0,14] | 3.4 | 4.08 | [0,14] | ||||||
| Food Avoidance | 8.38 | 3.3 | [,] [3] [15] | 8.24 | 4.21 | [0,15] | 4.07 | 4.9 | [0,15] | ||||||
| Social Reaction | 8.24 | 3.32 | [,] [4] [15] | 9.05 | 4.44 | [0,19] | 4.19 | 5.05 | [0,19] | ||||||
| Sexual Concerns | 3.69 | 2.32 | [0,10] | 4.22 | 2 | [0,10] | 1.91 | 2.49 | [0,10] | ||||||
| Relationship | 5.42 | 2.23 | [,] [3] [13] | 5.68 | 3.17 | [0,15] | 2.7 | 3.32 | [0,15] | ||||||
| Total | 73.42 | 24.82 | [34,136] | 75.22 | 34.57 | [0,151] | 36.28 | 42.3 | [0,151] | ||||||
| Other Measures | |||||||||||||||
| VSI Score | 5.4 | 10.33 | [0,75] | 2 | 3.25 | [0,12] | 32.36 | 14.97 | [,] [2] [65] | 35.41 | 14.12 | [,] [7] [65] | 19 | 18.89 | [0,75] |
| PSS Score | 10.41 | 5.69 | [,] [1] [30] | 12 | 6.7 | [0,26] | 15.76 | 5.79 | [0,29] | 15.54 | 6.79 | [,] [4] [29] | 13.16 | 6.5 | [0,30] |
| PHQ Score | 1.71 | 1.83 | [0,9] | 3.68 | 2.43 | [0,9] | 9.8 | 3.64 | [,] [3] [19] | 10.68 | 3.8 | [,] [4] [18] | 6.07 | 5 | [0,19] |
| IBS Symptom Severity | 205.89 | 91.14 | [0,429] | 210.46 | 74.65 | [0,338] | 101.65 | 119.64 | [0,429] | ||||||
| Variable | ANOVA/ChiSq | HC vs IBS | AL vs AH | IBS AL vs IBS AH | HC AL vs HC AH | HC AH vs IBS AH | HC AL vs IBS AL | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| p-val | t-val | p-val | t-val | p-val | t-val | p-val | t-val | p-val | t-val | p-val | t-val | p-val | |
| Age | 0.3 | β0.48 | 0.64 | β1.02 | 0.31 | β1.90 | 0.06 | 0.24 | 0.81 | β1.11 | 0.27 | 0.87 | 0.38 |
| Bowel Habits (BH) | 2e-16 | ||||||||||||
| Weight | 0.4 | 1.68 | 0.1 | β0.16 | 0.87 | 0.26 | 0.8 | β0.43 | 0.67 | 1.27 | 0.2 | 1.13 | 0.26 |
| Adverse Childhood Experience (ACE) Questionnaire | |||||||||||||
| Emotional Abuse | 2e-16 | 2.14 | 0.03 | β8.04 | 2e-16 | β4.24 | 2e-16 | β6.93 | 2e-16 | 2.81 | 0.01 | β0.46 | 0.65 |
| Physical Abuse | 2e-16 | 2.17 | 0.03 | β4.89 | 2e-16 | β2.13 | 0.03 | β4.58 | 2e-16 | 2.56 | 0.01 | 0 | 1 |
| Sexual Abuse | 0.01 | β1.80 | 0.07 | β2.48 | 0.01 | β2.79 | 0.01 | β0.90 | 0.37 | β1.70 | 0.09 | β0.67 | 0.51 |
| Substance Abuse | 2e-16 | 0.92 | 0.36 | β7.40 | 2e-16 | β5.22 | 2e-16 | β5.29 | 2e-16 | 0.98 | 0.33 | 0.17 | 0.86 |
| Parental Divorce/Separation | 2e-16 | 0.31 | 0.76 | β7.47 | 2e-16 | β6.60 | 2e-16 | β4.23 | 2e-16 | β0.39 | 0.7 | 1.2 | 0.23 |
| Household Mental Illness | 2e-16 | β1.33 | 0.18 | β8.83 | 2e-16 | β6.09 | 2e-16 | β6.42 | 2e-16 | β0.17 | 0.87 | β2.24 | 0.03 |
| Incarcerated Household Member | 0.1 | 0.3 | 0.76 | β2.48 | 0.01 | β1.57 | 0.12 | β1.91 | 0.06 | 0.46 | 0.65 | β0.16 | 0.88 |
| Parents Treated Violently | 2e-16 | β1.64 | 0.1 | β4.42 | 2e-16 | β5.01 | 2e-16 | β1.58 | 0.12 | β2.14 | 0.03 | 0.32 | 0.75 |
| Hospital Anxiety and Depression (HAD) Questionnaire | |||||||||||||
| Anxiety | 2e-16 | β5.44 | 2e-16 | 0.21 | 0.84 | 1.15 | 0.25 | β0.69 | 0.49 | β2.46 | 0.01 | β6.29 | 2e-16 |
| Depression | 2e-16 | β3.98 | 2e-16 | 0.34 | 0.73 | 0.16 | 0.88 | 0.32 | 0.75 | β2.44 | 0.02 | β3.62 | 2e-16 |
| HAD Total | 2e-16 | β5.58 | 2e-16 | 0.32 | 0.75 | 0.86 | 0.39 | β0.30 | 0.77 | β2.83 | 0.01 | β5.99 | 2e-16 |
| SF12 Questionnaire | |||||||||||||
| SF12 PCS | 2e-16 | 4.13 | 2e-16 | 1.13 | 0.26 | 1.88 | 0.06 | β0.11 | 0.91 | 3.2 | 2e-16 | 2.67 | 0.01 |
| SF12 MCS | 2e-16 | 4.99 | 2e-16 | 0.56 | 0.57 | 0.89 | 0.37 | β0.01 | 0.99 | 3.29 | 2e-16 | 4.15 | 2e-16 |
| Irritable Bowel Syndrome Quality of Life (IBSQoL) Questionnaire | |||||||||||||
| Dysphoria | β1.22 | 0.22 | β1.91 | 0.06 | |||||||||
| Interference | 0.13 | 0.9 | 0.2 | 0.84 | |||||||||
| Body Image | β0.24 | 0.81 | β0.38 | 0.7 | |||||||||
| Health Worry | 0.19 | 0.85 | 0.3 | 0.77 | |||||||||
| Food Avoidance | 0.16 | 0.87 | 0.25 | 0.8 | |||||||||
| Social Reaction | β0.92 | 0.36 | β1.44 | 0.15 | |||||||||
| Sexual Concerns | β1.03 | 0.31 | β1.61 | 0.11 | |||||||||
| Relationship | β0.42 | 0.68 | β0.65 | 0.51 | |||||||||
| Total | β0.27 | 0.79 | β0.42 | 0.68 | |||||||||
| Other Measures | |||||||||||||
| VSI Score | 2e-16 | β14.71 | 2e-16 | 0.09 | 0.93 | β1.16 | 0.25 | 1.08 | 0.28 | β9.62 | 2e-16 | β12.34 | 2e-16 |
| PSS Score | 2e-16 | β4.36 | 2e-16 | β0.67 | 0.5 | 0.17 | 0.86 | β1.01 | 0.31 | β2.05 | 0.04 | β4.91 | 2e-16 |
| PHQ Score | 2e-16 | β15.21 | 2e-16 | β2.87 | 2e-16 | β1.38 | 0.17 | β2.59 | 0.01 | β8.34 | 2e-16 | β15.27 | 2e-16 |
| IBS Symptom Severity | 2e-16 | β0.23 | 0.82 | β0.36 | 0.71 | ||||||||
IBS disease-related differences
There were significant differences in ACE subscale scores between IBS patients and HCs (emotional abuse: p=.03, physical abuse: p=.03). In addition, IBS patients had worse scores on current anxiety (p \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$=$$\end{document} 2x10β16) and depression (p \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$=$$\end{document} 2x10β16) symptoms, physical (PCS) and mental (MCS) quality of life (pβs \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$=$$\end{document} 2x10β16), GI symptom-related anxiety (VSI) (p \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$=$$\end{document} 2x10β16), perceived stress levels (PSS) (p \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$=$$\end{document}.2x10β16), and somatic symptom severity (PHQ-15) (p \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$=$$\end{document} 2x10β16).
Adverse childhood-related differences
All individuals with high ACE total scores compared to low ACE scores had worse somatic symptom severity scores (PHQ-15) (p \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$=$$\end{document} 2x10β16).
There were no significant differences in symptoms between the IBS patients with high ACE scores compared to IBS patients with low ACE scores. Although IBS-SSS and IBS-QOL were worse in IBS, high ACE overall compared to IBS with low ACE, these differences were not statistically significant.
Compared to HCs with low ACE, HCs with high ACE scores reported worse somatic symptom severity scores (PHQ-15) (p=.01).
Disease and ACE-related differences (i.e., interaction effects)
Specifically, looking at individuals with high ACE total scores, compared to HCs, IBS patients also had higher scores on subscale of parents treated violently (p=.03), anxiety and depression symptoms (p \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$=$$\end{document}.01, P=.02), GI symptom-related anxiety (VSI) (p \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$=$$\end{document} 2x10β16), perceived stress levels (PSS) (p \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$=$$\end{document}.04), poorer PCS and MCS quality of life (pβs \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$=$$\end{document} 2x10β16), and worse somatic symptom severity (PHQ-15) (p \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$=$$\end{document} 2x10β16).
However, in IBS and HC participants with high ACE scores, HCs had higher scores on the emotional and physical abuse subscales (pβs=.01).
Stacked ensemble model performance
The overall model exhibited an estimated kappa of 0.67, signifying high levels of agreement between the true and predicted labels.
The overall model yielded a ROC with an AUC of 0.70 for identifying HC, high ACE participants; 0.82 for IBS, low ACE participants; and 0.87 for IBS, high ACE participants. The accuracy for all base models were also calculated at 78.19%.
Selected variables

Significant features for each dataset. The highest gain features comprising 30% of total gain is reported. HC: Healthy Control. IBS: Irritable Bowel Syndrome. Nβ=β188 total, HC low ACE group nβ=β77, HC high ACE group nβ=β119, IBS low ACE group nβ=β55, IBS high ACE group nβ=β37.AL: ACE Low. AH: ACE High. (A) Clinical Features (B) Metagenomic Features (C) Structural Brain Features (D) Diffusion Tensor Imaging Brain Features (Fractional Anisotropy) (E) Resting State Pairwise Brain Features Clinical Abbreviations: IBSQoL_DysphR: IBS Quality of Life Dysphoria. VSI_Score: Visceral Sensitivity Index. IBSQoL_SocRct: IBS Quality of Life Social Reaction.Β Brain region abbreviations for resting-state, diffusion tensor imaging, and structural scans are listed in Table 7
SHAP dependence
In descending order of importance, the top clinical variables included were VSI Score, PHQ-15 Score, ACE Parental Divorce/Separation, and IBS QOL Social Reaction. All three high-gain variables were related to GI symptoms, and their SHAP values were strongly associated with patient classes exhibiting IBS (Table 3, Fig 2a).
Bacterial transcriptomes in order of importance are listed in Table 3, and their associations to each of the 4 groups are depicted in Fig 2b. For example, the most significant bacteria contributing to the model included Akkermansia, Bifidobacterium, Intestinimonas, Subdoligranulum, Christensenella, and Burkholderia.
Structural, diffusion, and resting-state pairwise brain signatures identified as the most significant for prediction of the 4 participants groups are listed in Table 3 in descending order. Their contributions to the prediction of each participant group are depicted in Figures 2c, 2 d, and 2e, respectively. The key brain regions contributing to the model included those from the central autonomic, (CAN), salience (SAL), sensorimotor (SMN), default mode (DMN), and emotion regulation (ERN) networks.

SHAP dependence plots for the most significant features of each block. HC: Healthy Control. IBS: Irritable Bowel Syndrome. Nβ=β188 total, HC low ACE group nβ=β77, HC high ACE group nβ=β119, IBS low ACE group nβ=β55, IBS high ACE group nβ=β37. AL: ACE Low. AH: ACE High. (A) Clinical Features (B) Metagenomic Features (C) Structural Brain Features (D) Diffusion Tensor Imaging Brain Features (Fractional Anisotropy) (E) Resting State Pairwise Brain Features Clinical Abbreviations: IBSQoL_DysphR: IBS Quality of Life Dysphoria. VSI_Score: Visceral Sensitivity Index. IBSQoL_SocRct: IBS Quality of Life Social Reaction. Brain region abbreviations for resting-state, diffusionΒ tensor imaging, and structural scans are listed in Table 7
| Feature | Gain | Cover | Freq | Feature | Gain | Cover | Freq | Network | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clinical | Structural | ||||||||
| VSI Score | 0.1 | 0.11 | 0.1 | R_SbOrS_SA | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.01 | CAN, SAL | |
| PHQ Score | 0.09 | 0.09 | 0.08 | L_LORs_CT | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.01 | CAN, SAL | |
| ACE Parental DivorceSep | 0.09 | 0.08 | 0.08 | L_PosTrCoS_MC | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.02 | DMN | |
| IBSQoL SocRct | 0.08 | 0.03 | 0.02 | L_SbCaG_MC | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | DMN | |
| Metagenomic | L_PoPl_SA | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.02 | DMN | ||||
| Subdoligranulum | 0.03 | 0.02 | 0.01 | L_HG_CT | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | DMN | |
| Intestinimonas | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.02 | L_InfFGTrip_MC | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.01 | ERN | |
| Olsenella | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.02 | R_InfOcG_S_SA | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.02 | OCC | |
| Parasutterella | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.02 | R_SupOcS_TrOcS_MC | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.01 | OCC | |
| Tannerella | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.02 | R_MOcG_SA | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | OCC | |
| Hungatella | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.02 | L_CoS_LinS_CT | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | SAL | |
| Bifidobacterium | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.02 | R_MACgG_S_MC | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.01 | SAL | |
| Duncaniella | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.01 | CC_Mid_Posterior_Vol | 0.05 | 0.04 | 0.03 | SMN | |
| Aneurinibacillus | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.02 | Optic_Chiasm_Vol | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.02 | SMN | |
| Enteroscipio | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.01 | L_SupPrCs_CT | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.02 | SMN | |
| Porphyromonas | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | R_PaCL_S_CT | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | SMN | |
| Terrisporobacter | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | Diffusion | |||||
| Akkermansia | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | S_subparietal | 0.04 | 0.04 | 0.03 | CEN | |
| Faecalicoccus | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | G_parietal_sup | 0.03 | 0.04 | 0.04 | CEN | |
| Sphingomonas | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | G_temp_sup.Lateral | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.03 | DMN | |
| Burkholderia | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | S_temporal_transverse | 0.04 | 0.04 | 0.04 | DMN | |
| Slackia | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | S_front_inf | 0.04 | 0.03 | 0.03 | ERN | |
| Catenibacillus | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | G_front_inf.Opercular | 0.05 | 0.04 | 0.03 | SMN | |
| Christensenella | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | G_precentral | 0.04 | 0.04 | 0.03 | SMN | |
| Resting-State Pairwise | G_and_S_subcentral | 0.04 | 0.03 | 0.03 | SMN | ||||
| RS_R_MRF_to_L_MOcG | 0.03 | 0.03 | 0.02 | ||||||
| RS_VTA_to_L_Pu | 0.03 | 0.02 | 0.02 | ||||||
| RS_PAG_to_R_InfTG | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.01 | ||||||
| RS_R_InfFGOrp_to_L_MOcG | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.01 | ||||||
| RS_L_HG_to_L_LoInG_CInS | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.01 | ||||||
| RS_R_PRCG_to_L_CoS_LinS | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.01 | ||||||
| RS_R_AOcS_to_L_MFG | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.01 | ||||||
| RS_R_MedOrS_to_R_LoInG_CInS | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.01 | ||||||
| RS_R_InfFGTrip_to_L_PrCun | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.01 | ||||||
| RS_R_PosCS_to_L_PaHipG | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.01 | ||||||
| RS_R_MRF_to_R_SupPL | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.01 | ||||||
| RS_R_CoS_LinS_to_L_CcS | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.01 | ||||||
| RS_L_PBC_to_R_POcS | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | ||||||
| RS_R_CcS_to_R_Nacc | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | ||||||
| RS_R_PosCG_to_L_AngG | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | ||||||
| RS_L_PO_to_R_Amg | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | ||||||
| RS_R_SupTS_to_L_LORs | 0.01 | 0 | 0.01 | ||||||
Multi-omics relationships:

Connectograms comparing IBS vs HC.HC: Healthy Control. IBS: Irritable Bowel Syndrome. Nβ=β188 total, HC group nβ=β96, IBS group nβ=β92 Dti_fa: diffusion tensor imaging Fractional Anisotropy, rspw: resting state pairwise, struc: structural, metag: metagenomic, clin: clinical ACE Parental DivorceSep: Adverse Childhood Experiences, Parental Divorce.Β Brain region abbreviations for resting-state, diffusion tensor imaging, and structural scans are listed in Table 7

Connectograms comparing High ACE vs Low ACE HC: Healthy Control. IBS: Irritable Bowel Syndrome. Nβ=β188 total, High ACE group nβ=β56, Low ACE group nβ=β132Dti_fa: diffusion tensor imaging Fractional Anisotropy, rspw: resting state pairwise, struc: structural, metag: metagenomic, clin: clinical ACE: Adverse Childhood Effects. VSI: Visceral Sensitivity Index. ACE Parental DivorceSep: Adverse Childhood Experiences, Parental Divorce.Β Brain region abbreviations for resting-state, diffusion tensor imaging, and structural scans are listed in Table 7

Connectograms HC: Healthy Control. IBS: Irritable Bowel Syndrome. AL: ACE Low. AH: ACE High. Nβ=β188 total, HC low ACE group nβ=β77, HC high ACE group nβ=β119, IBS low ACE group nβ=β55, IBS high ACE group nβ=β37.Dti_fa: diffusion tensor imaging fractional anisotropy, rspw: resting state pairwise, struc: structural, metag: metagenomic, clin: clinical BH: Bowel Habits. ACE: Adverse Childhood Effects. SF12_PCS: The Physical Component Summary score of the SF-12 Health Survey. SF12_MCS: The Mental Component Summary Score of the SF-12 Health Survey. IBSQoL: Irritable Bowel Syndrome Quality of Life. VSI: Visceral Sensitivity Index. PSS Score: Perceived Stress Scale. PHQ Score: Patient Health Questionnaire Score.Β Brain region abbreviations for resting-state, diffusion tensor imaging, and structural scans are listed in Table 7
| Connection | Type | Correlation | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Healthy Control (Nβ=β96) | |||
| RS_R_CoS_LinS_to_L_CcS_TO_G_parietal_sup | dti.fa_rspw | 0.416 | 0.0000306 |
| IBS (Nβ=β92) | |||
| Bifidobacterium_TO_ACE_Parental_DivorceSep | clin_metag | β4.01E-01 | 0.0000752 |
| RS_R_CoS_LinS_to_L_CcS_TO_FA_G_parietal_sup | dti.fa_rspw | 0.452 | 0.0000156 |
| Connection | Type | Correlation | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Low ACE (nβ=β132) | |||
| RS_R_CoS_LinS_to_L_CcS_TO_G_front_inf.Opercular | dti.fa_rspw | 0.424 | 6.97e-7 |
| RS_R_CoS_LinS_to_L_CcS_TO_G_parietal_sup | dti.fa_rspw | 0.421 | 8.13e-7 |
| High ACE (nβ=β56) | |||
| Olsenella_TO_VSI_Score | clin_metag | 0.423 | 0.00116 |
| RS_R_PosCS_to_L_PaHipG_TO_VSI_Score | clin_rspw | 0.483 | 0.000333 |
| RS_R_InfFGOrp_to_L_MOcG_TO_ACE_Parental_DivorceSep | clin_rspw | β4.46E-01 | 0.00105 |
| L_LORs_CT_TO_Bifidobacterium | metag_struct | β4.00E-01 | 0.00223 |
| L_CoS_LinS_CT_TO_Sphingomonas | metag_struct | β4.59E-01 | 0.000371 |
| G_and_S_subcentral_TO_Intestinimonas | metag_dti.fa | 0.478 | 0.000194 |
| G_parietal_sup_TO_Parasutterella | metag_dti.fa | 0.448 | 0.000534 |
| G_front_inf.Opercular_TO_Terrisporobacter | metag_dti.fa | β4.77E-01 | 0.000202 |
| RS_R_PRCG_to_L_CoS_LinS_TO_Tannerella | metag_rspw | 0.418 | 0.00229 |
| RS_R_MedOrS_to_R_LoInG_CInS_TO_Enteroscipio | metag_rspw | β4.67E-01 | 0.000545 |
| RS_R_InfFGTrip_to_L_PrCun_TO_Sphingomonas | metag_rspw | β4.01E-01 | 0.0035 |
| RS_R_PRCG_to_L_CoS_LinS_TO_Burkholderia | metag_rspw | 0.401 | 0.00354 |
| RS_R_CoS_LinS_to_L_CcS_TO_G_parietal_sup | dti.fa_rspw | 0.439 | 9.11e-10 |
| Connection | Type | Correlation | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Healthy Control, Low ACE | |||
| Intestinimonas_TO_G_temp_sup.Lateral | metag_dti | 0.322 | 0.00433 |
| Olsenella_TO_G_temp_sup.Lateral | metag_dti | 0.336 | 0.00281 |
| Parasutterella_TO_G_front_inf.Opercular | metag_dti | 0.388 | 0.000484 |
| Sphingomonas_TO_G_temp_sup.Lateral | metag_dti | 0.378 | 0.000694 |
| Burkholderia_TO_G_temp_sup.Lateral | metag_dti | 0.413 | 0.000187 |
| Catenibacillus_TO_RS_R_PosCG_to_L_AngG | metag_rspw | 0.305 | 0.00742 |
| Christensenella_TO_RS_R_PosCS_to_L_PaHipG | metag_rspw | 0.304 | 0.00752 |
| Parasutterella_TO_R_SupOcS_TrOcS_MC | metag_struct | β3.44E-01 | 0.0022 |
| Parasutterella_TO_R_MACgG_S_MC | metag_struct | β3.38E-01 | 0.00265 |
| Aneurinibacillus_TO_L_LORs_CT | metag_struct | β3.08E-01 | 0.00642 |
| Sphingomonas_TO_R_SbOrS_SA | metag_struct | β3.34E-01 | 0.00299 |
| R_SupOcS_TrOcS_MC_TO_G_temp_sup.Lateral | struct_dti.fa | β3.21E-01 | 0.00000711 |
| R_MACgG_S_MC_TO_G_front_inf.Opercular | struct_dti.fa | β3.34E-01 | 0.00000273 |
| G_front_inf.Opercular_TO_RS_R_CoS_LinS_to_L_CcS | dti.fa_rspw | 0.355 | 0.00000115 |
| G_temp_sup.Lateral_TO_RS_R_CoS_LinS_to_L_CcS | dti.fa_rspw | 0.344 | 0.00000267 |
| G_precentral_TO_RS_R_CoS_LinS_to_L_CcS | dti.fa_rspw | 0.316 | 0.0000168 |
| G_and_S_subcentral_TO_RS_R_CoS_LinS_to_L_CcS | dti.fa_rspw | 0.333 | 0.00000552 |
| G_parietal_sup_TO_RS_R_CoS_LinS_to_L_CcS | dti.fa_rspw | 0.439 | 9.11e-10 |
| Healthy Control, High ACE | |||
| VSI_Score_TO_S_temporal_transverse | clin_dti | 0.566 | 0.0115 |
| ACE_Parental_DivorceSep_TO_Subdoligranulum | clin_metag | 0.499 | 0.0295 |
| ACE_Parental_DivorceSep_TO_RS_R_CoS_LinS_to_L_CcS | clin_rspw | 0.488 | 0.0397 |
| VSI_Score_TO_R_SbOrS_SA | clin_struct | 0.479 | 0.0379 |
| Intestinimonas_TO_G_and_S_subcentral | metag_dti | 0.476 | 0.0393 |
| Parasutterella_TO_G_parietal_sup | metag_dti | 0.518 | 0.0233 |
| Tannerella_TO_G_front_inf.Opercular | metag_dti | 0.52 | 0.0224 |
| Tannerella_TO_G_temp_sup.Lateral | metag_dti | 0.622 | 0.00443 |
| Tannerella_TO_G_and_S_subcentral | metag_dti | 0.585 | 0.00851 |
| Tannerella_TO_G_parietal_sup | metag_dti | 0.589 | 0.00802 |
| Akkermansia_TO_S_front_inf | metag_dti | 0.54 | 0.017 |
| Akkermansia_TO_G_and_S_subcentral | metag_dti | 0.522 | 0.0218 |
| Subdoligranulum_TO_RS_R_PRCG_to_L_CoS_LinS | metag_rspw | 0.683 | 0.00177 |
| Subdoligranulum_TO_RS_L_PO_to_R_Amg | metag_rspw | β4.93E-01 | 0.0374 |
| Intestinimonas_TO_RS_VTA_to_L_Pu | metag_rspw | β4.79E-01 | 0.0445 |
| Intestinimonas_TO_RS_R_PRCG_to_L_CoS_LinS | metag_rspw | 0.631 | 0.00498 |
| Tannerella_TO_RS_L_HG_to_L_LoInG_CInS | metag_rspw | 0.601 | 0.00834 |
| Bifidobacterium_TO_RS_R_CcS_to_R_Nacc | metag_rspw | β5.41E-01 | 0.0204 |
| Duncaniella_TO_RS_R_CoS_LinS_to_L_CcS | metag_rspw | 0.486 | 0.0409 |
| Aneurinibacillus_TO_RS_R_PRCG_to_L_CoS_LinS | metag_rspw | 0.736 | 0.000499 |
| Porphyromonas_TO_RS_R_PRCG_to_L_CoS_LinS | metag_rspw | 0.479 | 0.0443 |
| Terrisporobacter_TO_RS_R_PRCG_to_L_CoS_LinS | metag_rspw | 0.518 | 0.0276 |
| Akkermansia_TO_RS_VTA_to_L_Pu | metag_rspw | β7.88E-01 | 0.000104 |
| Akkermansia_TO_RS_R_PRCG_to_L_CoS_LinS | metag_rspw | 0.527 | 0.0247 |
| Akkermansia_TO_RS_R_PosCS_to_L_PaHipG | metag_rspw | 0.636 | 0.00454 |
| Sphingomonas_TO_RS_VTA_to_L_Pu | metag_rspw | β6.33E-01 | 0.0048 |
| Sphingomonas_TO_RS_R_PRCG_to_L_CoS_LinS | metag_rspw | 0.794 | 0.0000842 |
| Sphingomonas_TO_RS_R_PosCS_to_L_PaHipG | metag_rspw | 0.556 | 0.0165 |
| Slackia_TO_RS_R_MRF_to_R_SupPL | metag_rspw | 0.606 | 0.00767 |
| Catenibacillus_TO_RS_R_MedOrS_to_R_LoInG_CInS | metag_rspw | 0.555 | 0.0168 |
| Christensenella_TO_RS_VTA_to_L_Pu | metag_rspw | β7.42E-01 | 0.000422 |
| Subdoligranulum_TO_R_SupOcS_TrOcS_MC | metag_struct | 0.478 | 0.0382 |
| Subdoligranulum_TO_L_CoS_LinS_CT | metag_struct | β5.69E-01 | 0.011 |
| Intestinimonas_TO_L_CoS_LinS_CT | metag_struct | β6.65E-01 | 0.0019 |
| Olsenella_TO_R_InfOcG_S_SA | metag_struct | 0.521 | 0.0223 |
| Olsenella_TO_R_MOcG_SA | metag_struct | 0.49 | 0.033 |
| Hungatella_TO_L_InfFGTrip_MC | metag_struct | 0.525 | 0.0209 |
| Bifidobacterium_TO_L_PoPl_SA | metag_struct | 0.534 | 0.0184 |
| Duncaniella_TO_R_PaCL_S_CT | metag_struct | 0.503 | 0.0281 |
| Aneurinibacillus_TO_Optic_Chiasm_Vol | metag_struct | β4.80E-01 | 0.0378 |
| Aneurinibacillus_TO_L_CoS_LinS_CT | metag_struct | β6.70E-01 | 0.00171 |
| Enteroscipio_TO_R_InfOcG_S_SA | metag_struct | 0.628 | 0.00397 |
| Enteroscipio_TO_L_LORs_CT | metag_struct | β4.65E-01 | 0.045 |
| Enteroscipio_TO_R_PaCL_S_CT | metag_struct | β4.67E-01 | 0.0436 |
| Porphyromonas_TO_L_InfFGTrip_MC | metag_struct | 0.522 | 0.0218 |
| Porphyromonas_TO_R_SupOcS_TrOcS_MC | metag_struct | 0.486 | 0.0349 |
| Terrisporobacter_TO_L_CoS_LinS_CT | metag_struct | β5.07E-01 | 0.0266 |
| Akkermansia_TO_L_LORs_CT | metag_struct | β4.91E-01 | 0.0328 |
| Akkermansia_TO_L_CoS_LinS_CT | metag_struct | β6.41E-01 | 0.00308 |
| Sphingomonas_TO_L_CoS_LinS_CT | metag_struct | β6.96E-01 | 0.000929 |
| Burkholderia_TO_L_InfFGTrip_MC | metag_struct | 0.543 | 0.0163 |
| Burkholderia_TO_R_MOcG_SA | metag_struct | 0.56 | 0.0127 |
| Slackia_TO_L_SupPrCs_CT | metag_struct | β4.92E-01 | 0.0322 |
| Slackia_TO_L_LORs_CT | metag_struct | β4.82E-01 | 0.0368 |
| Slackia_TO_L_SbCaG_MC | metag_struct | 0.562 | 0.0123 |
| Slackia_TO_R_MOcG_SA | metag_struct | 0.517 | 0.0234 |
| Christensenella_TO_L_LORs_CT | metag_struct | β4.57E-01 | 0.0491 |
| Christensenella_TO_L_CoS_LinS_CT | metag_struct | β5.21E-01 | 0.0222 |
| Christensenella_TO_R_MOcG_SA | metag_struct | 0.47 | 0.0421 |
| R_SupOcS_TrOcS_MC_TO_G_temp_sup.Lateral | struct_dti.fa | β3.21E-01 | 0.00000711 |
| R_MACgG_S_MC_TO_G_front_inf.Opercular | struct_dti.fa | β3.34E-01 | 0.00000273 |
| G_front_inf.Opercular_TO_RS_R_CoS_LinS_to_L_CcS | dti.fa_rspw | 0.355 | 0.00000115 |
| G_temp_sup.Lateral_TO_RS_R_CoS_LinS_to_L_CcS | dti.fa_rspw | 0.344 | 0.00000267 |
| G_precentral_TO_RS_R_CoS_LinS_to_L_CcS | dti.fa_rspw | 0.316 | 0.0000168 |
| G_and_S_subcentral_TO_RS_R_CoS_LinS_to_L_CcS | dti.fa_rspw | 0.333 | 0.00000552 |
| G_parietal_sup_TO_RS_R_CoS_LinS_to_L_CcS | dti.fa_rspw | 0.439 | 9.11e-10 |
| IBS, Low ACE | |||
| VSI_Score_TO_S_subparietal | clin_dti | β3.20E-01 | 0.0174 |
| ACE_Parental_DivorceSep_TO_G_front_inf.Opercular | clin_dti | 0.339 | 0.0113 |
| ACE_Parental_DivorceSep_TO_S_front_inf | clin_dti | 0.343 | 0.0104 |
| ACE_Parental_DivorceSep_TO_G_precentral | clin_dti | 0.354 | 0.00808 |
| ACE_Parental_DivorceSep_TO_G_and_S_subcentral | clin_dti | 0.389 | 0.00331 |
| IBSQoL_SocRct_TO_G_temp_sup.Lateral | clin_dti | 0.37 | 0.00536 |
| IBSQoL_SocRct_TO_G_parietal_sup | clin_dti | 0.316 | 0.0188 |
| ACE_Parental_DivorceSep_TO_Faecalicoccus | clin_metag | 0.319 | 0.0176 |
| VSI_Score_TO_RS_R_PosCS_to_L_PaHipG | clin_rspw | β3.08E-01 | 0.0279 |
| Subdoligranulum_TO_G_temp_sup.Lateral | metag_dti | β4.02E-01 | 0.00237 |
| Subdoligranulum_TO_S_front_inf | metag_dti | β3.24E-01 | 0.0158 |
| Intestinimonas_TO_RS_R_MRF_to_L_MOcG | metag_rspw | β3.61E-01 | 0.00917 |
| Parasutterella_TO_RS_PAG_to_R_InfTG | metag_rspw | β3.17E-01 | 0.0235 |
| Hungatella_TO_RS_R_MedOrS_to_R_LoInG_CInS | metag_rspw | β3.71E-01 | 0.00728 |
| Bifidobacterium_TO_RS_L_HG_to_L_LoInG_CInS | metag_rspw | β3.72E-01 | 0.00712 |
| Duncaniella_TO_RS_R_CoS_LinS_to_L_CcS | metag_rspw | 0.345 | 0.0131 |
| Terrisporobacter_TO_RS_L_PBC_to_R_POcS | metag_rspw | β3.72E-01 | 0.00725 |
| Slackia_TO_RS_PAG_to_R_InfTG | metag_rspw | 0.305 | 0.0293 |
| Catenibacillus_TO_RS_L_PO_to_R_Amg | metag_rspw | β3.13E-01 | 0.0255 |
| Intestinimonas_TO_Optic_Chiasm_Vol | metag_struct | 0.301 | 0.0257 |
| Olsenella_TO_CC_Mid_Posterior_Vol | metag_struct | 0.313 | 0.0201 |
| Parasutterella_TO_R_InfOcG_S_SA | metag_struct | 0.351 | 0.00866 |
| Tannerella_TO_R_SupOcS_TrOcS_MC | metag_struct | 0.385 | 0.0037 |
| Tannerella_TO_L_PoPl_SA | metag_struct | 0.317 | 0.0182 |
| Tannerella_TO_L_HG_CT | metag_struct | β3.66E-01 | 0.00595 |
| Duncaniella_TO_R_MOcG_SA | metag_struct | 0.319 | 0.0175 |
| Sphingomonas_TO_Optic_Chiasm_Vol | metag_struct | 0.343 | 0.0105 |
| Burkholderia_TO_L_PoPl_SA | metag_struct | 0.321 | 0.0169 |
| Catenibacillus_TO_Optic_Chiasm_Vol | metag_struct | 0.303 | 0.0247 |
| Christensenella_TO_CC_Mid_Posterior_Vol | metag_struct | 0.301 | 0.0255 |
| R_SupOcS_TrOcS_MC_TO_G_temp_sup.Lateral | struct_dti.fa | β3.21E-01 | 0.00000711 |
| R_MACgG_S_MC_TO_G_front_inf.Opercular | struct_dti.fa | β3.34E-01 | 0.00000273 |
| G_front_inf.Opercular_TO_RS_R_CoS_LinS_to_L_CcS | dti.fa_rspw | 0.355 | 0.00000115 |
| G_temp_sup.Lateral_TO_RS_R_CoS_LinS_to_L_CcS | dti.fa_rspw | 0.344 | 0.00000267 |
| G_precentral_TO_RS_R_CoS_LinS_to_L_CcS | dti.fa_rspw | 0.316 | 0.0000168 |
| G_and_S_subcentral_TO_RS_R_CoS_LinS_to_L_CcS | dti.fa_rspw | 0.333 | 0.00000552 |
| G_parietal_sup_TO_RS_R_CoS_LinS_to_L_CcS | dti.fa_rspw | 0.439 | 9.11e-10 |
| IBS, High ACE | |||
| VSI_Score_TO_S_temporal_transverse | clin_dti | 0.358 | 0.0296 |
| ACE_Parental_DivorceSep_TO_G_front_inf.Opercular | clin_dti | 0.328 | 0.0474 |
| IBSQoL_SocRct_TO_G_temp_sup.Lateral | clin_dti | 0.358 | 0.0297 |
| VSI_Score_TO_Catenibacillus | clin_metag | β3.45E-01 | 0.0367 |
| PHQ_Score_TO_Akkermansia | clin_metag | β4.07E-01 | 0.0124 |
| ACE_Parental_DivorceSep_TO_Bifidobacterium | clin_metag | β4.41E-01 | 0.00624 |
| VSI_Score_TO_RS_R_PosCS_to_L_PaHipG | clin_rspw | 0.418 | 0.0156 |
| PHQ_Score_TO_RS_R_PosCG_to_L_AngG | clin_rspw | 0.351 | 0.0453 |
| ACE_Parental_DivorceSep_TO_RS_R_InfFGOrp_to_L_MOcG | clin_rspw | β5.21E-01 | 0.00187 |
| ACE_Parental_DivorceSep_TO_RS_R_SupTS_to_L_LORs | clin_rspw | β3.91E-01 | 0.0244 |
| IBSQoL_SocRct_TO_RS_VTA_to_L_Pu | clin_rspw | 0.356 | 0.0421 |
| VSI_Score_TO_L_HG_CT | clin_struct | 0.343 | 0.0376 |
| PHQ_Score_TO_R_InfOcG_S_SA | clin_struct | β3.51E-01 | 0.033 |
| ACE_Parental_DivorceSep_TO_R_SupOcS_TrOcS_MC | clin_struct | β3.54E-01 | 0.0318 |
| ACE_Parental_DivorceSep_TO_L_HG_CT | clin_struct | 0.383 | 0.0192 |
| Intestinimonas_TO_G_temp_sup.Lateral | metag_dti | 0.419 | 0.00992 |
| Intestinimonas_TO_G_and_S_subcentral | metag_dti | 0.486 | 0.00231 |
| Olsenella_TO_G_front_inf.Opercular | metag_dti | β3.37E-01 | 0.0417 |
| Olsenella_TO_G_and_S_subcentral | metag_dti | β3.82E-01 | 0.0198 |
| Parasutterella_TO_G_parietal_sup | metag_dti | 0.362 | 0.0278 |
| Bifidobacterium_TO_G_front_inf.Opercular | metag_dti | β4.11E-01 | 0.0114 |
| Duncaniella_TO_G_temp_sup.Lateral | metag_dti | 0.391 | 0.0167 |
| Duncaniella_TO_G_precentral | metag_dti | 0.382 | 0.0198 |
| Duncaniella_TO_G_and_S_subcentral | metag_dti | 0.348 | 0.0351 |
| Duncaniella_TO_G_parietal_sup | metag_dti | 0.483 | 0.00248 |
| Aneurinibacillus_TO_S_temporal_transverse | metag_dti | β4.01E-01 | 0.014 |
| Porphyromonas_TO_G_temp_sup.Lateral | metag_dti | 0.333 | 0.0443 |
| Terrisporobacter_TO_G_front_inf.Opercular | metag_dti | β7.00E-01 | 0.00000139 |
| Terrisporobacter_TO_S_front_inf | metag_dti | β3.99E-01 | 0.0144 |
| Terrisporobacter_TO_G_precentral | metag_dti | β4.62E-01 | 0.00398 |
| Terrisporobacter_TO_G_and_S_subcentral | metag_dti | β4.89E-01 | 0.00212 |
| Faecalicoccus_TO_G_front_inf.Opercular | metag_dti | β4.04E-01 | 0.0131 |
| Faecalicoccus_TO_G_parietal_sup | metag_dti | β3.44E-01 | 0.0372 |
| Slackia_TO_G_front_inf.Opercular | metag_dti | β3.31E-01 | 0.0456 |
| Slackia_TO_G_parietal_sup | metag_dti | β3.73E-01 | 0.0229 |
| Intestinimonas_TO_RS_R_SupTS_to_L_LORs | metag_rspw | β4.48E-01 | 0.00889 |
| Olsenella_TO_RS_L_HG_to_L_LoInG_CInS | metag_rspw | β3.98E-01 | 0.0219 |
| Tannerella_TO_RS_R_PRCG_to_L_CoS_LinS | metag_rspw | 0.459 | 0.00718 |
| Bifidobacterium_TO_RS_R_InfFGOrp_to_L_MOcG | metag_rspw | 0.38 | 0.029 |
| Bifidobacterium_TO_RS_R_MedOrS_to_R_LoInG_CInS | metag_rspw | β3.59E-01 | 0.0403 |
| Duncaniella_TO_RS_R_MedOrS_to_R_LoInG_CInS | metag_rspw | 0.4 | 0.021 |
| Aneurinibacillus_TO_RS_R_InfFGOrp_to_L_MOcG | metag_rspw | 0.366 | 0.0364 |
| Enteroscipio_TO_RS_L_HG_to_L_LoInG_CInS | metag_rspw | β3.84E-01 | 0.0275 |
| Enteroscipio_TO_RS_R_MedOrS_to_R_LoInG_CInS | metag_rspw | β5.73E-01 | 0.000486 |
| Porphyromonas_TO_RS_R_PosCS_to_L_PaHipG | metag_rspw | 0.394 | 0.0235 |
| Porphyromonas_TO_RS_L_PO_to_R_Amg | metag_rspw | β4.45E-01 | 0.00946 |
| Sphingomonas_TO_RS_R_InfFGTrip_to_L_PrCun | metag_rspw | β4.96E-01 | 0.00329 |
| Sphingomonas_TO_RS_R_PosCG_to_L_AngG | metag_rspw | 0.354 | 0.0433 |
| Burkholderia_TO_RS_PAG_to_R_InfTG | metag_rspw | 0.348 | 0.0475 |
| Burkholderia_TO_RS_R_PRCG_to_L_CoS_LinS | metag_rspw | 0.403 | 0.02 |
| Burkholderia_TO_RS_R_PosCG_to_L_AngG | metag_rspw | 0.524 | 0.00175 |
| Slackia_TO_RS_L_HG_to_L_LoInG_CInS | metag_rspw | β5.31E-01 | 0.00148 |
| Slackia_TO_RS_R_CoS_LinS_to_L_CcS | metag_rspw | β5.40E-01 | 0.00119 |
| Christensenella_TO_RS_L_HG_to_L_LoInG_CInS | metag_rspw | β4.65E-01 | 0.00644 |
| Christensenella_TO_RS_R_InfFGTrip_to_L_PrCun | metag_rspw | β3.77E-01 | 0.0307 |
| Christensenella_TO_RS_R_PosCG_to_L_AngG | metag_rspw | 0.353 | 0.0441 |
| Subdoligranulum_TO_L_PosTrCoS_MC | metag_struct | 0.388 | 0.0175 |
| Intestinimonas_TO_L_SupPrCs_CT | metag_struct | β3.50E-01 | 0.0339 |
| Intestinimonas_TO_L_InfFGTrip_MC | metag_struct | β3.48E-01 | 0.0346 |
| Intestinimonas_TO_R_SupOcS_TrOcS_MC | metag_struct | β3.52E-01 | 0.0328 |
| Parasutterella_TO_R_SbOrS_SA | metag_struct | β3.28E-01 | 0.0475 |
| Tannerella_TO_L_InfFGTrip_MC | metag_struct | β3.64E-01 | 0.0268 |
| Hungatella_TO_L_HG_CT | metag_struct | β3.88E-01 | 0.0177 |
| Bifidobacterium_TO_L_InfFGTrip_MC | metag_struct | 0.402 | 0.0137 |
| Bifidobacterium_TO_L_LORs_CT | metag_struct | β5.14E-01 | 0.00114 |
| Duncaniella_TO_R_PaCL_S_CT | metag_struct | β3.42E-01 | 0.0381 |
| Enteroscipio_TO_L_CoS_LinS_CT | metag_struct | β3.32E-01 | 0.0445 |
| Porphyromonas_TO_L_SbCaG_MC | metag_struct | β3.52E-01 | 0.0324 |
| Porphyromonas_TO_L_PoPl_SA | metag_struct | β4.23E-01 | 0.0091 |
| Terrisporobacter_TO_L_InfFGTrip_MC | metag_struct | 0.409 | 0.012 |
| Terrisporobacter_TO_R_SupOcS_TrOcS_MC | metag_struct | 0.378 | 0.0211 |
| Akkermansia_TO_L_SbCaG_MC | metag_struct | 0.353 | 0.0323 |
| Sphingomonas_TO_R_PaCL_S_CT | metag_struct | β3.26E-01 | 0.0488 |
| R_SupOcS_TrOcS_MC_TO_G_temp_sup.Lateral | struct_dti.fa | β3.21E-01 | 0.00000711 |
| R_MACgG_S_MC_TO_G_front_inf.Opercular | struct_dti.fa | β3.34E-01 | 0.00000273 |
| G_front_inf.Opercular_TO_RS_R_CoS_LinS_to_L_CcS | dti.fa_rspw | 0.355 | 0.00000115 |
| G_temp_sup.Lateral_TO_RS_R_CoS_LinS_to_L_CcS | dti.fa_rspw | 0.344 | 0.00000267 |
| G_precentral_TO_RS_R_CoS_LinS_to_L_CcS | dti.fa_rspw | 0.316 | 0.0000168 |
| G_and_S_subcentral_TO_RS_R_CoS_LinS_to_L_CcS | dti.fa_rspw | 0.333 | 0.00000552 |
| G_parietal_sup_TO_RS_R_CoS_LinS_to_L_CcS | dti.fa_rspw | 0.439 | 9.11e-10 |
| Abbreviation | Description |
|---|---|
| Structural Key | |
| CC_Mid_Posterior_Vol | Corpus Callosum |
| Optic_Chiasm_Vol | Optic Chiasm |
| L_PosTrCoS | Posterior transverse collateral sulcus |
| R_InfOcG_S | Inferior occipital gyrus (O3) and sulcus |
| L_SupPrCs | Superior part of theprecentral sulcus |
| L_InfFGTrip | Triangular part of the inferior frontal gyrus |
| R_SbOrS | Suborbital sulcus (sulcus rostrales, supraorbital sulcus) |
| L_LORs | Lateral orbital sulcus |
| R_SupOcS_TrOcS | Superior occipital sulcus andtransverse occipital sulcus |
| L_SbCaG | Subcallosal area, subcallosal gyrus |
| L_CoS_LinS | Medial occipito-temporal sulcus (collateral sulcus) and lingual sulcus |
| L_PoPl | Planum polare of thesuperior temporal gyrus |
| R_MACgG_S | Middle-anterior part of thecingulate gyrus and sulcus(aMCC) |
| R_PaCL_S | Paracentral lobule and sulcus |
| R_MOcG | Middle occipital gyrus (O2, lateral occipital gyrus) |
| L_HG | Anterior transverse temporal gyrus (of Heschl) |
| Diffusion Key | |
| G_front_inf_Opercular | Opercular part of the inferior frontal gyrus |
| G_temp_sup_Lateral | Lateral aspect of thesuperior temporal gyrus |
| S_front_inf | Inferior frontal sulcus |
| G_precentral | Precentral gyrus |
| S_subparietal | Subparietal sulcus |
| G_and_S_subcentral | Subcentral gyrus (central operculum) and sulci |
| S_temporal_transverse | Transverse temporal sulcus |
| G_parietal_sup | Superior parietal lobule (lateral part of P1) |
| Resting State Pairwise Key | |
| R_MRF_to_L_MOcG | Mesencephalic reticular formation to Middle occipital gyrus (O2, lateral occipital gyrus) |
| VTA_to_L_Pu | Ventral tegmental area to Putamen |
| PAG_to_R_InfTG | Periaqueductal gray to Inferior temporal gyrus(T3) |
| R_InfFGOrp_to_L_MOcG | Orbital part of the inferior frontal gyrus to Middle occipital gyrus (O2, lateral occipital gyrus) |
| L_HG_to_L_LoInG_CInS | Anterior transverse temporal gyrus (of Heschl) to Long insular gyrus and central sulcus of the insula |
| R_PRCG_to_L_CoS_LinS | Precentral gyrus to Medial occipito-temporal sulcus (collateral sulcus) and lingual sulcus |
| R_AOcS_to_L_MFG | Anterior occipital sulcus andpreoccipital notch (temporo-occipital incisure) to Middle frontal gyrus(F2) |
| R_MedOrS_to_R_LoInG_CInS | Medial orbital sulcus (olfactory sulcus) to Long insular gyrus and central sulcus of the insula |
| R_InfFGTrip_to_L_PrCun | Triangular part of the inferior frontal gyrus to Precuneus (medial part of P1) |
| R_PosCS_to_L_PaHipG | Postcentral sulcus to Parahippocampal gyrus, parahippocampal part of the medial occipito-temporal gyrus(T5) |
| R_MRF_to_R_SupPL | Mesencephalic reticular formation to Superior parietal lobule (lateral part of P1) |
| R_CoS_LinS_to_L_CcS | Medial occipito-temporal sulcus (collateral sulcus) and lingual sulcus to Calcarine sulcus |
| L_PBC_to_R_POcS | Parabrachial complex to Parieto-occipital sulcus(orfissure) |
| R_CcS_to_R_Nacc | Calcarine sulcus to (Nucleus) Accumbens area |
| R_PosCG_to_L_AngG | Postcentral gyrus to Angular gyrus |
| L_PO_to_R_Amg | Pontis oralis to Amygdala |
| R_SupTS_to_L_LORs | Superior temporal sulcus (parallel sulcus) to Lateral orbital sulcus |
IBS disease-related differences (Table, Fig): 4 3
IBS participants had a more negative association between Bifidobacterium and ACE Parental Divorce/Separation (r= β4.01x10β1, p=7.52x10β5), compared to that in HCs.
Adverse childhood-related differences (Table, Fig): 5 4
Compared to individuals with low ACE scores, those with high ACE scores exhibited significantly stronger and more widespread correlations between inter-omic features, including both positive and negative associations. Key findings are detailed below.
In participants with high levels of ACE, GI-related anxiety (VSI) was positively associated with connectivity between the postcentral sulcus and parahippocampal gyrus (key regions of the SMN and ERN) (r=4.83x10β1, p=3.33x10β4). In addition, high levels of parental divorce/separation on the ACE were associated with decreased connectivity in key regions of the CEN (Orbital part of the inferior frontal gyrus to Middle occipital gyrus (r=β4.46x10β1, p=1.05x10β3). Further, Bifidobacterium was negatively associated with the cortical thickness of left lateral occipitotemporal sulcus part of CAN/SAL (r=β4.00x10β1, p=2.23x10β3). Finally, Sphingomonas was negatively associated with connectivity in key regions of the SMN/DMN (Triangular part of the inferior frontal gyrus to Precuneus, r=β4.01x10β1, p=3.50x10β3).
In participants with low levels of ACE, there were positive associations between the OCC network and the SMN (superior parietal lobule, SMN, r=4.21E-01, p=8.13E-07) and a region in Opercular part of the inferior frontal gyrus (SAL, =4.21E-01, p=6.97E-07).
Disease and ACE-related differences (i.e., interaction effects) (Table, Fig): 6 5
In high ACE IBS participants (Fig 5d), somatic symptom severity (PHQ-15 score) was more negatively associated with Akkermansia (r= β4.07x10β1, p=1.24x10β2) compared to that in the other groups. Additionally, Bifidobacterium was more negatively associated with both ACE Parental Divorce/Separation (r= β4.41x10β1, p=6.24x10β3) and cortical thickness of left lateral occipitotemporal sulcus (L LORs CT), a region of the central autonomic network (CAN)/SAL (r= β5.14x10β1, p=1.14x10β3).
In low ACE IBS participants (Fig 5c), connectivity of the medial occipito-temporal sulcus and lingual sulcus with the calcarine sulcus [R Cos LinS to L CcS] was more positively associated with the microstructure of the superior parietal lobule [G parietal sup], a region in the central executive network (CEN) (r= 4.39x10β1, p=9.11x10β10) compared to that in the other groups. Additionally, Subdoligranulum was more negatively associated with the microstructure of the lateral aspect of the superior temporal gyrus (G temp sup Lateral), a region in the default mode network (DMN) (r= β4.02x10β1, p=2.37x10β3).
In high ACE HC participants (Fig 5b), multiple cortical and subcortical regions showed more positive or negative associations compared to those in other groups. This included more negative associations between the cortical thickness of the middle anterior cingulate gyrus and sulcus (L Cos LinS CT), a region in the salience (SAL) network, and the genera Akkermansia (r= β6.41x10β1, p=3.08x10β3), Subdoligranulum (p=1.10x10β2, r= β5.69x10β1), Intestinimonas (r= β6.65x10β1, p=1.90x10β3), and Christensenella (r= β5.21x10β1, p=2.22x10β2). Additionally, GI symptom-related anxiety (VSI score) was more positively associated with the microstructure of the transverse temporal sulcus (S temporal transverse), a region in the DMN (r= 5.66x10β1, p=1.15x10β2) and the surface area of right suborbital sulcus (R SbOrS SA), a region in CAN/SAL (r= 4.79x10β1, p=3.79x10β2).
In low ACE HC participants (Fig 5a), Burkholderia was more positively associated with the lateral aspect of the superior temporal gyrus (G temp sup Lateral), a region in the DMN (r= 4.13x10β1, p=1.87x10β4) compared to that in other groups. Additionally, connectivity of the medial occipito-temporal sulcus and lingual sulcus with the calcarine sulcus (R Cos LinS to L CcS) was more positively associated with the microstructure of the superior parietal lobule (G parietal sup), a region in the CEN (r= 4.39x10β1, p=9.11x10β10).
Discussion
The study aimed to test the hypothesis that female IBS participants differing in their reported levels of ACE (psychosocial stressors that comprise adverse SDoH occurring in childhood) are characterized by distinct biological alterations within the BGM system that can be identified by multi-omic signatures (see Graphical Abstract). Key findings include: 1. High ACE participants with IBS versus their HC counterpart showed increased depression and anxiety symptoms, GI symptom-related anxiety (VSI), perceived stress levels (PSS), somatic symptom severity (PHQ-15), and had poorer physical and mental health scores (SF-12). 2. High ACE participants with IBS had distinct connectivity patterns related to beneficial gut microbiota, notably a negative association between Akkermansia and PHQ-15, as well as Bifidobacterium and ACE parental divorce/separation and salience and central autonomic networks. 3. The ensemble model accurately distinguished IBS patients with high ACE (AUC of 0.87), demonstrating strong predictive performance with an overall model accuracy of 78%. Our findings suggest that both disease status and ACE exposure independently and interactively contribute to alterations across clinical outcomes, microbiota composition, and neural network connectivity and morphology, thereby further supporting the relevance of early life stress in modulating gut-brain axis dynamics.
IBS is associated with worse clinical outcomes, with some outcomes influenced by ACE
The greater levels of depression, anxiety, GI symptom-related anxiety (VSI), perceived stress (PSS), somatic symptom severity (PHQ-15), and poorer physical and mental health scores (SF-12) observed in IBS participants compared to healthy controls align with the biopsychosocial model of IBS. This model suggests that central dysregulation of affective and pain circuits plays a role in symptom expression [62].
Although ACEs have been associated with greater symptom severity in IBS, the present study only found trends toward higher IBS-SSS and lower QoL in IBS participants with high ACE scores. The absence of statistical significance may indicate that ACEs primarily influence extraintestinal domains such as psychological distress and stress sensitivity. This is supported by statistically significant stronger differences in somatic symptom burden.
Further, our results suggest that the influence of ACEs may be partially mediated by heightened GI symptom-related anxiety (VSI), rather than by direct physiological alterations detectable through neuroimaging or microbiome analyses. In high ACE participants, GI symptom-related anxiety (VSI) was positively correlated with connectivity between the postcentral sulcus and parahippocampal gyrus (R PosCS to L PaHipG), a region involved in interoceptive processing and perception of internal bodily sensations. Individuals with high ACE scores may exhibit heightened interoceptive awareness, amplifying their perception and anxiety related to gastrointestinal symptoms. The parahippocampal gyrus, part of the limbic system, plays a crucial role in emotional processing and stress responses. Increased connectivity in this region may reflect an exaggerated emotional response to visceral sensations, further contributing to gastrointestinal symptom-related anxiety. Studies have demonstrated that altered resting-state functional connectivity in regions responsible for sensory processing and emotional regulation is linked to visceral hypersensitivity in IBS patients [63]. This hypersensitivity, which can be exacerbated by early life stress, may lead to increased anxiety surrounding gastrointestinal symptoms.
High ACE in IBS is characterized by dysbiosis of gut anti-inflammatory microbes, related to clinical outcomes
ACE-induced chronic stress disrupts the brain-gut-microbiota axis, leading to long-term alterations in gut microbiota composition, reduced microbial diversity, and a shift in the balance between beneficial and potentially pathogenic bacteria [64β66]. This dysbiosis contributes to immune dysregulation through altered pro-inflammatory and anti-inflammatory cytokines, fostering the chronic low-grade inflammation characteristic of IBS [66, 67]. In our cohort, IBS participants with high ACE scores demonstrated distinct microbial signatures, notably a negative correlation of beneficial genera Akkermansia and Bifidobacterium with somatic symptom severity (PHQ-15) and ACE parental divorce/separation, respectively. Akkermansia is linked to gut barrier integrity, immune regulation, and pain reduction [68, 69]. Previous studies have shown that treatment with pasteurized Akkermansia in IBS mouse models improved anxiety-like behavior, reduced colonic hypersensitivity,and reinforced intestinal barrier function [70], suggesting its potential role in modulating the gut-brain axis and reducing inflammation as a therapeutic approach. Additionally, as Bifidobacterium is a well-documented genus shown to improve intestinal permeability [71], alleviate IBS symptoms [72], reduce inflammatory cytokines (e.g., IL-6 and TNF-\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$$\alpha$$\end{document}) [73], and modulate the gut microbiota to increase the abundance of beneficial bacteria and short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs) that are crucial for gut health [74], its depletion in high ACE IBS participants suggests a potential mechanism linking early life adversity to somatic symptom burden in IBS. This is consistent with prior research highlighting chronic stress from ACEs as exacerbating psychological distress and contributing to visceral hypersensitivity, a hallmark of IBS [75, 76].
IBS and ACEs affect stress regulation and pain processing neural circuits, related to gut microbes
Early-life stress has been shown to contribute to central nervous system dysregulation through maladaptive neuroendocrine responses to stress, which manifest as gastrointestinal symptoms [77]. Additionally, IBS patients with a history of childhood trauma exhibit increased visceral hypersensitivity and altered brain responses to pain [78]. Our neuroimaging findings revealed significant associations between ACEs, IBS, and alterations in key neural circuits, including the salience network (SAL), sensorimotor network (SMN), default mode network (DMN), central autonomic network (CAN), and central executive network (CEN), which all play crucial roles in stress and emotional regulation and pain processing. In high ACE IBS participants, Bifidobacterium was negatively linked to CAN/SAL. Hyperconnectivity in the salience network is linked to hypervigilance and hyperalgesia in IBS [63] while CAN regulates stress responses by integrating physiological and emotional signals across brain regions to modulate autonomic, neuroendocrine, and behavioral adaptations [79]. Lower levels of Bifidobacterium may exacerbate these network dysfunctions, contributing to more severe IBS symptoms. In contrast, in low ACE IBS participants, there was a positive association between medial occipito-temporal (collateral) sulcus and lingual sulcus to calcarine sulcus and the CEN, which is involved in high-level cognitive functions [80]. This may suggest a potential compensatory mechanism within cognitive control regions to help manage IBS symptoms. Additionally, Subdoligranulum, a butyrate-producing beneficial bacterium, was negatively linked to the DMN, highlighting a possible role of microbiome-brain interactions in modulating pain and emotional processing in low ACE IBS participants.
In high ACE HC participants, salience (SAL) connectivity was negatively associated with beneficial gut microbial genera, including Akkermansia, Subdoligranulum, Intestinimonas, and Christensenella, suggesting a potential link between gut microbial composition and stress-related brain network activity. The salience network is crucial for detecting and integrating salient stimuli, including pain and emotional stress. In IBS patients, particularly those with a history of ACE, increased SAL connectivity likely contributes to heightened pain perception, emotional dysregulation, and hypervigilance [81, 82]. Additionally, Intestinimonas, a butyrate producing bacteria, was positively associated with the subcentral sulcus and sulci (G and S subcentral) part of the sensorimotor network connectivity. As the subcentral area encompasses parts of the primary motor and somatosensory cortices, these connectivity changes may relate to visceral sensorimotor integration and interoception, which may contribute to a latent risk for IBS. Individuals with a history of ACEs are twice as likely to have IBS than those without an ACE [6].
In summary, IBS and ACE can influence key neural circuits part of a complex interplay between early-life adversity and gut microbiota in shaping IBS pathophysiology, emphasizing the need for a more integrative approach to understanding and managing this disorder. Despite the lack of significant differences in symptom severity between IBS participants with high and low ACEs, we found unique microbiome and brain signatures. These signatures may be relevant to personalized medicine/treatment response differences. Additionally, it is possible that resilience or other protective factors buffer the effect of ACEs. However, it remains unclear whether these signatures arise from IBS itself or reflect increased vulnerability in individuals with ACEs. Future research with larger samples and a longitudinal design, following individuals with ACEs to see how ACEs can increase the vulnerability to develop IBS symptoms, is needed. Overall, these findings emphasize the critical influence of early-life stress on gut microbiota composition and support the potential of microbiome-targeted interventions in alleviating and preventing IBS symptoms in individuals with a history of ACE.
Multi-omic integration enhances predictive modeling based on IBS diagnosis and ACEs
The ensemble model outperformed the individual base models, indicating that integrating multiple biological modalities enhances predictive power. Among the base models, the clinical model had the highest independent predictive ability (kappa = 0.67), suggesting that questionnaire-based assessments of IBS severity and symptom impact remain critical for classification. In contrast, individual neuroimaging and metagenomic models had relatively low kappa values (ranging from 0.07 to 0.18), indicating that while these features contribute to prediction, their standalone predictive power is limited. This aligns with prior work suggesting that neurobiological and gut microbial alterations in IBS are subtle and context-dependent rather than deterministic. Labus et al. (2017) indicated that while gut microbial composition differences correlate with regional brain volumes in IBS patients, these alterations are subtle and vary among individuals. Notably, AUC values varied across groups, with the highest classification performance for HCs with low ACEs (AUC = 0.98), followed by IBS patients with high ACE (AUC =0.87) and IBS patients with low ACE (AUC = 0.82). The HC high ACE group was the most difficult to classify (AUC = 0.70). The exceptionally high AUC for HC low ACE suggests that healthy individuals with minimal early-life stress exhibit the most distinct biological signatures, making them the easiest to differentiate. In contrast, the lower AUC for HC high ACE indicates that early-life adversity in healthy individuals may lead to more variable biological profiles, with heterogenous coping mechanisms, resilience factors, or subclinical symptomatology blurring distinctions from IBS groups.
Limitations
Although this was a large, well-characterized cohort with rigorous classification into four distinct subgroups, certain limitations should be acknowledged. The sample size distribution across subgroups was uneven, with a particularly smaller representation of high ACE participants, which may impact the generalizability of findings. Additionally, the cross-sectional design precludes causal inferences regarding the relationship between ACE and multi-omic alterations. Further validation in larger, independent cohorts is necessary, including functional validation of key biomarkers. Moreover, the study was limited to female participants, restricting the ability to evaluate sex-specific differences in multi-omic profiles. The reliance on self-reported menstrual history to determine follicular phase status may be subject to recall bias and imprecise phase classification, potentially affecting the interpretation of hormonally sensitive outcomes. Further, it is possible that having a condition such as IBS in adulthood may bias the recall of ACEs. Finally, future research should compare IBS with other chronic gastrointestinal or pain conditions to further delineate biological alterations related to ACEs in IBS.
Clinical implications and conclusions
This study highlights the magnitude of chronic stress from ACEs, which are adverse SDoH, on the multifaceted nature of IBS including psychological, neural, and gut microbiome factors that contribute to gastrointestinal symptoms in women. The studyβs multi-omics approach builds on emerging research demonstrating the value of integrating clinical, neuroimaging, and microbiome data to capture the heterogeneity of IBS phenotypes. Gut microbiome and brain imaging markers can potentially be used as predictive tools for therapeutic outcomes. It can also be the key to identify therapeutic targets tailored to modulate specific microbial profiles or brain circuits to address the long-term consequences of early-life stress in individuals with IBS. Further research should comprise longitudinal studies to track dynamic changes in multi-omic markers over time, mechanistic studies to investigate causal pathways linking ACEs to brain and gut alterations, and most importantly, interventional studies to assess impact of therapies targeting microbiomes or brain connectivity on IBS outcomes. Since it is known that there are significant sex-specific differences in clinical presentation, microbiome composition, and brain-gut interactions, it would be valuable to do similar multi-omic studies with both male and females to explore these differences further.