Additional file 2 of Characterization of oral and gut microbiome and plasma metabolomics in COVID-19 patients after 1-year follow-up

Additional file 2: Table S1. Clinical characteristics of participants in this study. Table S2. Level of neutralizing antibodies and IgG in the process of recovery. Table S3. Detail of the oral microbial α diversity index among the three groups. Table S4. Abundance and average composition at the genus level and phylum level of oral microbiome in each sample among the three groups. Table S5. Corresponding LDA value and P-value of the biomarkers of oral microbiome among the three groups. Table S6. Different degree of genus and phylum level (P-value) of oral microbiome in each sample among the three groups. Table S7. One year later neutralizing antibody and IgG of CPR0-L were significantly lower than those of CPR0-H. Table S8. Detail of the oral microbial α diversity index between CPR0-L and CPR0-H. Table S9. Different degree of genus and phylum level (P-value) of oral microbiome in each sample between CPR0-L and CPR0-H. Table S10. By random forest classifier model, the corresponding output value of each optimal oral microbial marker and the corresponding POD value for each sample in CPR0-L and CPR0-H. Table S11. Detail of the gut microbial α diversity index among the three groups. Table S12. Corresponding LDA value and P-value of the biomarkers of gut microbiome among the three groups. Table S13. Different degree of genus and phylum level (P-value) of gut microbiome in each sample among the three groups. Table S14. Relative abundance and distribution of the key gut microbial OTUs between CPR1 and HC groups. Table S15. Detail of the gut microbial α diversity index between CPR0-L and CPR0-H. Table S16. Different degree of genus and family level (P-value) of gut microbiome in each sample between CPR0-L and CPR0-H. Table S17. By random forest classifier model, the corresponding output value of each optimal gut microbial marker and the corresponding POD value for each sample in CPR0-L and CPR0-H. Table S18. Raw data obtained from positive ion mode of plasma metabonomics among the three groups. Table S19. Raw data obtained from negative ion mode of plasma metabonomics among the three groups. Table S20. Abundance and average composition of plasma metabonomics among the three groups. Table S21. Different degree of family level (P-value) of plasma metabonomics among the three groups. Table S22. Correlation between 204 different metabolites from CPR1s and CPR0s. Table S23. Correlation between 216 different metabolites from CPR1s and HCs. Table S24. Raw data obtained from positive ion mode of plasma metabonomics between CPR0-L and CPR0-H. Table S25. Raw data obtained from negative ion mode of plasma metabonomics between CPR0-L and CPR0-H. Table S26. Abundance and average composition of plasma metabonomics between CPR0-L and CPR0-H. Table S27. Different degree of family level (P-value) of plasma metabonomics between CPR0-L and CPR0-H. Table S28. By random forest classifier model, the corresponding output value of each optimal metabolites’ marker and the corresponding POD value for each sample in CPR0-L and CPR0-H. Table S29. Correlation in the gradual recovery process from CPR0 to CPR1 to HC. Table S30. Correlation in gut and oral microbiome and plasma metabonomics and clinical indicators between CPR1 and HC.

附加文件2：表S1 本研究受试者的临床特征。表S2 康复过程中的中和抗体与免疫球蛋白G（Immunoglobulin G，IgG）水平。表S3 三组受试者口腔微生物α多样性指数详情。表S4 三组受试者各样本口腔微生物组在属水平与门水平的丰度及平均组成。表S5 三组受试者口腔微生物组生物标志物的线性判别分析（Linear Discriminant Analysis, LDA）值与P值。表S6 三组受试者各样本口腔微生物组在属水平与门水平的差异程度（P值）。表S7 随访一年后，CPR0-L组的中和抗体与免疫球蛋白G水平显著低于CPR0-H组。表S8 CPR0-L与CPR0-H组口腔微生物α多样性指数详情。表S9 CPR0-L与CPR0-H组各样本口腔微生物组在属水平与门水平的差异程度（P值）。表S10 基于随机森林分类器模型，CPR0-L与CPR0-H组各最优口腔微生物标志物的对应输出值，以及各样本的POD值。表S11 三组受试者肠道微生物α多样性指数详情。表S12 三组受试者肠道微生物组生物标志物的LDA值与P值。表S13 三组受试者各样本肠道微生物组在属水平与门水平的差异程度（P值）。表S14 CPR1组与健康对照（Healthy Control, HC）组关键肠道微生物操作分类单元（Operational Taxonomic Unit, OTU）的相对丰度与分布。表S15 CPR0-L与CPR0-H组肠道微生物α多样性指数详情。表S16 CPR0-L与CPR0-H组各样本肠道微生物组在属水平与科水平的差异程度（P值）。表S17 基于随机森林分类器模型，CPR0-L与CPR0-H组各最优肠道微生物标志物的对应输出值，以及各样本的POD值。表S18 三组受试者血浆代谢组学正离子模式下的原始数据。表S19 三组受试者血浆代谢组学负离子模式下的原始数据。表S20 三组受试者血浆代谢组学的丰度及平均组成。表S21 三组受试者血浆代谢组学在科水平的差异程度（P值）。表S22 CPR1组与CPR0组204种差异代谢物间的相关性。表S23 CPR1组与健康对照（HC）组216种差异代谢物间的相关性。表S24 CPR0-L与CPR0-H组血浆代谢组学正离子模式下的原始数据。表S25 CPR0-L与CPR0-H组血浆代谢组学负离子模式下的原始数据。表S26 CPR0-L与CPR0-H组血浆代谢组学的丰度及平均组成。表S27 CPR0-L与CPR0-H组血浆代谢组学在科水平的差异程度（P值）。表S28 基于随机森林分类器模型，CPR0-L与CPR0-H组各最优代谢物标志物的对应输出值，以及各样本的POD值。表S29 从CPR0到CPR1再到健康对照（HC）的逐步康复过程中的相关性。表S30 CPR1组与健康对照（HC）组肠道微生物组、口腔微生物组、血浆代谢组学与临床指标间的相关性。