DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.20098399.v1
title: Additional file 2 of Characterization of oral and gut microbiome and plasma metabolomics in COVID-19 patients after 1-year follow-up

description: 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.