Metaproteogenomic Analysis of Saliva Samples from Parkinson’s Disease Patients Across the Spectrum of Cognitive Impairment

2.1. Study subjects and clinical characteristics

The study was approved by the ethics committee of the Istanbul Medipol University with authorization number 10840098-604.01.01-E.3958, and informed consent was obtained from all participants. A total of 115 subjects (HC, n=27; PD-MCI, n=45; PDD, n=43) were recruited at two tertiary training hospitals including the Medipol Training and Research Hospital in the neurology clinic and Bakirkoy Research and Training Hospital for Psychiatric and Neurological Diseases. Participants were part of a larger cohort recruited into an ongoing prospective study on CI in PD. Clinical and demographic information, including age, sex, years of education were collected at clinic visits. The patients were examined by experienced neurologists and the diagnosis of PD was made within the framework of the “United Kingdom Parkinson’s Disease Society Brain Bank” criteria. Subjects with previous head trauma, stroke, or exposure to toxic substances, substance abuse, history of antibiotic or probiotic use within last one-month, chronic severe diseases (diabetes, cancer, kidney failure, etc.), autoimmune diseases, smokers, and those with symptoms suggestive of Parkinson’s plus syndromes were excluded from the study. Hoehn-Yahr Stages Parkinson’s Staging Scale was used to determine the stage of the disease and The Movement Disorder Society’s diagnostic criteria for Parkinson’s Disease Dementia criteria were used for dementia evaluation. The diagnosis of MCI was made within the framework of the criteria defined by Litvan et al.¹⁷

2.2. Sample preparation for 16S rRNA gene amplicon gene sequencing

Unstimulated saliva samples were divided into two equal aliquots of 500 µl and used for DNA and protein extractions separately. Microbial DNA extraction from saliva samples was performed using DNeasy PowerSoil (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany) with modifications as described before¹⁸. In brief, 250 µl saliva sample was centrifuged at 10,000 x g for 5 min, supernatant discarded, and the pellet was resuspended with 400 μl bead beating buffer and transferred to the PowerBead tube. Samples were homogenized by bead-beating using Next Advance Bullet Blender (30 s at level 4, 30 s incubation on ice and 30 s at level 4). After bead-beating step, the manufacturer’s protocol was followed without any modification. The V3-V4 regions of 16S rRNA gene were amplified using the universal bacterial primers (F-5′-CCTACGGGNGGCWGCAG-3′ and R-5′-GACTACHVGGGTATCTAATCC-3′). Next, amplicon libraries were prepared by following Illumina’s 16S rRNA metagenomic sequencing library preparation protocol and sequenced using a MiSeq platform and 2×250 paired end kit. Amplicon sequencing libraries prepared from a total of 115 gDNA samples were sequenced along with DNA extraction negative control and a no-template PCR control per run.

2.3. Sample preparation for metaproteomics

For protein extraction, 250 µl saliva sample was centrifuged at 10,000 x g for 5 min Discarding the supernatant, the pellet was resuspended in 250 μl bead beating buffer and transferred to the BeadBug™ prefilled tubes, 2.0 ml containing 1.0 mm Zirconium beads. Samples were homogenized by bead-beating using Next Advance Bullet Blender (30 s at level 4, 30 s incubation on ice and 30 s at level 4). After bead-beating step, samples were incubated at 100 °C for 10 min under constant shaking (600 rpm), followed by 4 °C incubation for an hour and centrifugation at 16,000 × g for 10 min. The supernatants were finally transferred to a clean 1.5 ml microcentrifuge tube. The total protein concentrations were measured with the Qubit protein assay kit. 50 µg protein (eluted in 30 µl) was used in the downstream analyses for each sample. Tryptic peptides were generated using the Filter Aided Sample Preparation Protocol (FASP) kit (Expedeon, San Diego, USA) according to the manufacturer’s protocol. The peptides were dissolved in 0.1 percent formic acid and diluted to 100 ng/μl before injecting to the liquid chromatography tandem-mass spectrometry (the ACQUITY UPLC M-Class coupled to a SYNAPT G2-Si high-definition mass spectrometer (Waters, Milford, CT)). The LC-MS/MS analysis was performed according to a previously published protocol¹⁹.

2.4. Analysis of 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing data

Raw 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing data were analyzed using the Nephele platform (v.1.6, http://nephele.niaid.nih.gov)²⁰ using default parameters (QC: minlen: 30, req_qual: 12, overlap: 3, trail_qual: 3, run_flash2_merge: True, f2_min_overlap: 10, run_flash2_merge: True, error_rate: 0.1, window_size: 4; DADA2: maxEE: 5, ref_db: sv138.1, taxmethod: rdp, trimleft_fwd: 0, truncLen_fwd: 0, truncQ: 4) and SILVA v.138.1 database²¹. The contaminant sequences were identified and removed using the decontam package²² based on negative control samples. Only ASVs present in at least 2 samples were included in the downstream analyses. Samples were rarefied to minimum sampling depth (4,821 reads) before performing alpha diversity analyses and CLR transformed before beta diversity analyses. Diversity analyses were performed using QIIME2²³ and phyloseq²⁴. MaAsLin2²⁵, LEfSe²⁶, ANCOM-BC²⁷ and ANOVA were used to determine differential abundances between groups, controlling covariates when possible, and the R package ggplot2²⁸ was used for visualization of the results.

2.5. Analysis of metaproteomics data

For metaproteomics data analysis, firstly, a custom protein database based on 16S rRNA amplicon sequencing results was built. Briefly, we determined the 20 most abundant genera and bacterial taxa that showed differential abundance between study groups. We obtained all species-level genome bins that belonged to these genera from a recently published comprehensive study on human oral microbiome²⁹. Next, we added all human proteins from UniProt database³⁰ to the predicted bacterial proteins of these genome bins which produced a final protein database of 1,165,589 protein sequences. Progenesis-QI (Waters) software was used to identify and quantify the protein groups. Protein groups identified by at least 2 unique peptide sequences, taxonomically assigned to Eukaryota or Bacteria kingdoms and present in all samples were used for downstream analyses. Also, to reduce batch effects on metaproteomics results, we used MMUPHin³¹ to adjust protein abundances before further processing. Diversity analyses were performed using phyloseq. We employed Prophane³² tool with default parameters to annotate taxonomy and functions of the detected proteins. All identified protein groups from each sample were classified into main metabolic pathways using the orthologous groups (OG) classification against the EggNog database³³. ANOVA was used to examine potential associations at both the protein OGs and functional categories levels with CI stages.

2.6. Multi-omics factor analysis

Multi-Omics Factor Analysis (MOFA)³⁴ was employed to integrate 16S rRNA amplicon sequencing and metaproteomics datasets as data modalities with matching samples. ASV table was collapsed to the genus level and both datasets were CLR transformed to reduce compositionality bias before generating the MOFA model. Data and training options were set to default with 10,000 iterations in ‘slow’ convergence mode to generate 15 factors. Downstream analyses after generation of MOFA model were performed using MOFA+ tool³⁵.

2.7. Model-based classification of CI status in PD

To identify taxonomic and protein signatures associated with CI, we constructed a random forest machine learning (ML) model. We first took advantage of the MOFA to select important features from the two omics datasets and subsequently fit these features into random forest models, both together and separately. To create the classifiers, a random forest constituted of 5000 trees was computed using microeco R package (v4.6-7)³⁶. A total of 80% of samples were used to train the model and 20% were used for cross validation. We plotted the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) to show prediction performance of each model. To evaluate the predictive performance of our MOFA selected features, we have also used AutoGluon (v0.5.2) in tabular prediction mode. Evaluation metric ‘accuracy’ was chosen as the validation criteria. Bagging and stacking were enabled using “num_bag_folds=3”, “num_bag_sets=5”, “num_stack_levels=2” options. Testing was employed by external 10-fold cross-validation.

2.8. Statistical analyses

Statistical analyses were conducted in R 3.6.1. A Kruskal-Wallis test was used for alpha diversity comparisons. Adonis2, an implementation of permutational multivariate analysis of variance (PERMANOVA) from the vegan package with 999 permutations, was used for beta diversity comparisons, with adjustment for potential confounding factors. A t-test was used for continuous variables, namely age and education, while Fisher’s exact test was used for categorical variables. All P values, where appropriate, were adjusted for multiple testing using the Benjamini-Hochberg method.

2.9. Data availability

The raw 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing data produced in this study have been deposited in the NCBI Sequence Read Archive database under accession no. PRJNA913682. Metaproteomics data generated and analyzed in this study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

3.1. Characteristics of participants and analyses

A total of 115 individuals (43 PDD, 45 PD-MCI) and 27 HC were included in this study. Both 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing based microbiome analysis and metaproteomics profiling were performed for all salivary samples collected from the participants (Figure 1).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1.

Experimental overview. (1) Saliva samples were collected from a total of 115 individuals (43 PDD, 45 PD-MCI) and 27 HC. (2) Samples were divided into two equal aliquots and used for DNA and protein extractions separately. (3a,b) DNA and protein isolations were performed. (4a,b) Amplicon libraries and tryptic peptides were prepared for NGS and LC-MS/MS, respectively. (5) ASV abundances were determined. (6) Predicted bacterial proteins of species-level genome bins that belonged to the 20 most abundant genera and bacterial taxa that showed differential abundance between study groups in amplicon sequencing were determined. (7) All human proteins from UniProt database were added to the predicted bacterial proteins which produced a final protein database that was used for protein identifications. (8) Protein group abundances were determined. (9a,b) Analyses of amplicon sequencing and metaproteomics data were performed. (10) Amplicon sequencing and metaproteomics datasets were integrated using MOFA. (11) MOFA selected important features from the two omics datasets were fit into random forest models to identify taxonomic and protein signatures associated with CI in PD.

The demographic and clinical features of the study participants are summarized in Table 1. The mean age differed significantly between the study groups. We therefore adjusted all P values for Age confounder, where appropriate. There was no significant difference in the proportion of female subjects between study groups. Years of education differed significantly between PD-MCI and HC, PDD and HC but not between PD-MCI and PDD participants which was also adjusted. There was expectedly a significant difference in mean MMSE scores between all study groups. The HC group had a mean MMSE score of 27.9, MCI group had a mean MMSE score of 23.6, and PDD group had a mean MMSE score of 18.7.

3.2. Comparison of 16S rRNA based and metaproteomics based microbial composition results

We performed both 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing and metaproteomics for all 115 salivary samples. First, we compared ASV-based taxonomic composition with metaproteomics based taxonomic composition.

The 5 most abundant genera in salivary microbiota samples across sample groups were Streptococcus, Prevotella, Veillonella, Campylobacter and Neisseria in both 16S rRNA gene amplicon and metaproteomics results (Figure 2A). However, the relative abundance distributions of bacterial genera did not show any correlation between two methods which probably results from relatively higher/lower expression of proteins in some bacterial genera in saliva as expected (Figure 2B). We calculated genus, family, and phylum level overlap between the methods. The overlap at genus level was 12.4% which increased to 19.7% at family level and 46.2% at phylum level (Figure 2C-E). All shared genera, families and phyla are shown in Supplementary Figure 1. The amplicon sequencing detected much more bacterial taxa at all three levels than metaproteomics profiling. This is not surprising because only a subset of bacterial genera (as described in the Methods) were used to generate a custom-based reference protein database to identify proteins. In addition, we observed a larger fluctuation of bacterial relative abundances based on 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing across samples than that of metaproteomics.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2.

16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing (AS) and metaproteomics (MP) based overview of salivary microbiota composition across samples. (A) The 20 most common bacterial genera in salivary microbiota samples by 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing and metaproteomics. Genera that were not among 20 most common taxa were grouped into “Other.” Each bar represents relative abundance distribution for a sample. The order of sample bars is same for both methods. (B) Correlation between abundance of bacterial genera by 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing versus metaproteomics. (C-E) Number of genera, families and phyla found across 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing and metaproteomics. Vertical bars represent the number of taxa shared between two methods highlighted with connected dots in the lower panel. Horizontal bars in the lower panel indicate the total number of taxa detected by each method.

3.3. 16S rRNA gene amplicon-based microbiome profiles differentiate study groups

We calculated alpha and beta diversity metrics for saliva samples based on 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing data. There were no significant differences in alpha diversity indices (Chao, Shannon, InvSimpson and Fisher) between study groups (Figure 3A). On the other hand, beta diversity analyses showed significant differences between study groups (Figure 3B). We generated a beta-diversity ordination using the Aitchison distance and tested if the samples cluster beyond expected by a chance while adjusting for the confounding effects of age, sex, and education. The results showed a significant difference between the study groups (PERMANOVA, R² = 0.021, p = 0.024). To strengthen the conclusion, we also we used the Bray-Curtis and Jaccard distance for 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing results to test differences between study groups, which also showed a significant separation between the three groups (Bray-Curtis, PERMANOVA, R² = 0.024, p = 0.021; Jaccard, PERMANOVA, R2 = 0.021, p = 0.017) (Supplementary Figure 2).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 3.

Structural diversity and differential abundance analysis of saliva samples by 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing. (A) Alpha diversity (Chao1, Shannon, InvSimpson, Fisher) comparisons of salivary microbiota samples between study groups. Median estimates compared across study groups using the Kruskal-Wallis test. Boxes represent the interquartile range, lines indicate medians, and whiskers indicate the range. n.s: not significant. (B) Beta diversity comparisons of saliva samples between study groups. PCoA was calculated using Aitchison distance. Ellipses represent an 95% confidence level. Color is indicative of the study group. (C) Number of differentially abundant genera across 4 microbiome differential abundance methods, namely ANCOM-BC, ANOVA, LefSe, MaAsLin2.Vertical bars represent the number of differentially abundant genera shared between the methods highlighted with connected dots in the lower panel. Horizontal bars in the lower panel indicate the total number of differentially abundant genera detected by each method. (D) Abundance distribution of differentially abundant genera detected by at least two methods across study groups. Median estimates compared across study groups using the Kruskal-Wallis test. Boxes represent the interquartile range, lines indicate medians, and whiskers indicate the range. p values represent the overall FDR-corrected p values.

To determine which microbial taxa were significantly associated with CI, we performed differential abundance using three different tools, namely LEfSe, MaAsLin2, ANCOM-BC and ANOVA (Figure 3C). Because the correct identification of differentially abundant microbial taxa between experimental conditions vary between different methods³⁷, we only reported taxa determined by a minimum of two different methods in consensus. ANOVA-based differential abundance analysis showed a significant decrease in the abundance of Neisseria genus and unclassified Neisseriacceae with the progression of CI (Figure D) while LEfSe-based analysis not only showed a decrease in Neisseria genus but also an accompanied significant increase in the abundance of Streptococcus and Veillonella genera with the progression of CI. The decrease in the abundance of Neisseria was further supported by MaAsLin2 analysis while ANCOM-BC did not detect any significant difference between study groups. We further investigated potential correlations among bacterial genera and with the covariates MMSE, CDR, UPDRSII. We determined a significant positive correlation between Neisseria and MMSE (p=0.003, Spearman’s ρ=0.268) and a significant negative correlation between Neisseria and CDR score (p=0.004, Spearman’s ρ=-0.27) (Supplementary Figure 3). We have also detected a negative correlation of Lactobacillus and Ligilactobacillus with Neisseria (p=0.003, Spearman’s ρ=-0.27 and p=0.03, Spearman’s ρ=-0.20, respectively) (Supplementary Figure 3).

3.4. Metaproteomic profiling identifies human and microbial proteins in saliva

We applied metaproteomics to determine the functional characteristics of the saliva and quantified a total of 29,054 unique peptides and 9,379 protein groups in 115 samples. Filtering protein groups that were not identified by at least 2 unique peptide sequences yielded 4253 proteins across our samples. Then, we removed protein groups that were not taxonomically assigned as Eukaryota or Bacteria which reduced the number of proteins to 3354. Finally, proteins that were not detected in all samples were filtered out to control the batch effect and the most robustly quantified 537 proteins were used for downstream analyses.

Among 537 protein groups quantified, 287 (53.5%) were from salivary microorganisms while 250 (46.5%) protein groups were from human proteome origin. Human protein groups constituted 67.9% of the total protein intensities measured in the salivary samples while microbial protein groups constituted 32.1% of total protein intensities (Figure 4A) which shows that human proteins are more abundant in saliva and consistent with previous studies³⁸. We tested if the ratio between human and microbial protein groups changes with the progression of the CI and detected no significant change (Supplementary Figure 4). We also performed beta diversity analysis based on human and microbial proteins separately to evaluate if there is a significant association between human or microbial protein group composition and CI. The results did not show any compositional difference in only microbial or only human protein groups profiles across study groups (Figure 4B and C). However, beta diversity analysis based on all detected proteins showed significant separation between groups (PERMANOVA, R2 = 0.026, p = 0.025); although when adjusted for all potential confounders, the difference was attenuated (PERMANOVA, R2 = 0.019, p = 0.082) (Figure 4D).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 4.

Metaproteome landscape of both human and microbiota protein groups in saliva samples. (A) Distribution of quantified human and microbial protein groups. Venn diagram indicates the numbers of quantified protein groups, while the bar graph shows the total intensity of human or microbial proteins. (B) t-Distributed Stochastic Neighbor Embedding (t-SNE) plot of all proteins quantified in saliva samples (PERMANOVA, R² = 0.026, p = 0.025) (C) tSNE plot of bacterial protein groups quantified in saliva samples (PERMANOVA, R² = 0.20, p = 0.089). (D) tSNE plot of human protein groups quantified in saliva samples (PERMANOVA, R² =0.21, p = 0.106). Beta diversity comparisons were performed using Aitchison distance. Ellipses represent an 95% confidence level. Color is indicative of the study group.

In order to assess changes in the functional profile of samples, we annotated protein groups using Prophane and applied differential abundance tests both at OG and functional category levels. We have obtained 371 OGs from 24 functional categories and 25 differentially abundant OGs between study groups. At the OG level analysis, functions related to the replication, recombination, and repair (5 OGs in category L), cytoskeleton (4 OGs in category Z), energy production and conversion (3 OGs in category C), translation, ribosomal structure, and biogenesis (2 OGs in category J) were among the most significantly different categories between study groups. 20 of differentially abundant OGs were significantly increased with the progression of CI while 5 OGs showed an increase from HC to MCI and a decrease from MCI to PDD (Figure 5A). The differential abundance results for all OGs and functional categories are shown in Supplementary Figure 5 and Supplementary Figure 6, respectively.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 5.

Functional categories of differentially abundant proteins in the saliva samples. (A) Heatmap of differentially abundant OGs between the study groups. Representative OG categories are shown, and the colors indicate the average label-free quantification (LFQ) intensity for each study group. Each row corresponds to an OG with the OG id. CLR: Centered log ratio. (B) LFQ intensity of functional category V (defense mechanism), category C (energy production and conversion), category P (inorganic ion transport and metabolism) and category Q (secondary metabolites biosynthesis transport and catabolism) in saliva samples across the study groups. Median estimates compared across study groups using the Kruskal-Wallis test. Boxes represent the interquartile range, lines indicate medians, and whiskers indicate the range. n.s: not significant, *p < 0.1, **p < 0.05.

At the functional category level, energy production and conversion and inorganic ion transport and metabolism categories were significantly increased with the progression of CI while defense mechanisms and secondary metabolites biosynthesis, transport and catabolism displayed a decreased abundance (Figure 5B).

3.3. Multi-omics factor analysis (MOFA)

We applied MOFA to integrate amplicon sequencing and metaproteome results. The fitted model explained 30.1% and 34.4% of the variance in 16S rRNA sequencing and metaproteomics datasets, respectively (Figure 6A) with latent 15 factors (Figure 6B). We examined potential correlations between factors and covariates. We observed that only two of these factors (Factor 2 and Factor 9) were significantly associated with CI in PD and included both bacterial genera and protein features (Figure 6C). Factor 9 has been found to be correlated with Age covariate along with CI stages (Supplementary Figure 7). Thus, we focused on Factor 2 because it was the only factor associated with the progression of CI (R² = 0.064, p = 0.003) and identified the contributing features of this factor. Factor 2 values positively correlated with the progression of CI (Figure 6D). Amplicon sequencing based microbiome component of the Factor 2 revealed a decreased abundance of the Neisseria, Alloprevotella, TM7x, Unclassified Absconditabacteriales and Fusobacterium and increased abundance of Ligilactobacillus, Lactobacillus, Rothia, Corynebacterium and Gemella in association with the progression of CI in PD. Metaproteome component of Factor 2 showed increased abundance of proteins associated with translation, ribosomal structure and biogenesis (category J), intracellular trafficking, secretion, and vesicular transport (category U), replication, recombination and repair (category L) and unknown function (category S) and a decreased abundance of proteins associated with carbohydrate transport and metabolism (category G) and defense mechanisms (category V).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 6.

Multi-omics factor analysis (MOFA) of metaproteogenomics dataset. (A) Fraction of total variance explained by type of measurement (view). (B) Fraction of total variance explained by latent factors (LFs) 1–15. (C) Scatter plot of latent Factor 2 (x axis) and latent Factor 9 (y axis). Dots and ellipses are colored according to their group assignment. (D) Box plot of latent Factor 2 values grouped and colored by CI status. (E) Lollipop plot shows top ranking bacterial genera in latent Factor 2. (F) Lollipop plot shows top ranking salivary PGs in latent Factor 2. Human protein groups are colored orange, bacteria protein groups are colored blue.

After examining the contribution of individual features, we selected features with absolute normalized loadings > 0.8 within Factor 2 derived from the MOFA model. This approach selected 7 bacterial genera and 4 proteins with highest weights (Figure 6E). We next decided to generate a machine learning model to assess the ability of these features to predict CI stage of study participants.

3.4 Machine learning model

We have generated random forest machine learning models based on 11 features with highest weights within Factor 2 identified by MOFA. We established predictive models based only on bacterial genera (7 features), protein groups (4 features) and a combination of bacterial genera and protein groups (11 features).

Machine learning model based only on bacterial genera showed moderate predictive accuracy for all study groups (HC, AUC = 0.73; PD-MCI, AUC = 0.74; PDD, AUC = 0.72) (Figure 7A) while the predictive model based only on protein groups showed weakest predictive accuracy (HC, AUC = 0.65; PD-MCI, AUC = 0.64; PDD, AUC = 0.57) (Figure 7B). Integrated analysis of the bacterial genera and the protein groups had highest predictive performance (HC, AUC = 0.86; PD-MCI, AUC = 0.81; PDD, AUC = 0.74) (Figure 7C) which indicates that integrating features from different data modalities leads to an increase in the predictive performance. We determined and plotted mean decrease in Gini values which showed PG1662 and Neisseria as the strongest predictive features for CI stage in PD (Figure 7D).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 7.

Random forest model of MOFA selected features from bacterial genera and metaproteomics results. (A) Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves for MOFA selected bacterial genera (weight >0.8) to classify participants based on CI status. AUC, area under the curve. Line color is indicative of the study group. (B) Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves for MOFA selected proteins (weight >0.8) to classify participants based on CI status. (C) Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves for MOFA selected both bacterial genera (weight >0.8) and proteins (weight >0.8) to classify participants based on CI status. (D) Mean decrease in Gini values for 11 features including bacterial genera and proteins used in the random forest model. Dots are colored blue and orange for PG and bacterial genera, respectively.

To strengthen our ML analysis, we also used AutoGluon for prediction of CI stages by MOFA selected features (Supplementary Figure 8). AutoGluon results showed the weakest predictive performance when only 4 PG features were used as input for the model (HC-MCI, AUC=0.53; HC-PDD, AUC=0.54; MCI-PDD, AUC=0.67), in consistent with RF model results. The predictive performances of 7 bacterial genera were better than the predictive performance of 4 PGs (HC-MCI, AUC=0.70; HC-PDD, AUC=0.72; MCI-PDD, AUC=0.58) while using all MOFA selected features increased the predictive performance only in differentiating PDD and MCI groups (HC-MCI, AUC=0.70; HC-PDD, AUC=0.72; MCI-PDD, AUC=0.7).