| Literature DB >> 19649281 |
Lance B Price1, Cindy M Liu, Johan H Melendez, Yelena M Frankel, David Engelthaler, Maliha Aziz, Jolene Bowers, Rogan Rattray, Jacques Ravel, Chris Kingsley, Paul S Keim, Gerald S Lazarus, Jonathan M Zenilman.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Bacterial colonization is hypothesized to play a pathogenic role in the non-healing state of chronic wounds. We characterized wound bacteria from a cohort of chronic wound patients using a 16S rRNA gene-based pyrosequencing approach and assessed the impact of diabetes and antibiotics on chronic wound microbiota. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPALEntities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2009 PMID: 19649281 PMCID: PMC2714066 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0006462
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Demographic and clinical characteristics of study participants.
| Characteristics | Value |
| Age (SD) | 57.2 (15.6) |
| Sex | |
| Male | N = 10 (41.6%) |
| Female | N = 14 (58.4%) |
| Race | |
| Black | N = 11 (46.0%) |
| Caucasian | N = 13 (54.0%) |
| Primary Diagnosis (Wound Type) | |
| Decubitus | N = 7 |
| Neuropathic | N = 7 |
| Venous Stasis | N = 3 |
| Post-Surgical | N = 3 |
| Other | N = 4 |
| Diabetes Mellitus | N = 12 (50.0%) |
| Antibiotic (for wound samples, N = 32) | |
|
| |
| 24 h | N = 5 (15.6%) |
|
| |
| 24 h | N = 5 (15.6%) |
| 2 weeks | N = 10 (31.3%) |
| Any antibiotic use in past 2 weeks | N = 14 (43.8%) |
Systemic antibiotics used within two weeks of sample collection.
| Wound | Antibiotic |
| TG03 | Unknown |
| WS06 | Keflex |
| WS08 | Levofloxacin 750 |
| WS10 | Doxycycline |
| WS18 | Bactrim DS, Flagyl |
| WS19 | Clindamycin |
| WS20 | Bactrim, Clindamycin |
| WS26 | Levofloxacin |
| WS27 | Clindamycin |
| WS30 | Vantin, Flagyl |
| WS31 | Bactrim |
| WS32 | Bactrim DS, Flagyl |
| WS36 | Cipro |
| WS38 | Bactrim DS, Clindamycin |
| WS39 | Bactrim DS |
The patient reported antibiotic use within the previous two weeks, but did not know the name of the antibiotic.
Figure 1Rarefaction and Shannon Weaver index analyses were performed for each wound specimen.
(A) Rarefaction curves were used to estimate richness (i.e., number of unique bacterial taxa) among samples. (B) Shannon Weaver Index curves were used estimate diversity (i.e., a combined assessment of the number of unique bacterial taxa and their abundance) among samples.
Estimated complexity at different taxonomic levels by pyrosequencing and culture.
| Pyrosequencing | Culture | |||||
| Taxonomiclevel | Total # Among Samples | Range | Mean (SD) | Total # Among Samples | Range | Mean (SD) |
| Phylum | 6 | 2–5 | 3.3 (0.9) | 4 | 1–4 | 1.9 (0.9) |
| Class | 13 | 3–9 | 5.4 (1.4) | 5 | 1–4 | 1.9 (0.9) |
| Order | 23 | 3–13 | 7.8 (2.4) | 7 | 1–5 | 2.5 (1.2) |
| Family | 44 | 3–22 | 10.0 (3.9) | 9 | 1–5 | 2.5 (1.2) |
| Genera | 58 | 3–24 | 9.4 (4.6) | 14 | 1–6 | 2.7 (1.5) |
Figure 2Heat map analysis of the 44 bacterial families detected using 16S rRNA gene-based pyrosequencing among chronic wound samples.
The families in red are those that were successfully cultured at least once during the study. The presence/absence plot on the left shows the bacteria present in each of the wound samples. The abundance plot on the right shows the number of 16S rRNA gene pyrosequences (300 maximum) in each of the wound samples. The average copy number per positive sample for each detected bacterial family is shown on the far right. Many rare bacterial families are only visible on the presence/absence plot on the left.
Comparison between pyrosequencing and culture for detecting the nine bacterial families that were successfully cultured at least once, among all wound samples (n = 32).
| Pyro (−) | Pyro (+) | Total | Percent Agreement | |
|
| 93.75 | |||
| Culture (−) | 28 | 1 | 29 | |
| Culture (+) | 1 | 2 | 3 | |
| Total | 29 | 3 | 32 | |
|
| 50.00 | |||
| Culture (−) | 10 | 14 | 24 | |
| Culture (+) | 2 | 6 | 8 | |
| Total | 12 | 20 | 32 | |
|
| 56.25 | |||
| Culture (−) | 7 | 13 | 20 | |
| Culture (+) | 1 | 11 | 12 | |
| Total | 8 | 24 | 32 | |
|
| 87.50 | |||
| Culture (−) | 24 | 2 | 26 | |
| Culture (+) | 2 | 4 | 6 | |
| Total | 26 | 6 | 32 | |
|
| 78.13 | |||
| Culture (−) | 25 | 5 | 30 | |
| Culture (+) | 2 | 0 | 2 | |
| Total | 27 | 5 | 32 | |
|
| 81.25 | |||
| Culture (−) | 25 | 3 | 28 | |
| Culture (+) | 3 | 1 | 4 | |
| Total | 28 | 4 | 32 | |
|
| 31.25 | |||
| Culture (−) | 1 | 21 | 22 | |
| Culture (+) | 1 | 9 | 10 | |
| Total | 2 | 30 | 32 | |
|
| 75.00 | |||
| Culture (−) | 3 | 7 | 10 | |
| Culture (+) | 1 | 21 | 22 | |
| Total | 4 | 28 | 32 | |
|
| 87.50 | |||
| Culture (−) | 16 | 4 | 20 | |
| Culture (+) | 0 | 12 | 12 | |
| Total | 16 | 16 | 32 |
Figure 3The nMDS ordination plot comparing wound bacterial communities from antibiotic treated participants and untreated participants.
Each data point in nMDS plot represent the bacterial community identified from a single wound specimen. Comparison using MRPP found that the antibiotic treated and untreated wound microbiota are significantly different (p = 0.0069).
Comparison of indicator species prevalence (out of n = 300 sequences for each sample) between untreated and antibiotic treated wounds.
| No Recent ABx | Recent ABx | |||
| Taxonomic Group | Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) | Δ Mean | Empirical p-value |
|
| 2.5 (3.6) | 25.4 (47.1) | 22.9 | 0.019 |
|
| 2.9 (6.3) | 9.1 (8.8) | 6.2 | 0.020 |
|
| 39.9 (51.0) | 110.1 (75.2) | 70.2 | 0.0046 |
The empirical p-values comparing the prevalence of indicator species between the two antibiotic use groups were generated using the Monte Carlo method. The statistical significance level after the Bonferroni correction was 0.05/3 = 0.017.
The increase in Pseudomonadaceae in the antibiotic treated group was significant at p = 0.0046<0.017.