| Literature DB >> 19860898 |
Randall D Wolcott1, Viktoria Gontcharova, Yan Sun, Scot E Dowd.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Approximately 1 out of every 100 individuals has some form of venous insufficiency, which can lead to chronic venous disease and Venous Leg Ulcer (VLU). There are known underlying pathologies which contribute to the chronic nature of VLU including biofilm phenotype infections.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2009 PMID: 19860898 PMCID: PMC2773781 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2180-9-226
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Microbiol ISSN: 1471-2180 Impact factor: 3.605
Evaluation of primary genera and species among the 40 VLU samples.
| ID | Num of Samples | Avg % | St Dev | Min % | Max % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 22 | 28.2 | 34.8 | 0.1 | 98.1 | |
| 19 | 41.5 | 37.0 | 0.2 | 97.4 | |
| 14 | 12.3 | 26.8 | <0.1 | 80.0 | |
| 12 | 43.0 | 42.6 | 0.1 | 99.0 | |
| 12 | 0.4 | 0.4 | <0.1 | 1.1 | |
| 11 | 22.7 | 26.8 | 0.1 | 90.2 | |
| 11 | 16.9 | 26.1 | <0.1 | 82.0 | |
| 8 | 6.9 | 9.4 | 0.1 | 26.0 | |
| 8 | 4.1 | 7.4 | 0.1 | 22.2 | |
| 7 | 19.4 | 30.7 | 0.1 | 86.7 | |
| 7 | 2.0 | 4.5 | 0.1 | 12.1 | |
| 7 | 1.1 | 1.5 | 0.1 | 4.4 | |
| 6 | 3.1 | 7.1 | 0.1 | 17.5 | |
| 6 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 0.1 | 3.1 | |
| 5 | 2.7 | 3.2 | 0.2 | 6.7 | |
| 4 | 10.5 | 11.7 | 0.2 | 26.1 | |
| 4 | 8.2 | 8.6 | 0.4 | 16.7 | |
| 4 | 2.8 | 3.8 | 0.2 | 8.5 | |
| 4 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.1 | 1.0 | |
| 3 | 48.2 | 42.2 | 0.2 | 79.6 | |
| 3 | 7.8 | 11.8 | 0.3 | 21.5 | |
| 3 | 6.6 | 5.2 | 0.6 | 9.8 | |
| 3 | 1.7 | 2.5 | 0.1 | 4.5 | |
| 3 | 1.5 | 2.5 | <0.1 | 4.3 | |
| 3 | 0.7 | 0.8 | 0.1 | 1.6 | |
The primary identification based upon percent sequence identity as described in the materials and methods is indicated. For genera followed by spp. this indicates that resolution between multiple species of the same genera was not possible. The Bacteroidales designation represents the closest possible relationship for these previously uncharacterized bacteria. There is a second Bacteroidales (designated B), which also occurs in 4 of the wounds. Because these identifications are based upon average 250 bp such designations should be considered tentative at the species level. The results were however validated using quantitative PCR. The number of samples each bacteria was detected in is provided along with the average percent (avg %) among the positive samples, the standard deviation (st dev) and the range of percentages among the positive samples is provided.
Figure 1Double dendogram of major genera in Venous Leg Ulcers. This figure is a double dendogram describing the major genera detected among the 40 VLU samples. The heat map indicates the relative percentage of the given genera within each sample ID with a color legend and scale provided. The distance of the samples based upon weighted pair linkage and Manhattan distance methods with no scaling is provided at the top of the figure along with a distance score. The bacterial genera and the associated clustering are provided along the Y-axis and their associated distance scores indicated. The most determinative genera for clustering, based upon this analysis, are Staphylococcus, Bacteroides, Serratia, and Corynebacterium spp.
The 10 sample pool metagenomic analysis comparison to bTEFAP 10 sample pool and bTEFAP 40 sample averages at the taxonomic class level.
| Class | bTEFAP | Metagenomics | bTEFAP 40 avg. % |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4.5 | 4.6 | 29 | |
| 54 | 37.4 | 25 | |
| 1.1 | 4.4 | 12 | |
| 2.6 | 3.6 | 0.1 | |
| 1.1 | 19.1 | 12 | |
| 1.4 | 7.6 | 05 | |
| 5.4 | 7.5 | 0.14 | |
| 2 | 13 | 0.24 | |
| 10.5 | 6.1 | 17.9 | |
| 17.2 | 8.6 | 3.5 | |
This table shows the difference in metagenomic and 16s pyrosequencing approach described previously [15]. Also shown is the averages related to the 40 individual samples for comparison. The R-squared = 0.74 for correlation between bTEFAP and metagenomics at the class level in the 10 pooled samples.
Figure 2Visual representation of venous leg ulcer sampling strategy. Panels A-D. These figures provide examples of VLU with the transposed sampling locations for the topological bacterial diversity evaluation. The letters (e.g. A, B, C,...) indicate where each sample was gathered from each of these VLU. The detected bacterial diversity for each of these wounds is provided in Tables 3, 4, and 5.
Results of topological bacterial diversity analysis for Subject 1 (Figure 2A).
| Subject 1 | A | B | C | D | E | F | G |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 2.1 | 0.0 | 4.6 | |
| 2.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 4.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | ||
| 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |||||
| 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.1 | ||
| 0.0 | 1.2 | 3.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |||
| 0.0 | 1.2 | 1.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.6 | ||
| 0.0 | 2.5 | 5.1 | 2.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 2.7 | |
| 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.6 | 0.0 | ||
| 0.0 | 3.7 | 4.3 | 0.0 | ||||
Percentages of each genera are indicated along with their location (A-G) based upon the map indicated in Figure 2A. The location designations (edge or center) are also provided.
Results of topological bacterial diversity analysis for Subject 2 (Figure 2B).
| Subject 2 | A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.0 | 0.0 | |||||||||||
| 2.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 3.2 | |||||||||
| 1.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 4.3 | 0.0 | |||||||
| 1.4 | 0.0 | 1.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |||||
| 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 2.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |||
| 0.0 | 0.0 | 3.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.9 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 2.8 | 0.0 | |||
| 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 4.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |
| 0.0 | 2.9 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 7.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | ||||||
| 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | ||
| 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.3 | 0.0 | 2.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |
Percentages of each genera are indicated along with their location (A-L) based upon the map indicated in Figure 2B. The location designations (Edge or Center; E and C respectively) are also provided.
Results of topological bacterial diversity analysis for Subject 3 (Figure 2C).
| Subject 3 | A | B | C | E | G | D | F |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3.8 | 2.8 | 0.0 | 0.0 | ||||
| 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | ||
| 0.0 | 1.1 | ||||||
| 0.0 | |||||||
| 2.5 | 2.3 | 0.0 | |||||
| 3.6 | 3.8 | 1.5 | 0.0 | 3.8 | 4.0 | 1.7 | |
| 0.0 | 0.0 | 2.3 | 0.0 | 3.3 | 0.0 | 4.4 | |
| 0.0 | 3.8 | 1.6 | 1.5 | ||||
| 0.0 | 1.3 | 0.0 | 1.6 | 0.0 | 4.3 | ||
| 0.0 | 0.0 | 3.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 4.0 | 0.0 | |
| 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | ||
| 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | ||
Percentages of each genera are indicated along with their location (A-G) based upon the map indicated in Figure 2C. The location designations (edge or center) are also provided.