| Literature DB >> 24451062 |
Anna Edlund, Youngik Yang, Adam P Hall, Lihong Guo, Renate Lux, Xuesong He, Karen E Nelson, Kenneth H Nealson, Shibu Yooseph, Wenyuan Shi, Jeffrey S McLean1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Our knowledge of microbial diversity in the human oral cavity has vastly expanded during the last two decades of research. However, much of what is known about the behavior of oral species to date derives from pure culture approaches and the studies combining several cultivated species, which likely does not fully reflect their function in complex microbial communities. It has been shown in studies with a limited number of cultivated species that early oral biofilm development occurs in a successional manner and that continuous low pH can lead to an enrichment of aciduric species. Observations that in vitro grown plaque biofilm microcosms can maintain similar pH profiles in response to carbohydrate addition as plaque in vivo suggests a complex microbial community can be established in the laboratory. In light of this, our primary goal was to develop a robust in vitro biofilm-model system from a pooled saliva inoculum in order to study the stability, reproducibility, and development of the oral microbiome, and its dynamic response to environmental changes from the community to the molecular level.Entities:
Year: 2013 PMID: 24451062 PMCID: PMC3971625 DOI: 10.1186/2049-2618-1-25
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Microbiome ISSN: 2049-2618 Impact factor: 14.650
biofilm analyses parameters used in this study to test reproducibility
| Address batch and well reproducibility | Batch 1 × 1 | Step I: 16 hrs growth in SHI medium | 16S-454 pyrosequencing |
| Batch 2 × 2 | |||
| Batch 3 × 3 | |||
| Saliva × 3 | Step II: 2 hrs starvation in CDM | ||
| No incubation | |||
| Address reproducibility between research laboratories | With sucrose × 2 without sucrose × 2 | 16 hrs growth in SHI medium with or without sucrose | DGGE |
| Address temporal taxonomic diversity during biofilm development | Time course (hrs) = 3,6,9,12,16,48 | 48 hrs growth in SHI medium | WGS metagenomes Illumina HiSeq |
CDM, chemically defined medium; DGGE, denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis; WGS, whole genome shotgun.
Figure 2Phylogenetic tree based on 1,642 Human Oral Microbiome Database (HOMD) reference sequences. 16S genes that were obtained from pyrosequencing in this study were matched based on sequence homology with HOMD reference sequences. Red and blue bars indicate normalized relative abundance counts of human oral taxon (HOT) designations that were identified in the saliva and biofilm samples, respectively. Sequence matches between reference sequences and query sequences were counted at 97% sequence identity cutoff and 95% sequence coverage.
Figure 1Correspondence analysis showing reproducibility and 16S profile similarities within biofilm and saliva samples. Axis 1 explains 47% of the variation in the dataset; axis 2 explains 19% of the variation. Replicate biofilm samples representing batches 1 and 3 cluster closely together whereas batch-2 biofilms that derive from an SIP experiment cluster more distantly along the first ordination axis. Saliva-derived replicates (1 to 3) also show similar 16S diversity.
Figure 3Bubble charts showing 16S profile reproducibility at human oral taxon (HOT) designation level (98.5% sequence similarity) in replicate biofilm growth wells. Batches 2 and 3 were grown at different time points and batch 2 was also subjected to an additional centrifugation step during DNA extraction. Cultivated species, both unnamed and named batches, according to HOMD classification are presented in A. Uncultured phylotypes are presented in B. Read-abundances were log transformed and all identified HOTs are presented here. Bubble sizes correspond to relative abundance values calculated from log-transformed 16S read-abundance data for each HOT. Standard deviation in HOT abundance between wells from the same batch ranged between 0.1% and 3% whereas standard deviation was higher (0.3 to 8%) between batches.
Numbers of human oral taxa (HOT) within the most dominant genera in saliva and biofilm samples
| | | | | | | |
| 25 (58) | 38 (58) | 6 | 11 | 25 | 25 | |
| 3 (9) | 2 (9) | 1 | 1 | 5 | 5 | |
| 4 (6) | 0 (2) | 1 | ND | 1 | 1 | |
| 4 (5) | 0 (5) | ND | ND | ND | ND | |
| 3 (3) | 3 (3) | ND | ND | ND | ND | |
| 3 (3) | 0 (3) | 3 | ND | ND | ND | |
| 1 (2) | 1(2) | ND | ND | 2 | 2 | |
| 0 (2) | 2 (2) | ND | ND | ND | ND | |
| 0 (0) | 1(2) | ND | ND | ND | 1 | |
| | | | | | | |
| 3 (38) | 0 (11) | 1 | ND | 3 | 3 | |
| 1 (8) | 0 (6) | ND | ND | 4 | 4 | |
| | | | | | | |
| 4 (12) | 2 (11) | 2 | ND | 5 | 5 | |
| | | | | | | |
| 5 (11) | 0 (7) | ND | ND | ND | ND | |
| 1 (5) | 0 (3) | 1 | ND | ND | ND | |
| | | | | | | |
| TM7 (G-1) | 0 (2) | 0 (0) | ND | ND | 2 | ND |
| TM7 (G-2) | 0 (0) | 0 (1) | ND | ND | ND | 1 |
| TM7 (G-3) | 0 (1) | 0 (0) | ND | ND | 1 | ND |
HOT designations were defined according to the Human Oral Microbiome Database (HOMD) classification scheme. (), Total numbers of HOT, including singletons, are presented inside brackets. aUncultivated phylotypes were identified based on the HOMD classification. The numbers of phylotypes representing HOT designations with >200 16S gene counts (corresponding to >0.3% of total 16S counts) are presented in these columns. bAll HOT designations (including those that were represented by 1 to 200 copies of16S gene reads). ND, no uncultivated HOMD representative was detected.
Diversity and count estimates of 16S genes in pyrosequencing libraries after sequence trimming
| Biofilm batch 1 | 6011 | 132 | 3.7436 | 0.7620 |
| Biofilm batch 2 well 1a | 5731 | 107 | 3.6971 | 0.7960 |
| Biofilm batch 2 well 2a | 8538 | 158 | 4.1868 | 0.8200 |
| Biofilm batch 3 well 1 | 4835 | 154 | 4.1622 | 0.8284 |
| Biofilm batch 3 well 2 | 5166 | 146 | 4.1082 | 0.8289 |
| Biofilm batch 3 well 3 | 4778 | 148 | 4.2334 | 0.8683 |
| Saliva 1 | 6956 | 208 | 4.7209 | 0.8544 |
| Saliva 2 | 6885 | 243 | 4.7209 | 0.8544 |
| Saliva 3 | 3799 | 179 | 4.5234 | 0.8828 |
Biofilm batches 1, 2 and 3 correspond to replicate biofilm samples grown at different time points. The biofilm batch-2 library was generated from stable isotope probing experiments (see Methods). Wells 1, 2 and 3 correspond to replicate technical samples collected from different sample wells. bNumbers of operational taxonomical units (OTUs) after precluster-analyses using the SILVA reference alignment and the MOTHUR software.
Figure 4Metabolic profile comparisons of Human Microbiome Project (HMP) oral metagenomes, other HMP-body sites and the biofilm metagenomes. The METAREP tool was used to compare Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) super pathways representing the 12- and 16-hrs-old in vitro biofilms from this study with HMP-oral metagenomes representing supragingiva, keratinized gingiva and saliva samples from healthy subjects. These oral metagenomes were also compared to HMP metagenomes from other body sites, that is, anterior nares (external position of nostrils), mid vagina and posterior fornix (area behind lower portion of uterus) by using hierarchical cluster analyses of ORF abundance data for each sample. Colored bar in the top indicates relative abundance in percentage of annotated ORFs that fall within each KEGG super pathway (blue, approximately 0%; white, approximately 6%; red, approximately 16%).
Figure 5Temporal metagenomic read-abundance profiles from MetaPhlan analyses of bacterial species. Relative abundance of paired-end reads that were classified at bacterial species-level based on clade-specific marker genes from 3,000 reference genomes [47]. pH at the different time points is shown in white text inside the bar graph. No pH measurement was available for 48 hrs (N/A). Numbers of estimated bacterial species from MetaPhlan analyses are shown inside the bar graph (No. sp.).