Betsy Foxman1, Ting Luo2, Usha Srinivasan2, Kirtana Ramadugu2, Ai Wen3, Deborah Goldberg4, Kerby Shedden5, Richard Crout6, Daniel W McNeil7, Robert Weyant8, Mary L Marazita8. 1. Department of Epidemiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Electronic address: bfoxman@umich.edu. 2. Department of Epidemiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. 3. Department of Biology, University of Northern Iowa. 4. Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. 5. Departments of Statistics and Biostatistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. 6. Department of Periodontics, West Virginia University, Morgantown; Center for Craniofacial and Dental Genetics, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA. 7. Center for Craniofacial and Dental Genetics, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA; Department of Psychology, West Virginia University, Morgantown. 8. Center for Craniofacial and Dental Genetics, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Family members share genes, environment, and microbial communities. If there is a strong effect of family on the salivary microbiota, controlling for family will enhance identification of microbial communities associated with cariogenesis. The present study was designed to assess the similarity of the salivary microbiome among families and the association between the salivary microbiome and dental decay taking age into account. METHODS: We selected families (n = 49) participating in the cohort study of oral health conducted by the Center for Oral Health Research in Appalachia. All families where at least two children and at least one parent gave a saliva sample (n = 173) were included. Saliva samples were collected at least 1 hour after eating or drinking. After DNA extraction, the V6 region of the 16s rRNA gene was sequenced. Paired ends were joined using fast length adjustment of short reads, sequences were demultiplexed and filtered using Quantitative Insights Into Microbial Ecology 1.9.0, and taxonomy was assigned using the Ribosomal Database Project (RDP; http://rdp.cme.msu.edu/) classifier and sequences aligned with the CORE database using PyNAST. RESULTS: The salivary microbiome changed with age and was more similar within families than between families. There was no difference in the diversity of the salivary microbiome by dental decay. After taking into account age and family, signals of dental decay were weak in the saliva, whether examined at the phyla, genus, or operational taxonomic level. CONCLUSIONS: The salivary microbiome does not appear to be a good indicator of dental caries.
PURPOSE: Family members share genes, environment, and microbial communities. If there is a strong effect of family on the salivary microbiota, controlling for family will enhance identification of microbial communities associated with cariogenesis. The present study was designed to assess the similarity of the salivary microbiome among families and the association between the salivary microbiome and dental decay taking age into account. METHODS: We selected families (n = 49) participating in the cohort study of oral health conducted by the Center for Oral Health Research in Appalachia. All families where at least two children and at least one parent gave a saliva sample (n = 173) were included. Saliva samples were collected at least 1 hour after eating or drinking. After DNA extraction, the V6 region of the 16s rRNA gene was sequenced. Paired ends were joined using fast length adjustment of short reads, sequences were demultiplexed and filtered using Quantitative Insights Into Microbial Ecology 1.9.0, and taxonomy was assigned using the Ribosomal Database Project (RDP; http://rdp.cme.msu.edu/) classifier and sequences aligned with the CORE database using PyNAST. RESULTS: The salivary microbiome changed with age and was more similar within families than between families. There was no difference in the diversity of the salivary microbiome by dental decay. After taking into account age and family, signals of dental decay were weak in the saliva, whether examined at the phyla, genus, or operational taxonomic level. CONCLUSIONS: The salivary microbiome does not appear to be a good indicator of dental caries.
Authors: John R Shaffer; Xiaojing Wang; Daniel W McNeil; Robert J Weyant; Richard Crout; Mary L Marazita Journal: Caries Res Date: 2015-01-22 Impact factor: 4.056
Authors: D Belstrøm; N-E Fiehn; C H Nielsen; P Holmstrup; N Kirkby; V Klepac-Ceraj; B J Paster; S Twetman Journal: Caries Res Date: 2014-03-12 Impact factor: 4.056
Authors: Se Jin Song; Christian Lauber; Elizabeth K Costello; Catherine A Lozupone; Gregory Humphrey; Donna Berg-Lyons; J Gregory Caporaso; Dan Knights; Jose C Clemente; Sara Nakielny; Jeffrey I Gordon; Noah Fierer; Rob Knight Journal: Elife Date: 2013-04-16 Impact factor: 8.140
Authors: Simone S Stahringer; Jose C Clemente; Robin P Corley; John Hewitt; Dan Knights; William A Walters; Rob Knight; Kenneth S Krauter Journal: Genome Res Date: 2012-10-12 Impact factor: 9.043
Authors: Deborah E Polk; Robert J Weyant; Richard J Crout; Daniel W McNeil; Ralph E Tarter; John G Thomas; Mary L Marazita Journal: BMC Oral Health Date: 2008-06-03 Impact factor: 2.757
Authors: Nancy A Mervish; Jianzhong Hu; Loy A Hagan; Manish Arora; Catalina Frau; Julee Choi; Ali Attaie; Mairaj Ahmed; Susan L Teitelbaum; Mary S Wolff Journal: J Child Obes Date: 2019-03-13
Authors: Jelena Štšepetova; Jaak Truu; Riina Runnel; Rita Nõmmela; Mare Saag; Jana Olak; Hiie Nõlvak; Jens-Konrad Preem; Kristjan Oopkaup; Kaarel Krjutškov; Eino Honkala; Sisko Honkala; Kauko Mäkinen; Pirkko-Liisa Mäkinen; Tero Vahlberg; Joan Vermeiren; Douwina Bosscher; Peter de Cock; Reet Mändar Journal: BMC Oral Health Date: 2019-04-18 Impact factor: 2.757
Authors: Eimear Hurley; David Mullins; Maurice P Barrett; Carol Anne O'Shea; Martin Kinirons; C Anthony Ryan; Catherine Stanton; Helen Whelton; Hugh M B Harris; Paul W O'Toole Journal: J Oral Microbiol Date: 2019-04-26 Impact factor: 5.474
Authors: Elyse Davis; Kelly M Bakulski; Jaclyn M Goodrich; Karen E Peterson; Mary L Marazita; Betsy Foxman Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-09-04 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Egija Zaura; Vincent Y Pappalardo; Mark J Buijs; Catherine M C Volgenant; Bernd W Brandt Journal: Periodontol 2000 Date: 2020-11-23 Impact factor: 7.589
Authors: K Ramadugu; D Bhaumik; T Luo; R E Gicquelais; K H Lee; E B Stafford; C F Marrs; K Neiswanger; D W McNeil; M L Marazita; B Foxman Journal: J Dent Res Date: 2020-08-28 Impact factor: 6.116