Literature DB >> 27340192

High stability of faecal microbiome composition in guanidine thiocyanate solution at room temperature and robustness during colonoscopy.

Yuichiro Nishimoto1, Sayaka Mizutani1, Takeshi Nakajima2, Fumie Hosoda3, Hikaru Watanabe1, Yutaka Saito2, Tatsuhiro Shibata4, Shinichi Yachida3, Takuji Yamada1.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Keywords:  COLONOSCOPY; ENTERIC BACTERIAL MICROFLORA

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27340192      PMCID: PMC5036237          DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2016-311937

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gut        ISSN: 0017-5749            Impact factor:   23.059


× No keyword cloud information.
We read with interest the paper by Jalanka et al,1 who examined the influence of bowel preparation on intestinal microbiota by using phylogenetic microarray and quantitative PCR analyses of frozen samples. Conventionally, faecal samples are frozen on dry ice or in a deep-freezer (at −80°C) immediately after collection, as done by Jalanka et al, because bacterial taxa can change appreciably within 15 min at room temperature (RT).2 However, immediate deep-freezing is often inconvenient in routine clinical practice, and we wondered whether simple storage of faecal samples at RT in test tubes containing 4 M guanidine thiocyanate solution would be equally effective. Guanidine thiocyanate is a general protein denaturant3 and inhibits bacterial growth.3–5 We collected faecal samples before and after colonoscopy, and divided each into two parts: one was stored frozen and the other at RT. Taxonomic compositions were determined by 16S ribosomal RNA sequence analysis, and the results in the two groups were compared. We also examined the stability of faecal microbiome composition, since Jalanka et al found that the intestinal microbiota is changed by whole-bowel irrigation, but recovers within 14 days.1 First faecal samples were collected immediately at defecation and frozen on dry ice (sample D0_F) or stored at RT in a test tube (D0_R) at home 1 day before colonoscopy (n=8) (figure 1). The test tubes (TechnoSuruga Laboratory, Shizuoka, Japan) at RT contained 100 mM Tris-HCl (pH 9), 40 mM EDTA, 4 M guanidine thiocyanate, and 0.001% bromothymol.4 Second faecal samples were collected on the morning of the day of the test immediately at defecation and similarly frozen on dry ice (D1–1_F) or stored at RT (D1–1_R) at home. On the day of the test, other faecal samples were collected immediately at first defecation during oral administration of bowel-cleansing agent at the hospital and again frozen on dry ice (D1–2_F) or stored at RT (D1–2_R). Intestinal fluid was also sampled during colonoscopy and frozen on dry ice (D1–3_F). Last faecal samples were collected 60 days after colonoscopy, immediately at defecation and frozen on dry ice (D60_F).
Figure 1

Pairwise Pearson correlation coefficients for microbial composition between eight different sampling and storing conditions (D0_F, D0_R, D1–1_F, D1–1_R, D1–2_F, D1–2_R, D1–3_F, and D60_F; for details, see text). Values are medians over eight subjects.

Pairwise Pearson correlation coefficients for microbial composition between eight different sampling and storing conditions (D0_F, D0_R, D1–1_F, D1–1_R, D1–2_F, D1–2_R, D1–3_F, and D60_F; for details, see text). Values are medians over eight subjects. To compare taxonomic compositions among different sampling conditions, we computed pairwise Pearson's correlation coefficients for taxonomic profiles with median values for the eight individuals (figure 1, see online supplementary figure S1). Frozen samples at different time points showed high (ρ≥0.88, p<0.01) correlations with each other. Remarkably, samples D60_F showed high correlations with the samples collected before colonoscopy (see online supplementary figure S2). Intestinal fluid (D1–3_F) had much lower correlations with faecal samples. Samples collected at the same time points but stored under different conditions showed high (ρ≥0.88, p<0.01) correlations with each other. To examine the influence of storage temperature on each taxon, we computed fold changes in taxonomic abundances of 20 dominant genera between frozen samples and RT-stored samples (figure 2, middle). No significant difference (false discovery rate (FDR)-corrected p≤0.1 in Wilcoxon signed-rank test) was found. Our findings indicate that faecal sample storage in test tubes filled with 4 M guanidine thiocyanate solution at RT could be a practical alternative to fresh-frozen storage for taxonomic examination.
Figure 2

Left, fold changes in taxonomic abundance of 20 dominant genera. Middle, comparisons between frozen and room temperature-stored samples from one day before colonoscopy (blue), the test day morning (red) and during bowel cleansing (yellow). Right, comparisons between baseline samples (D0_F) and samples from the test day morning (blue), during bowel cleansing (red), and 2 months after colonoscopy (yellow).

Left, fold changes in taxonomic abundance of 20 dominant genera. Middle, comparisons between frozen and room temperature-stored samples from one day before colonoscopy (blue), the test day morning (red) and during bowel cleansing (yellow). Right, comparisons between baseline samples (D0_F) and samples from the test day morning (blue), during bowel cleansing (red), and 2 months after colonoscopy (yellow). We next investigated the effects of sampling time point (before/after colonoscopy) on taxonomic abundance. Figure 2 (right) compares the fold change in taxonomic abundance in D1–1_F vs D0_F (blue), D1–2_F versus D0_F (red), and D60_F vs D0_F (yellow). No significant difference (FDR-corrected p≤0.1 in Wilcoxon signed-rank test) was found. These findings indicate that the gut microbiota is robust during colonoscopy, in accordance with Jalanka et al's findings1 using different methodology.
  5 in total

1.  Antimicrobial activities of amine- and guanidine-functionalized cholic acid derivatives.

Authors:  C Li; M R Lewis; A B Gilbert; M D Noel; D H Scoville; G W Allman; P B Savage
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  1999-06       Impact factor: 5.191

2.  The single-step method of RNA isolation by acid guanidinium thiocyanate-phenol-chloroform extraction: twenty-something years on.

Authors:  Piotr Chomczynski; Nicoletta Sacchi
Journal:  Nat Protoc       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 13.491

3.  Effects of bowel cleansing on the intestinal microbiota.

Authors:  Jonna Jalanka; Anne Salonen; Jarkko Salojärvi; Jarmo Ritari; Outi Immonen; Luca Marciani; Penny Gowland; Caroline Hoad; Klara Garsed; Ching Lam; Airi Palva; Robin C Spiller; Willem M de Vos
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2014-12-19       Impact factor: 23.059

4.  Inter- and intra-individual variations in seasonal and daily stabilities of the human gut microbiota in Japanese.

Authors:  Takayoshi Hisada; Kaori Endoh; Kiyonori Kuriki
Journal:  Arch Microbiol       Date:  2015-06-12       Impact factor: 2.552

5.  Methods for Improving Human Gut Microbiome Data by Reducing Variability through Sample Processing and Storage of Stool.

Authors:  Monika A Gorzelak; Sandeep K Gill; Nishat Tasnim; Zahra Ahmadi-Vand; Michael Jay; Deanna L Gibson
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-08-07       Impact factor: 3.240

  5 in total
  21 in total

1.  The Impact of Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy with Duodenojejunal Bypass on Intestinal Microbiota Differs from that of Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy in Japanese Patients with Obesity.

Authors:  Rieko Kikuchi; Junichiro Irie; Nobuko Yamada-Goto; Eri Kikkawa; Yosuke Seki; Kazunori Kasama; Hiroshi Itoh
Journal:  Clin Drug Investig       Date:  2018-06       Impact factor: 2.859

2.  Interrelations between Gut Microbiota Composition, Nutrient Intake and Diabetes Status in an Adult Japanese Population.

Authors:  Ayumi Tamura; Masaya Murabayashi; Yuki Nishiya; Satoru Mizushiri; Kiho Hamaura; Ryoma Ito; Shoma Ono; Akihide Terada; Hiroshi Murakami; Jutaro Tanabe; Miyuki Yanagimachi; Itoyo Tokuda; Kaori Sawada; Kazushige Ihara; Makoto Daimon
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2022-06-05       Impact factor: 4.964

3.  Effects of bowel preparation on intestinal bacterial associated urine and faecal metabolites and the associated faecal microbiome.

Authors:  Sam T R Powles; Kate I Gallagher; Leo W L Chong; James L Alexander; Benjamin H Mullish; Lucy C Hicks; Julie A K McDonald; Julian R Marchesi; Horace R T Williams; Timothy R Orchard
Journal:  BMC Gastroenterol       Date:  2022-05-13       Impact factor: 2.847

4.  Surgical Treatment for Colorectal Cancer Partially Restores Gut Microbiome and Metabolome Traits.

Authors:  Hirotsugu Shiroma; Satoshi Shiba; Pande Putu Erawijantari; Hiroyuki Takamaru; Masayoshi Yamada; Taku Sakamoto; Yukihide Kanemitsu; Sayaka Mizutani; Tomoyoshi Soga; Yutaka Saito; Tatsuhiro Shibata; Shinji Fukuda; Shinichi Yachida; Takuji Yamada
Journal:  mSystems       Date:  2022-03-21       Impact factor: 7.324

5.  Method for preparing DNA from feces in guanidine thiocyanate solution affects 16S rRNA-based profiling of human microbiota diversity.

Authors:  Koji Hosomi; Harumi Ohno; Haruka Murakami; Yayoi Natsume-Kitatani; Kumpei Tanisawa; Soichiro Hirata; Hidehiko Suzuki; Takahiro Nagatake; Tomomi Nishino; Kenji Mizuguchi; Motohiko Miyachi; Jun Kunisawa
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2017-06-28       Impact factor: 4.379

6.  Rapid regrowth and detection of microbial contaminants in equine fecal microbiome samples.

Authors:  Kalie F Beckers; Christopher J Schulz; Gary W Childers
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-11-01       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 7.  Sampling Strategies for Three-Dimensional Spatial Community Structures in IBD Microbiota Research.

Authors:  Shaocun Zhang; Xiaocang Cao; He Huang
Journal:  Front Cell Infect Microbiol       Date:  2017-02-24       Impact factor: 5.293

8.  Influence of gastrectomy for gastric cancer treatment on faecal microbiome and metabolome profiles.

Authors:  Pande Putu Erawijantari; Sayaka Mizutani; Hirotsugu Shiroma; Satoshi Shiba; Takeshi Nakajima; Taku Sakamoto; Yutaka Saito; Shinji Fukuda; Shinichi Yachida; Takuji Yamada
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2020-01-16       Impact factor: 23.059

Review 9.  The promise and challenge of cancer microbiome research.

Authors:  Sumeed Syed Manzoor; Annemiek Doedens; Michael B Burns
Journal:  Genome Biol       Date:  2020-06-02       Impact factor: 13.583

10.  Maternal antimicrobial use at delivery has a stronger impact than mode of delivery on bifidobacterial colonization in infants: a pilot study.

Authors:  Naruaki Imoto; Hiroto Morita; Fumitaka Amanuma; Hidekazu Maruyama; Shin Watanabe; Naoyuki Hashiguchi
Journal:  J Perinatol       Date:  2018-07-24       Impact factor: 2.521

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.