| Literature DB >> 28202080 |
Jessica Chopyk1, Suhana Chattopadhyay1, Prachi Kulkarni1, Emma Claye1, Kelsey R Babik1, Molly C Reid1, Eoghan M Smyth1,2, Lauren E Hittle2, Joseph N Paulson3, Raul Cruz-Cano4, Mihai Pop3, Stephanie S Buehler5, Pamela I Clark6, Amy R Sapkota1, Emmanuel F Mongodin7.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of data regarding the microbial constituents of tobacco products and their impacts on public health. Moreover, there has been no comparative characterization performed on the bacterial microbiota associated with the addition of menthol, an additive that has been used by tobacco manufacturers for nearly a century. To address this knowledge gap, we conducted bacterial community profiling on tobacco from user- and custom-mentholated/non-mentholated cigarette pairs, as well as a commercially-mentholated product. Total genomic DNA was extracted using a multi-step enzymatic and mechanical lysis protocol followed by PCR amplification of the V3-V4 hypervariable regions of the 16S rRNA gene from five cigarette products (18 cigarettes per product for a total of 90 samples): Camel Crush, user-mentholated Camel Crush, Camel Kings, custom-mentholated Camel Kings, and Newport Menthols. Sequencing was performed on the Illumina MiSeq platform and sequences were processed using the Quantitative Insights Into Microbial Ecology (QIIME) software package.Entities:
Keywords: 16S rRNA; Cigarette; Menthol; Microbiota; Pathogens; Tobacco
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28202080 PMCID: PMC5312438 DOI: 10.1186/s40168-017-0235-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Microbiome ISSN: 2049-2618 Impact factor: 14.650
Descriptions of cigarette products tested
| Cigarette product | Menthol status | Abbreviation |
|---|---|---|
| Camel King filters | Non-menthol | CK |
| Camel King filters | Mentholated (custom)a | CKM |
| Camel Crush | Non-mentholb | CC |
| Camel Crush | Mentholated (user)c | CCM |
| Newport Menthol Box | Mentholated (manufacturer)d | NMB |
aMentholated at The Battelle Public Health Center for Tobacco Research
bCamel Crush capsule within the filter was not crushed
cCamel Crush capsule within the filter was crushed in the laboratory prior to DNA extraction
dCommercially mentholated by the manufacturer
Fig. 1Heat map showing the relative abundances of the most dominant bacterial genera identified (>1%) in tested cigarette products. Samples pooled by product type: Camel Crush (CC), mentholated Camel Crush (CCM), Camel Kings (CK), custom-mentholated Camel Kings (CKM), and Newport Menthol Box (NMB). Hierarchical clustering of the pooled samples is represented by the dendrogram at the top and inside the color key shows a histogram of the count of the individual values
Fig. 2Box plots showing alpha diversity (Chao1 richness estimator and Shannon Index) variation across samples on non-rarefied data (a) and with data rarefied to the minimum sampling depth (b). Bars are colored by mentholation status: red bars—non-mentholated; green bars—user mentholated; blue bars—custom-mentholated; purple bars—commercially-mentholated
Fig. 3PCoA analysis plots of Bray-Curtis computed distances between cigarette products. a Points colored by brand: purple—Newport Menthol (NMB); green—mentholated Camel King (CKM); blue—mentholated Camel Crush (CCM); orange—Camel Kings (CK); red—Camel Crush (CC) (ANOSIM R value = 0.35, p value = 0.0001), (b) Points colored by mentholation status: green—non-mentholated; purple—user mentholated; blue—commercially-mentholated; red—custom mentholated. (ANOSIM R = 0.43, p = 0.0001)
Fig. 4Overview of relative abundances of bacterial OTUs that were statistically significantly different (p < 0.05) between custom-mentholated Camel Kings (CKM) and non-mentholated Camel Kings (CK). OTUs are colored by Phylum and differentiated by Gram negative (a) and Gram positive (b) classification. A positive log2-fold change value denotes an OTU that is significantly higher in custom-mentholated Camel Kings, while a negative log2-fold change indicates an OTU that is significantly higher in non-mentholated Camel Kings. The dotted line and arrows highlight the conversion in log2-fold change from negative to positive values
Fig. 5Overview of relative abundances of OTUs that were statistically significantly different (p < 0.05) between mentholated Camel Crush (CCM) and non-mentholated Camel Crush (CC). OTUs are colored by Phylum and differentiated by Gram negative (a) and Gram positive (b) classification. A positive log2-fold change value denotes an OTU that is significantly higher in mentholated Camel Crush, while a negative log2-fold change indicates an OTU that is significantly higher in non-mentholated Camel Crush. The dotted line and arrows highlight the conversion in log2-fold change from negative to positive values