M Fernandez Y Mostajo1, R A M Exterkate1, M J Buijs1, W Beertsen2, G A van der Weijden2, E Zaura1, W Crielaard1. 1. Department of Preventive Dentistry, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 2. Department of Periodontology, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), University of Amsterdam and VU University, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To develop a reproducible subgingival microcosm biofilm model. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Subgingival plaque samples were collected from four deep pockets (probing pocket depth ≥6 mm) in each of seven patients with periodontitis and from shallow pockets (probing pocket depth ≤3 mm) in two periodontally healthy donors. An active attachment model and a peptone medium (Thompson et. al., Appl Environ Microbiol 2015;81:8307-8314) supplemented with 30% serum was used. Biofilms were harvested at 2 and 4 weeks. DNA of dead cells was blocked for amplification by propidium monoazide treatment. Composition was analyzed using 16S rRNA gene amplicon pyrosequencing. Similarities between the biofilm samples were assessed by non-metric multidimensional scaling using the Bray-Curtis similarity index and similarity percentage analysis. Data from duplicate experiments, different biofilm sources and different biofilm age were compared. RESULTS: The non-metric multidimensional scaling revealed a strong clustering by the inoculum source, the donor and their periodontal status. Statistically significant differences were found between the sources of inoculum (P=.0001) and biofilm age (P=.0016). Furthermore, periodontitis biofilms (P) were distinct in composition from health-derived biofilms (H) by genera: Porphyromonas (P=19%; H=0%), Filifactor (P=10%; H=0%), Anaeroglobus (P=3%; H=0%), Phocaeicola (P=1.5%; H=0%), Parvimonas (P=19%; H=14%), Fusobacterium (P=2%; H=26%), Peptostreptococcus (P=20%; H=30%), Veillonella (P=7%; H=8%) and 57 other genera. Similarity distances (Bray-Curtis) (mean 0.73, SD 0.15) and the Shannon diversity index (mean 2, SD 0.2) revealed no differences between duplicate experiments (P=.121). CONCLUSION: This biofilm model allows reproducible production of complex subgingival microbial communities.
OBJECTIVE: To develop a reproducible subgingival microcosm biofilm model. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Subgingival plaque samples were collected from four deep pockets (probing pocket depth ≥6 mm) in each of seven patients with periodontitis and from shallow pockets (probing pocket depth ≤3 mm) in two periodontally healthy donors. An active attachment model and a peptone medium (Thompson et. al., Appl Environ Microbiol 2015;81:8307-8314) supplemented with 30% serum was used. Biofilms were harvested at 2 and 4 weeks. DNA of dead cells was blocked for amplification by propidium monoazide treatment. Composition was analyzed using 16S rRNA gene amplicon pyrosequencing. Similarities between the biofilm samples were assessed by non-metric multidimensional scaling using the Bray-Curtis similarity index and similarity percentage analysis. Data from duplicate experiments, different biofilm sources and different biofilm age were compared. RESULTS: The non-metric multidimensional scaling revealed a strong clustering by the inoculum source, the donor and their periodontal status. Statistically significant differences were found between the sources of inoculum (P=.0001) and biofilm age (P=.0016). Furthermore, periodontitis biofilms (P) were distinct in composition from health-derived biofilms (H) by genera: Porphyromonas (P=19%; H=0%), Filifactor (P=10%; H=0%), Anaeroglobus (P=3%; H=0%), Phocaeicola (P=1.5%; H=0%), Parvimonas (P=19%; H=14%), Fusobacterium (P=2%; H=26%), Peptostreptococcus (P=20%; H=30%), Veillonella (P=7%; H=8%) and 57 other genera. Similarity distances (Bray-Curtis) (mean 0.73, SD 0.15) and the Shannon diversity index (mean 2, SD 0.2) revealed no differences between duplicate experiments (P=.121). CONCLUSION: This biofilm model allows reproducible production of complex subgingival microbial communities.
Authors: D Baraniya; M Naginyte; T Chen; J M Albandar; S M Chialastri; D A Devine; P D Marsh; N N Al-Hebshi Journal: J Dent Res Date: 2020-01-30 Impact factor: 6.116
Authors: Yaling Jiang; Bernd W Brandt; Mark J Buijs; Lei Cheng; Rob A M Exterkate; Wim Crielaard; Dong Mei Deng Journal: Appl Environ Microbiol Date: 2021-01-15 Impact factor: 4.792
Authors: Xiaolan Li; Lin Shang; Bernd W Brandt; Mark J Buijs; Sanne Roffel; Cor van Loveren; Wim Crielaard; Susan Gibbs; Dong Mei Deng Journal: NPJ Biofilms Microbiomes Date: 2021-09-09 Impact factor: 7.290
Authors: Nicholas S Jakubovics; Steven D Goodman; Lauren Mashburn-Warren; Graham P Stafford; Fabian Cieplik Journal: Periodontol 2000 Date: 2021-03-10 Impact factor: 12.239