Andrew Y Koh1,2,3. 1. Department of Pediatrics, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX; andrew.koh@utsouthwestern.edu. 2. Department of Microbiology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX. 3. Harold C. Simmons Cancer Center, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Gut microbiota, the collective community of microorganisms inhabiting the intestine, have been shown to provide many beneficial functions for the host. Recent advances in next-generation sequencing and advanced molecular biology approaches have allowed researchers to identify gut microbiota signatures associated with disease processes and, in some cases, establish causality and elucidate underlying mechanisms. CONTENT: This report reviews 3 commonly used methods for studying the gut microbiota and microbiome (the collective genomes of the gut microorganisms): 16S rRNA gene sequencing, bacterial group or species-specific quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR), and metagenomic shotgun sequencing (MSS). The technical approaches and resources needed for each approach are outlined, and advantages and disadvantages for each approach are summarized. The findings regarding the role of the gut microbiota in the health of patients with cancer and stem cell transplant (SCT) patients (specifically in modulating the development of gut-derived bacterial infections and a posttransplant immune-mediated complication known as graft-vs-host-disease) are reviewed. Finally, there is discussion of the potential viability of these approaches in the actual clinical treatment of cancer and SCT patients. SUMMARY: Advances in next-generation sequencing have revolutionized our understanding of the importance of the gut microbiome to human health. Both 16S rRNA gene sequencing and MSS are currently too labor-intensive or computationally burdensome to incorporate into real-time clinical monitoring of gut microbiomes. Yet, the lessons learned from these technologies could be adapted to currently used methods (e.g., qPCR) that could then be rigorously tested in the clinical care of these patients.
BACKGROUND:Gut microbiota, the collective community of microorganisms inhabiting the intestine, have been shown to provide many beneficial functions for the host. Recent advances in next-generation sequencing and advanced molecular biology approaches have allowed researchers to identify gut microbiota signatures associated with disease processes and, in some cases, establish causality and elucidate underlying mechanisms. CONTENT: This report reviews 3 commonly used methods for studying the gut microbiota and microbiome (the collective genomes of the gut microorganisms): 16S rRNA gene sequencing, bacterial group or species-specific quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR), and metagenomic shotgun sequencing (MSS). The technical approaches and resources needed for each approach are outlined, and advantages and disadvantages for each approach are summarized. The findings regarding the role of the gut microbiota in the health of patients with cancer and stem cell transplant (SCT) patients (specifically in modulating the development of gut-derived bacterial infections and a posttransplant immune-mediated complication known as graft-vs-host-disease) are reviewed. Finally, there is discussion of the potential viability of these approaches in the actual clinical treatment of cancer and SCT patients. SUMMARY: Advances in next-generation sequencing have revolutionized our understanding of the importance of the gut microbiome to human health. Both 16S rRNA gene sequencing and MSS are currently too labor-intensive or computationally burdensome to incorporate into real-time clinical monitoring of gut microbiomes. Yet, the lessons learned from these technologies could be adapted to currently used methods (e.g., qPCR) that could then be rigorously tested in the clinical care of these patients.
Authors: T Z DeSantis; P Hugenholtz; N Larsen; M Rojas; E L Brodie; K Keller; T Huber; D Dalevi; P Hu; G L Andersen Journal: Appl Environ Microbiol Date: 2006-07 Impact factor: 4.792
Authors: Robert R Jenq; Ying Taur; Sean M Devlin; Doris M Ponce; Jenna D Goldberg; Katya F Ahr; Eric R Littmann; Lilan Ling; Asia C Gobourne; Liza C Miller; Melissa D Docampo; Jonathan U Peled; Nicholas Arpaia; Justin R Cross; Tatanisha K Peets; Melissa A Lumish; Yusuke Shono; Jarrod A Dudakov; Hendrik Poeck; Alan M Hanash; Juliet N Barker; Miguel-Angel Perales; Sergio A Giralt; Eric G Pamer; Marcel R M van den Brink Journal: Biol Blood Marrow Transplant Date: 2015-05-11 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Alison G Freifeld; Eric J Bow; Kent A Sepkowitz; Michael J Boeckh; James I Ito; Craig A Mullen; Issam I Raad; Kenneth V Rolston; Jo-Anne H Young; John R Wingard Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2011-02-15 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Daniela Weber; Peter J Oefner; Andreas Hiergeist; Josef Koestler; André Gessner; Markus Weber; Joachim Hahn; Daniel Wolff; Frank Stämmler; Rainer Spang; Wolfgang Herr; Katja Dettmer; Ernst Holler Journal: Blood Date: 2015-07-24 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Galit P Rosen; Karin Nielsen; Sungching Glenn; Jon Abelson; Jaime Deville; Theodore B Moore Journal: J Pediatr Hematol Oncol Date: 2005-03 Impact factor: 1.289
Authors: E Panagou; G Zakout; J Keshani; C Smith; D Irish; S Mackinnon; P Kottaridis; A Fielding; P D Griffiths Journal: Transpl Infect Dis Date: 2016-06-09 Impact factor: 2.228
Authors: Arthur E Frankel; Sachin Deshmukh; Amit Reddy; John Lightcap; Maureen Hayes; Steven McClellan; Seema Singh; Brooks Rabideau; T Grant Glover; Bruce Roberts; Andrew Y Koh Journal: Integr Cancer Ther Date: 2019 Jan-Dec Impact factor: 3.279