Shaheen Alanee1, Ahmed El-Zawahry2, Danuta Dynda2, Kevin McVary2, Mallory Karr3, Andrea Braundmeier-Fleming3. 1. Vattikuti Urology Institute, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, MI, USA. salanee1@hfhs.org. 2. Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Southern Illinois University School of Medicine, Springfield, IL, USA. 3. Department of Medical Microbiology, Immunology, and Cell Biology, Southern Illinois University School of Medicine, Springfield, IL, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To prospectively examine the changes in microbiota within the urinary tract after transrectal prostate biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data, urine, and fecal samples prospectively collected from 30 patients before and after transrectal biopsy of the prostate. DNA was extracted from urine collected after a prostate massage before and after prostate biopsy, and from fecal samples collected before the biopsy. We sequenced DNA using the bacterial 16S rRNA high-throughput next-generation sequencing and analyzed changes in microbial profiles for taxonomy comparison between samples. RESULTS: Pre-biopsy urinary microbial profiles contained Lactobacillus and Staphylococcus bacteria. Post-biopsy urinary microbial profiles included lower levels of Lactobacillus and higher levels of Prevotella bacteria. Bacteroides bacteria were predominant in fecal samples. We identified two clustering patterns containing both pre- and post-biopsy urine samples. Cluster 1 had a urine cluster pattern that was distinct from fecal, whereas cluster 2 was similar to fecal. We observed two different modes of microbial changes, 11 patients had both of their urine (pre and post) samples associated with a particular cluster group, whereas others (n = 15) had movement between clusters 1 and 2 following the biopsy procedure. Four patient's post-biopsy urine microbial profiles clustered very tightly to the fecal microbial profile. CONCLUSIONS: We describe two models of change in the urinary tract microbiota after prostate biopsy using 16S RNA gene analysis. Further research to determine what controls changes in the urinary microbiota after prostate biopsy can help us understand why some patients are more susceptible to develop post-biopsy infections.
OBJECTIVES: To prospectively examine the changes in microbiota within the urinary tract after transrectal prostate biopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data, urine, and fecal samples prospectively collected from 30 patients before and after transrectal biopsy of the prostate. DNA was extracted from urine collected after a prostate massage before and after prostate biopsy, and from fecal samples collected before the biopsy. We sequenced DNA using the bacterial 16S rRNA high-throughput next-generation sequencing and analyzed changes in microbial profiles for taxonomy comparison between samples. RESULTS: Pre-biopsy urinary microbial profiles contained Lactobacillus and Staphylococcus bacteria. Post-biopsy urinary microbial profiles included lower levels of Lactobacillus and higher levels of Prevotella bacteria. Bacteroides bacteria were predominant in fecal samples. We identified two clustering patterns containing both pre- and post-biopsy urine samples. Cluster 1 had a urine cluster pattern that was distinct from fecal, whereas cluster 2 was similar to fecal. We observed two different modes of microbial changes, 11 patients had both of their urine (pre and post) samples associated with a particular cluster group, whereas others (n = 15) had movement between clusters 1 and 2 following the biopsy procedure. Four patient's post-biopsy urine microbial profiles clustered very tightly to the fecal microbial profile. CONCLUSIONS: We describe two models of change in the urinary tract microbiota after prostate biopsy using 16S RNA gene analysis. Further research to determine what controls changes in the urinary microbiota after prostate biopsy can help us understand why some patients are more susceptible to develop post-biopsy infections.
Authors: Daniela Gerges-Knafl; Peter Pichler; Alexander Zimprich; Christoph Hotzy; Wolfgang Barousch; Rita M Lang; Elisabeth Lobmeyr; Sabina Baumgartner-Parzer; Ludwig Wagner; Wolfgang Winnicki Journal: BMC Nephrol Date: 2020-04-06 Impact factor: 2.388