A Gardner1,2, P W So3, G H Carpenter1. 1. Salivary Research, Centre for Host-Microbiome Interactions, Faculty of Dental, Oral & Craniofacial Sciences, King's College London, London, UK. 2. Department of Restorative Dentistry, Dental Hospital and School, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK. 3. Department of Neuroimaging, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, Maurice Wohl Clinical Neuroscience Institute, London, UK.
Abstract
Metabolomics has been identified as a means of functionally assessing the net biological activity of a particular microbial community. Considering the oral microbiome, such an approach remains largely underused. While the current knowledge of the oral microbiome is constantly expanding, there are several deficits in knowledge particularly relating to their interactions with their host. This work uses nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy to investigate metabolic differences between oral microbial metabolism of endogenous (i.e., salivary protein) and exogenous (i.e., dietary carbohydrates) substrates. It also investigated whether microbial generation of different metabolites may be associated with host taste perception. This work found that in the absence of exogenous substrate, oral bacteria readily catabolize salivary protein and generate metabolic profiles similar to those seen in vivo. Important metabolites such as acetate, butyrate, and propionate are generated at relatively high concentrations. Higher concentrations of metabolites were generated by tongue biofilm compared to planktonic salivary bacteria. Thus, as has been postulated, metabolite production in proximity to taste receptors could reach relatively high concentrations. In the presence of 0.25 M exogenous sucrose, increased catabolism was observed with increased concentrations of a range of metabolites relating to glycolysis (lactate, pyruvate, succinate). Additional pyruvate-derived molecules such as acetoin and alanine were also increased. Furthermore, there was evidence that individual taste sensitivity to sucrose was related to differences in the metabolic fate of sucrose in the mouth. High-sensitivity perceivers appeared more inclined toward continual citric acid cycle activity postsucrose, whereas low-sensitivity perceivers had a more efficient conversion of pyruvate to lactate. This work collectively indicates that the oral microbiome exists in a complex balance with the host, with fluctuating metabolic activity depending on nutrient availability. There is preliminary evidence of an association between host behavior (sweet taste perception) and oral catabolism of sugar.
Metabolomics has been identified as a means of functionally assessing the net biological activity of a particular microbial community. Considering the oral microbiome, such an approach remains largely underused. While the current knowledge of the oral microbiome is constantly expanding, there are several deficits in knowledge particularly relating to their interactions with their host. This work uses nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy to investigate metabolic differences between oral microbial metabolism of endogenous (i.e., salivary protein) and exogenous (i.e., dietary carbohydrates) substrates. It also investigated whether microbial generation of different metabolites may be associated with host taste perception. This work found that in the absence of exogenous substrate, oral bacteria readily catabolize salivary protein and generate metabolic profiles similar to those seen in vivo. Important metabolites such as acetate, butyrate, and propionate are generated at relatively high concentrations. Higher concentrations of metabolites were generated by tongue biofilm compared to planktonic salivary bacteria. Thus, as has been postulated, metabolite production in proximity to taste receptors could reach relatively high concentrations. In the presence of 0.25 M exogenous sucrose, increased catabolism was observed with increased concentrations of a range of metabolites relating to glycolysis (lactate, pyruvate, succinate). Additional pyruvate-derived molecules such as acetoin and alanine were also increased. Furthermore, there was evidence that individual taste sensitivity to sucrose was related to differences in the metabolic fate of sucrose in the mouth. High-sensitivity perceivers appeared more inclined toward continual citric acid cycle activity postsucrose, whereas low-sensitivity perceivers had a more efficient conversion of pyruvate to lactate. This work collectively indicates that the oral microbiome exists in a complex balance with the host, with fluctuating metabolic activity depending on nutrient availability. There is preliminary evidence of an association between host behavior (sweet taste perception) and oral catabolism of sugar.
Microbial sequencing technologies greatly advanced knowledge of the diversity
of the human oral microbiome. Complementary technologies such as metabolomic
profiling likely represent an equally valuable, yet underused, source of
information (Takahashi
2015). Metabolomic profiling of oral fluid, particularly
saliva, generally focuses on biomarker discovery. Metabolomic profiling of
saliva appears to offer diagnostic promise for oral cancer (Sugimoto et al.
2010; Wang
et al. 2014; Ishikawa et al. 2016),
periodontal disease (Aimetti et al. 2012), dental caries (Fidalgo et al. 2013; Pereira et al.
2019), and primary Sjögren syndrome (Mikkonen et al. 2013; Kageyama et al.
2015). Saliva has also been implicated as a source of
biomarkers for systemic diseases, including breast and prostate cancer
(Sugimoto et al.
2010) and neurological disease (Figueira et al. 2016; Yilmaz et al.
2017). These studies typically focus on finding differences
between disease and control samples. Investigation of why these metabolic
differences arise is lacking. An important step in enhancing the knowledge
of the oral microbiome is moving from simply determining what microorganisms
are present to determining the significance of their net metabolomic
activity (Takahashi
2015). Study of the humangut microbiome and metabolome is
unveiling important insights into the symbiotic relationship between the
microbiome and their host, in health and disease (Hirata and Kunisawa 2017; Liu et al. 2017;
Santoru et al.
2017; Zierer et al. 2018).There remain important gaps in the collective knowledge of the salivary
metabolome. Unlike for the gut, the link between the salivary metabolome and
microbiome remains sparsely studied. Prominent gut metabolites, including
acetate, propionate, and butyrate, collectively termed short-chain fatty
acids (SCFAs), arising from the bacterial fermentation of dietary fiber are
known to confer health benefits. These include maintenance of epithelial
barrier integrity, immune signaling, and anticancer regulation (Morrison and Preston
2016; Rooks
and Garrett 2016). SCFAs are also prominent salivary
metabolites. Until recently, a significant question concerned the origin of
salivary metabolites and the extent to which they are derived from the host
or the microflora. It has recently been demonstrated that parotid saliva
(PS) is free of SCFAs, aside from trace levels of acetate. Furthermore, the
SCFA concentration of whole-mouth saliva (WMS) correlates strongly with the
oral microbial load (Gardner et al. 2019).Glandular saliva as measured by nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy
(1H-NMR) is relatively sparse in metabolite content
compared to WMS. Many other metabolites present in WMS appear to be largely
of microbial origin, including amines (methyl, dimethyl, and trimethylamine)
and amino acids such as phenylalanine and glycine. The few
high-concentration metabolites present in glandular saliva include citrate,
lactate, and urea. Salivary urea is consumed by oral bacteria postsecretion,
and WMS urea concentrations correlate inversely with both microbial load and
plaque abundance (Gardner et al. 2019; Liebsch et al. 2019). Lactate is
arguably the most familiar salivary metabolite among dental professionals.
The role of lactate production from fermentable carbohydrates in
demineralizing tooth tissue has been known for 80 y (Miller et al. 1940). While other
organic acids have also been implicated in the caries process (Silwood et al.
1999), lactate reaches the highest concentrations following
oral exposure to fermentable sugars. Nevertheless, under resting conditions
without recent (>1-h) exposure to oral carbohydrates, WMS lactate
concentrations are not elevated above PS concentrations and are less
concentrated than circulating blood lactate concentrations (Gardner et al.
2019). These shifts in metabolism upon exposure to exogenous
nutrients underpin a major difference between the gut and oral metabolomes.
Whereas gut microbes have a continual source of nutrients in the form of
dietary fiber, oral microbial communities must endure significant periods of
time without exposure to nutrients consumed by the host. Sleep would likely
represent the longest time period for oral bacteria to subsist without oral
exposure to exogenous nutrients. However, the saliva initially produced on
waking has been demonstrated to be richer in many metabolites, including
amines and SCFAs, relative to saliva collected throughout the day (Wallner-Liebmann et al.
2016). Therefore, oral bacteria must be capable of metabolizing
additional substrates.Another emerging theme from the growing literature on the gut microbiome is
that the microbiome manipulates host behaviors via their metabolic activity.
A complex relationship is being unveiled, linking dietary choices with the
microbial metabolism of consumed foods by gut bacteria via molecular
signaling that influences host satiety response. Such a relationship
essentially forms a feedback cycle where the consumption of unhealthy,
processed foods ultimately leads to a desire to consume more of the same
foods, resulting in adverse metabolic consequences such as obesity and
associated conditions (Sandhu et al. 2017). These host-microbiome interactions have
led to gut bacteria being described as “microscopic puppetmasters” (Alcock et al.
2014). Action on taste receptors has been identified as a possible
mechanism of such microbial manipulation of their host, but the literature
directly supporting this is currently limited to animal models (Alcock et al.
2014). More important, despite being focused on oral sensory
processes, the emphasis of these animal studies is the gut microbiome. It
would seem logical that the oral microbiome would be a more appropriate
target when investigating microbial impairment of taste function. It has
been hypothesized that metabolic activity of tongue biofilms local to taste
receptors may be critical in generating metabolites that modulate individual
sensory perception (Neyraud and Morzel 2019). The pattern of bacterial substrate
utilization and metabolite output relevant to these processes is unclear,
although catabolism of exogenous nutrients is implicated.The aim of this work is therefore to explore whether the net metabolic activity
of oral microflora might influence host taste perception, particularly in
the presence and absence of exogenous nutrients. The pattern of metabolites
arising from saliva catabolism by tongue biofilm and WMS bacteria was first
established in vitro, modeling a fasted state such as sleep. Subsequently,
in vivo catabolism of exogenous sucrose was analyzed with respect to host
taste sensitivity to a sucrose challenge, modeling carbohydrate intake.
Materials and Methods
Ethical Approval
Work was conducted following approval from King’s College London ethics
committee (HR-15/16–2508). All volunteers provided written
consent.
Investigation of Oral Microbial Metabolism in the Absence of
Exogenous Nutrients In Vitro
Sample Collection
PS (20 mL) was collected from a single volunteer using a sterilized
Lashley cup and 1% mass/volume food-grade tartaric acid
stimulation (Gardner et al. 2019). PS was filtered through a
0.2-µm filter, aliquoted (500 µL) into sterile tubes, and stored
at −80°C for 1 wk prior to use.Bacterial inoculums were sourced from 6 healthy adult volunteers 1
h after eating, drinking, or oral exposure to exogenous
substances. Dietary information was not gathered. Antibiotic use
in the preceding 6 mo and active oral disease (based on visual
examination by a dentist) were exclusion criteria. Unstimulated
WMS was collected from each volunteer. Biofilm samples from the
anterior and posterior tongue were collected using sterilized,
preweighed plastic scrapers (cat. 231-0639; VWR). The location
of sample was based on proximity to circumvallate papillae
posteriorly and fungiform papillae anteriorly.
Inoculation and Incubation Conditions
PS aliquots were thawed on ice. Aliquots were inoculated with 20 µL
WMS or 20 mg of tongue biofilm from either tongue site (i.e., 4%
by volume/mass, respectively). Control samples were prepared
with 20 µL sterile phosphate-buffered saline (PBS). Inoculated
sample tubes were stored inside Sterilin universal tubes (Thermo
Fisher Scientific) with wet tissue paper in the bottom to
minimize evaporative fluid loss. Samples were incubated at 37°C
for 24 h in an anaerobic cabinet with gas blend of 10%
H2, 10% CO2, and 80% N2.
Tube lids were pierced with sterilized forceps to allow gaseous
exchange.Nonincubated control samples were prepared immediately prior to
analysis. One control was PS mixed with 4% PBS to control for
any effects of incubation alone in the absence of bacteria. The
second control was PS mixed with 20 µL pooled WMS (4%) to
control for any compositional changes arising from the baseline
metabolites present in the WMS inoculum. The experimental design
is summarized in Appendix Figure 1.
Sample Analyses
Postincubation bacterial load, protein composition, and metabolite
composition were analyzed as described previously (Gardner et
al. 2018, 2019; Gardner and
Carpenter 2019), respectively. A brief overview is
presented in the appendix material.
Investigation of Oral Microbial Metabolism in the Presence of
Exogenous Nutrients and Associations with Host Taste Sensitivity In
Vivo
Sample Collection and Study Design
Food-grade sucrose solutions (Sigma) were prepared at 0.25 M in
Buxton (Nestle) mineral water. Experiments were conducted
between 2:00 and 3:00 p.m., at least 1 h after the last exposure
to exogenous substances. Volunteers were administered 10 mL of
mineral water as a control and instructed to passively hold the
liquid in the floor of the mouth for 30 s. The water was
expectorated and WMS collected into preweighed universal tubes
over 2 min. This process was repeated with 0.25 M sucrose.Participants rated their maximum perceived intensity of the sucrose
sweetness on generalized labeled visual analog scales (glVASs;
Appendix Fig. 3). Participants were first
familiarized with the use of the scale via verbal and written
instructions. Fifty-two participants were screened for taste
sensitivity. Inclusion/exclusion criteria were as described for
biofilm donors and included no reported deficiency in salivary
flow or taste function. Salivary samples from sensitive and
relatively insensitive sucrose perceivers, defined as rating
sweetness as greater or less than 1 standard-deviation from the
mean, were selected for further analysis, (n =
9 per group). Conformity with Strengthening the Reporting of
Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines (ISPM,
Bern, Switzerland) for case-control studies was ensured.
Salivary Analyses
Salivary flow rate was calculated in g/min by dividing the mass of
saliva collected by the collection time. Samples were analyzed
by 1H-NMR spectroscopy as described and targeted
metabolite concentrations were quantified. Biofilm metabolite
output was calculated in µmol/min by multiplying metabolite
concentration by flow rate. Differences in metabolite output
relative to control following sucrose exposure were compared
between the sensitive and relatively insensitive perceivers.
Relative flow rate changes and relevant metabolite ratios were
also determined and compared. Lactate/pyruvate ratios were
calculated by dividing lactate output by pyruvate output and
citrate/pyruvate ratios calculated by dividing citrate output by
pyruvate output.
Statistical Analyses
Data were primarily analyzed in GraphPad Prism 8 (GraphPad Software) and
Knime v.3.4.2 (KNIME). Following inspection for normality
(Shapiro-Wilk test and Q-Q plots), data were analyzed by appropriate
statistical tests, including analysis of variance (ANOVA),
single-sample t test, and 2-tailed paired
t tests. Colony-forming unit (CFU) densities
were logarithmically transformed prior to analysis. Adequate
statistical power was confirmed post hoc for the differences observed
in the in vivo study.
Results
Oral Bacteria Consume Salivary Proteins
PS was minimally affected by incubation alone, displaying minor changes
in statherin and low molecular weight (MW) proteins. Inoculated
samples universally showed considerable protein loss, with amylase
typically the only residual protein. Lane density of samples was
significantly reduced relative to controls for all inoculums. Tongue
biofilm samples had significantly reduced protein relative to WMS
inoculated samples. Log10 CFU of inoculated samples
differed significantly between WMS and posterior tongue biofilms. A
moderate correlation (R
2 = 0.62) was found between final CFU and protein
consumption of the samples. These results are summarized in Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Summary of bacterial protein consumption from parotid saliva
(PS). (A) Coomassie-stained polyacrylamide
gel. Lane i = unincubated PS; ii = phosphate-buffered
saline (PBS) inoculated, incubated parotid saliva; iii =
whole-mouth saliva (WMS) inoculated PS; iv = anterior
tongue biofilm inoculated PS; v = posterior tongue biofilm
inoculated PS. Samples from 2 representative donors are
shown on this gel. glPRP, glycated proline-rich protein;
PRP, proline-rich proteins. (B) Protein
consumption from the inoculated samples, measured relative
to the unincubated PS (dotted line). AT, anterior tongue;
PT, posterior tongue. (C) Final
log10 colony-forming units (CFU)/mL from
the inoculated samples. Data in B and C are mean ± SEM,
analyzed by Tukey’s multiple comparison test following
analysis of variance (n = 6 samples per
group). (D) Correlation between protein
consumption and final log10 CFU/mL from all
inoculated samples, n = 18, measured by
Pearson’s correlation.
Summary of bacterial protein consumption from parotid saliva
(PS). (A) Coomassie-stained polyacrylamide
gel. Lane i = unincubated PS; ii = phosphate-buffered
saline (PBS) inoculated, incubated parotid saliva; iii =
whole-mouth saliva (WMS) inoculated PS; iv = anterior
tongue biofilm inoculated PS; v = posterior tongue biofilm
inoculated PS. Samples from 2 representative donors are
shown on this gel. glPRP, glycated proline-rich protein;
PRP, proline-rich proteins. (B) Protein
consumption from the inoculated samples, measured relative
to the unincubated PS (dotted line). AT, anterior tongue;
PT, posterior tongue. (C) Final
log10 colony-forming units (CFU)/mL from
the inoculated samples. Data in B and C are mean ± SEM,
analyzed by Tukey’s multiple comparison test following
analysis of variance (n = 6 samples per
group). (D) Correlation between protein
consumption and final log10 CFU/mL from all
inoculated samples, n = 18, measured by
Pearson’s correlation.
Oral Bacteria Generate Metabolites from Parotid Saliva
Metabolic content of PS inoculated with oral bacteria was considerably
different from PBS inoculated PS. Typical spectra pre- and
postincubation are shown in Appendix Figure 4. Changes in the metabolite
concentrations are shown in Appendix Table 1. The majority of host-derived
metabolites present in PS at baseline were partly or wholly consumed
by oral bacteria. Inoculated samples displayed considerable
concentrations of SCFAs, amino acids, and phenolic compounds. These
tended to be most concentrated in the tongue biofilm inoculated
samples. Spectral profiles of control samples were not significantly
different from the baseline unincubated PS. The only measured
metabolic difference between control and baseline parotid saliva was
that phenylalanine was not detected in baseline PS. Multivariate
analysis found that there was a degree of separation between the
metabolic composition of tongue biofilm and WMS inoculated samples
(Fig.
2). The consumption of proteins correlated with the generation
of several metabolites, notably acetate, butyrate, propionate, and
phenylacetate (Appendix Fig. 5). A comparison of interindividual
variability in metabolite profiles of inoculated samples and
participant WMS found no differences in variation between the samples
(Appendix Fig. 6). Importantly, endogenous salivary
metabolites were also consumed from the baseline PS. Endogenous
glucose was fully consumed in all cases. Citrate and urea were
significantly consumed by all inoculums, but pyruvate and lactate were
significantly consumed by tongue biofilm but were not significantly
consumed by WMS bacteria.
Figure 2.
Principal component analysis (PCA) plot with
k-means cluster analysis of
metabolite profiles of inoculated parotid saliva (PS).
Statistical clusters are indicated by color, and inoculum
is indicated by size. There appears to be a degree of
separation between whole-mouth saliva (WMS) and tongue
biofilm inoculums, with only 1 posterior tongue and 2
anterior tongue samples being clustered with WMS
inoculums. There is no evidence of a distinction between
posterior and anterior tongue biofilm inoculums.
Principal component analysis (PCA) plot with
k-means cluster analysis of
metabolite profiles of inoculated parotid saliva (PS).
Statistical clusters are indicated by color, and inoculum
is indicated by size. There appears to be a degree of
separation between whole-mouth saliva (WMS) and tongue
biofilm inoculums, with only 1 posterior tongue and 2
anterior tongue samples being clustered with WMS
inoculums. There is no evidence of a distinction between
posterior and anterior tongue biofilm inoculums.
Host Sensitivity to Sucrose Is Associated with Different Intraoral
Bacterial Sucrose Catabolism In Vivo
Exposure of oral bacteria to sucrose causes significant changes in the
salivary concentration and outputs of multiple metabolites (Appendix Table 2). Data subdivided by sucrose
sensitivity are presented in Appendix Table 3. When comparing subjects with high
and low sensitivity to sucrose, no significant difference in relative
salivary flow rate was detected. Significant differences in
lactate/pyruvate ratios and citrate/pyruvate ratios between high- and
low-sensitivity perceivers were detected. Low-sensitivity perceivers
had a significantly lower citrate/pyruvate ratio (–0.32 ± 0.17 vs.
0.04 ± 0.04, respectively) and a significantly higher lactate/pyruvate
ratio (26.88 ± 5.63 vs. 16.04 ± 2.35, respectively) compared to
high-sensitivity perceivers. Data are presented in Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Summary of data comparing microbial sucrose catabolism
between high-sensitivity and low-sensitivity sucrose
perceivers. (A) High- and low-perceiver
groupings based on their generalized labeled visual analog
scale (glVAS) intensity ratings of 0.25 M sucrose.
(B) Postsucrose flow rate relative to
control for both perceiver groups, which did not differ.
(C, D) The difference
between high- and low-sensitivity perceivers for
citrate/pyruvate and lactate/pyruvate ratios,
respectively. Bar graphs display mean ± SEM;
P values are for 2-tailed
t test. Based on the present sample
(n = 9), a β value of 0.81 was
calculated at α = 0.05. n.s., not significant.
Summary of data comparing microbial sucrose catabolism
between high-sensitivity and low-sensitivity sucrose
perceivers. (A) High- and low-perceiver
groupings based on their generalized labeled visual analog
scale (glVAS) intensity ratings of 0.25 M sucrose.
(B) Postsucrose flow rate relative to
control for both perceiver groups, which did not differ.
(C, D) The difference
between high- and low-sensitivity perceivers for
citrate/pyruvate and lactate/pyruvate ratios,
respectively. Bar graphs display mean ± SEM;
P values are for 2-tailed
t test. Based on the present sample
(n = 9), a β value of 0.81 was
calculated at α = 0.05. n.s., not significant.
Discussion
Despite being recognized as an important nutrient source for oral bacteria
(Ruhl 2012;
Takahashi
2015), microbial metabolism of saliva has been sparsely
studied. Carbohydrate moieties of salivary glycoprotein (MUC5B) have been
identified as a target for microbial catabolism, but the present results
demonstrate that salivary proteins are readily catabolized by oral bacteria
in a nonspecific fashion. Amylase was typically the only protein partly
remaining at the experimental endpoint. Many of the metabolites generated
from the microbial breakdown of salivary protein are present in WMS,
including SCFAs, glycine, and phenylalanine. A depiction of relevant
metabolic pathways is shown in Appendix Figure 7. A number of additional metabolites were
generated in this in vitro model at concentrations above those typically
seen in healthy WMS. These included amino acid degradation by-products such
as putrescine and 5-aminopentanoate and phenolic compounds such as
3-phenylpropionate and phenylacetate. Phenylacetate has been implicated as a
biomarker in periodontal disease (Liebsch et al. 2019). This
indicates the importance of ecological niche to the pathogenicity of oral
bacteria. While all participants harbored oral bacteria capable of
proteolysis and generation of phenylacetate in vitro, these metabolites were
not detected in their baseline WMS samples, indicating an
environment-dependent shift toward proteolysis.As predicted by Neyraud and
Morzel (2019), the tongue biofilm generated an abundance of
metabolites, some of which have the potential to manipulate taste and oral
perception. These include SCFAs, which have previously been inversely
associated with oral sensitivity to oleic acid (Mounayar et al. 2014). A number
of other amino acids with the potential to alter taste perception were also
observed. The concentrations of glycine, valine, leucine, phenylalanine, and
proline produced following 24-h in vitro incubation, while higher than those
generally found in saliva, were still below the respective taste detection
thresholds. Nevertheless, local concentrations of such metabolites within
tongue biofilm in vivo might theoretically reach higher concentrations
(Feron
2019). Interestingly, there were differences between the metabolic
patterns of WMS and tongue biofilm inoculums. These differences may be
attributable to different bacterial loads (WMS inoculums yielded
significantly lower log10CFU/mL than posterior tongue biofilms).
This might explain quantitative differences, but qualitative differences in
spectral profile of WMS and tongue biofilm inoculated samples were detected
by principal component analysis (PCA). Therefore, microbial compositional
differences between the inoculum sources, as well as the planktonic nature
of WMS and biofilm structure of tongue samples, may be more important in
shaping the net metabolic activity of oral bacterial niches. Differences in
endogenous metabolite consumption between WMS and tongue biofilm inoculums
were also found, in particular relating to lactate and pyruvate consumption.
Alongside the in vivo findings, this highlights the complexity of
host-microbiome interactions in the oral cavity. For example, salivary
lactate concentrations are in constant balance between delivery rate from
host-glandular fluid, microbial consumption under fasted conditions, and
microbial generation upon exposure to exogenous nutrient sources. There are
several limitations of this in vitro study. First, the experimental design
represents a static nutrient pool, whereas even during sleep, when
salivation is minimal, a degree of flux would occur in the oral cavity.
Second, measurement of microbial diversity would ideally complement the
metabolomic data. Few studies have done so to date, and this approach
represents a useful future direction (Zaura et al. 2017).With respect to in vivo intraoral catabolism of sucrose, this work unveiled
some interesting findings. A similar metabolomic approach to saccharide
metabolism in plaque has been reported (Takahashi et al. 2010), but the
different analytical techniques allow for different molecules to be
analyzed. In the present work, salivary concentrations and outputs of
molecules not always conventionally associated with glycolysis were
observed, including alanine and acetoin. These differences likely serve to
underline the central role of pyruvate in the oral metabolome. Pyruvate can
be converted into both alanine and acetoin (March et al. 2002; Owen et al.
2002), as well entering the citric acid cycle or being converted to
lactate. These latter metabolic events appeared to be associated with host
sensitivity to sucrose. Lactate/pyruvate ratio in plasma is used as a
medical parameter indicative of adverse metabolic events when raised.
Lactate/pyruvate ratio has previously been analyzed in PS following
ingestion of sugars (Kelsay et al. 1972), although the aim was to investigate how
it correlated with plasma lactate/pyruvate ratio. We found a significantly
higher lactate/pyruvate ratio in relatively low-sensitivity sucrose
perceivers compared to high-sensitivity perceivers. Conversely,
citrate/pyruvate ratios showed the opposite relationship. These metabolic
differences might be explained by differences in oral microflora.
Streptococci such as Streptococcus mutans, which are
efficient oral lactate producers, feature altered or absent citric acid
cycles with a limited role in energy production (Ajdić et al. 2002). Therefore,
high-sensitivity sucrose perceivers could have a less lactogenic oral
microbiome. Whether sensitivity to sucrose is associated with intake is
controversial, involving genetic and environmental factors (Keskitalo et al.
2007; Eny et
al. 2010). While some studies report no association (Cicerale et al.
2012), certain patterns of sugar consumption in the form of
soft drinks have been demonstrated to reduce sucrose sensitivity (Sartor et al.
2011). Thus, as speculated (Alcock et al. 2014), taste
sensitivity may be associated with the oral microbiome, leading to enhanced
consumption of refined sugars, which could ultimately lead to negative oral
and systemic health consequences. Future work into the nature of intraoral
metabolite mediated host-microbiome interactions could potentially be
adapted into functional measures of caries risk assessment. Such knowledge
may also help clinicians appreciate the complex biological factors in
explaining health behaviors as the dental profession collectively moves away
from “patient-blaming” models of disease etiology.
Author Contributions
A. Gardner, contributed to conception, design, data acquisition, analysis, and
interpretation, drafted and critically revised the manuscript; P.W. So, G.H.
Carpenter, contributed to conception, design, data analysis, and
interpretation, critically revised the manuscript. All authors gave final
approval and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.Click here for additional data file.Supplemental material, DS_10.1177_0022034520917142 for Intraoral
Microbial Metabolism and Association with Host Taste Perception by W.
Shi, A. Gardner, P.W. So and G.H. Carpenter in Journal of Dental
Research
Authors: Joana L Pereira; Daniela Duarte; Tatiana J Carneiro; Sara Ferreira; Bárbara Cunha; Daniela Soares; Ana Luísa Costa; Ana M Gil Journal: Oral Dis Date: 2019-05-30 Impact factor: 3.511
Authors: C Liebsch; V Pitchika; C Pink; S Samietz; G Kastenmüller; A Artati; K Suhre; J Adamski; M Nauck; H Völzke; N Friedrich; T Kocher; B Holtfreter; M Pietzner Journal: J Dent Res Date: 2019-04-26 Impact factor: 6.116
Authors: Ali Yilmaz; Tim Geddes; BeomSoo Han; Ray O Bahado-Singh; George D Wilson; Khaled Imam; Michael Maddens; Stewart F Graham Journal: J Alzheimers Dis Date: 2017 Impact factor: 4.472
Authors: Jonas Zierer; Matthew A Jackson; Gabi Kastenmüller; Massimo Mangino; Tao Long; Amalio Telenti; Robert P Mohney; Kerrin S Small; Jordana T Bell; Claire J Steves; Ana M Valdes; Tim D Spector; Cristina Menni Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2018-05-28 Impact factor: 38.330