Literature DB >> 32636335

Comparison of Oral Microbiota Collected Using Multiple Methods and Recommendations for New Epidemiologic Studies.

Yukiko Yano1, Xing Hua2, Yunhu Wan2, Shalabh Suman3,4, Bin Zhu3,4, Casey L Dagnall3,4, Amy Hutchinson3,4, Kristine Jones3,4, Belynda D Hicks3,4, Jianxin Shi2, Christian C Abnet5, Emily Vogtmann5.   

Abstract

Epidemiologic studies use various biosample collection methods to study associations between human oral microbiota and health outcomes. However, the agreement between the different methods is unclear. We compared a commercially available OMNIgene ORAL kit to three alternative collection methods: Saccomanno's fixative, Scope mouthwash, and nonethanol mouthwash. Oral samples were collected from 40 individuals over 4 visits. Two samples were collected from each subject per visit: one with OMNIgene and one with an alternative method. DNA was extracted using the DSP DNA Virus Pathogen kit, and the V4 region of the 16S rRNA gene was PCR amplified and sequenced using MiSeq. Oral collection methods were compared based on alpha and beta diversity metrics and phylum- and genus-level relative abundances. All alpha diversity metrics were significantly lower for Saccomanno's fixative than for OMNIgene (P < 0.001), whereas the two mouthwashes were more similar to OMNIgene. Principal-coordinate analysis (PCoA) using the Bray-Curtis and weighted UniFrac beta diversity matrices showed large differences in the microbial compositions of samples collected with Saccomanno's compared to those with OMNIgene and the mouthwashes. Clustering by collection method was not observed in unweighted UniFrac PCoA plots, suggesting differences in relative abundances but not specific taxa detected by the collection methods. Relative abundances of most taxa were significantly different between OMNIgene and the other methods at each taxonomic level, with Saccomanno's showing the least agreement with OMNIgene. There were clear differences in oral microbial communities between the four oral collection methods, particularly for Saccomanno's fixative.IMPORTANCE We compared four different oral collection methods for studying the human oral microbiome: an OMNIgene ORAL kit, Scope mouthwash, nonethanol mouthwash, and Saccomanno's fixative. Our study shows that the type of the collection method can have a large impact on the results of an oral microbiome analysis. We recommend that one consistent oral collection method should be used for all oral microbiome comparisons. While Scope and nonethanol mouthwashes are less expensive and provide results similar to those with OMNIgene, Saccomanno's fixative may be unfavorable due to the microbial differences detected in this study. Our results will help guide the design of future oral microbiome studies.

Entities:  

Keywords:  collection method; epidemiology; oral microbiome

Year:  2020        PMID: 32636335     DOI: 10.1128/mSystems.00156-20

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  mSystems        ISSN: 2379-5077            Impact factor:   6.496


  4 in total

1.  Effects of Dental Implants and Nutrition on Elderly Edentulous Subjects: Protocol for a Factorial Randomized Clinical Trial.

Authors:  Shu-Jiao Qian; Beilei Liu; Junyu Shi; Xiao Zhang; Ke Deng; Jie Shen; Yang Tao; Shichong Qiao; Hong-Chang Lai; Changzheng Yuan; Maurizio S Tonetti
Journal:  Front Nutr       Date:  2022-06-27

2.  Cross-Cohort Microbiome Analysis of Salivary Biomarkers in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.

Authors:  Chuqi Gao; Ying Guo; Feng Chen
Journal:  Front Cell Infect Microbiol       Date:  2022-01-25       Impact factor: 5.293

3.  Guideline for the analysis of the microbial communities of the human upper airways.

Authors:  Leonardo Mancabelli; Tecla Ciociola; Gabriele Andrea Lugli; Chiara Tarracchini; Federico Fontanta; Alice Viappiani; Francesca Turroni; Andrea Ticinesi; Tiziana Meschi; Stefania Conti; Marco Ventura; Christian Milani
Journal:  J Oral Microbiol       Date:  2022-07-28       Impact factor: 5.833

4.  The Salivary Microbiota of Patients With Primary Biliary Cholangitis Is Distinctive and Pathogenic.

Authors:  Longxian Lv; Huiyong Jiang; Xiaoxiao Chen; Qiangqiang Wang; Kaicen Wang; Jianzhong Ye; Yating Li; Daiqiong Fang; Yingfeng Lu; Liya Yang; Silan Gu; Jianing Chen; Hongyan Diao; Ren Yan; Lanjuan Li
Journal:  Front Immunol       Date:  2021-07-21       Impact factor: 7.561

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.