A M Kaan1, M J Buijs2, B W Brandt3, W Crielaard4, B J F Keijser5, J C de Ruyter6, E Zaura7. 1. Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), Department of Preventive Dentistry, Gustav Mahlerlaan 3004, 1081 LA, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Electronic address: a.m.kaan@acta.nl. 2. Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), Department of Preventive Dentistry, Gustav Mahlerlaan 3004, 1081 LA, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Electronic address: m.buijs@acta.nl. 3. Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), Department of Preventive Dentistry, Gustav Mahlerlaan 3004, 1081 LA, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Electronic address: b.brandt@acta.nl. 4. Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), Department of Preventive Dentistry, Gustav Mahlerlaan 3004, 1081 LA, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Electronic address: w.crielaard@acta.nl. 5. Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), Department of Preventive Dentistry, Gustav Mahlerlaan 3004, 1081 LA, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; TNO Microbiology and Systems Biology, Utrechtseweg 48, 3704 HE, Zeist, The Netherlands. Electronic address: b.j.f.keijser@acta.nl. 6. Public Health Service Amsterdam, Sarphati Amsterdam, Nieuwe Achtergracht 100, 1018WT, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Electronic address: jdruyter@ggd.amsterdam.nl. 7. Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), Department of Preventive Dentistry, Gustav Mahlerlaan 3004, 1081 LA, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Electronic address: e.zaura@acta.nl.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Large longitudinal cohort studies in infants are needed to understand oral microbiome maturation in relation to general health. The logistics of such studies are complex and costs involved high. Methods like home sampling by caretakers might be a solution to these issues. This study aimed to evaluate feasibility of home sampling by caretakers and to assess which oral niche provides the most reliable sample. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study 30 mothers and their infants aged 2-15 months participated. Swabs of the tongue, buccal mucosa, saliva, and dental plaque of the mother and the infant were collected by the mother after watching an instruction video. Thereafter, the trained researcher repeated the sample collection. Variations on the sampling protocol were listed. Bacterial DNA was quantified and microbial composition was assessed using 16S rDNA amplicon sequencing. RESULTS: None of the sampled niches appeared to be unfeasible based on interviews and observed variations on protocol. No significant differences in bacterial DNA concentration between operators (mother and researcher) were found. In infant's saliva, Shannon diversity of samples collected by the researcher was significantly higher than those collected by mothers (p = 0.0009) and the bacterial composition was influenced by variations on sampling protocol (p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Home sampling by caretakers is a feasible method for oral sample collection in infants and mothers. Oral samples collected by mothers resemble samples collected by a trained researcher, with the tongue sample being the most similar and saliva the least. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Home sampling can simplify longitudinal oral microbiota collection.
OBJECTIVES: Large longitudinal cohort studies in infants are needed to understand oral microbiome maturation in relation to general health. The logistics of such studies are complex and costs involved high. Methods like home sampling by caretakers might be a solution to these issues. This study aimed to evaluate feasibility of home sampling by caretakers and to assess which oral niche provides the most reliable sample. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study 30 mothers and their infants aged 2-15 months participated. Swabs of the tongue, buccal mucosa, saliva, and dental plaque of the mother and the infant were collected by the mother after watching an instruction video. Thereafter, the trained researcher repeated the sample collection. Variations on the sampling protocol were listed. Bacterial DNA was quantified and microbial composition was assessed using 16S rDNA amplicon sequencing. RESULTS: None of the sampled niches appeared to be unfeasible based on interviews and observed variations on protocol. No significant differences in bacterial DNA concentration between operators (mother and researcher) were found. In infant's saliva, Shannon diversity of samples collected by the researcher was significantly higher than those collected by mothers (p = 0.0009) and the bacterial composition was influenced by variations on sampling protocol (p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Home sampling by caretakers is a feasible method for oral sample collection in infants and mothers. Oral samples collected by mothers resemble samples collected by a trained researcher, with the tongue sample being the most similar and saliva the least. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Home sampling can simplify longitudinal oral microbiota collection.