| Literature DB >> 32993514 |
Shichong Qiao1, Dongle Wu1, Mengge Wang2, Shujiao Qian1, Yu Zhu1, Junyu Shi1, Yongjun Wei3, Hongchang Lai4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Dental implants have become well-established in oral rehabilitation for fully or partially edentulous patients. However, peri-implantitis often leads to the failure of dental implants. The aim of this study was to understand the core microbiome associated with peri-implantitis and evaluate potential peri-implantitis pathogens based on canine peri-implantitis model.Entities:
Keywords: Canine peri-implantitis; Keystone taxonomy; Ligature-induced; Microbial variation; Microbiota
Year: 2020 PMID: 32993514 PMCID: PMC7526148 DOI: 10.1186/s12866-020-01982-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Microbiol ISSN: 1471-2180 Impact factor: 3.605
Fig. 1Peri-implantitis development timeline and the sampling time points
Fig. 2Disease severity of the bucca, distobucca, tongue side and mesiobuccal of the implants during Peri-implantitis development. The error bars represent the standard deviation of six replicates of each site around the implant
Average alpha diversity parameters during Peri-implantitis development of the dog teeth
| Richness | Chao1 | Shannon_2 | Simpson | Dominance | Equitability | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Phase T0 | 294 ± 78 | 295 ± 78 | 4 ± 0.8 | 0.2 ± 0.1 | 0.8 ± 0.1 | 0.5 ± 0.1 |
| Phase T1 | 337 ± 76 | 339 ± 75 | 5.3 ± 0.5 | 0.07 ± 0.03 | 0.9 ± 0.03 | 0.6 ± 0.08 |
| Phase T2 | 389 ± 34 | 390 ± 34 | 5.6 ± 0.4 | 0.05 ± 0.02 | 1 ± 0.02 | 0.7 ± 0.04 |
| Phase T3 | 305 ± 78 | 307 ± 76 | 5.1 ± 0.4 | 0.06 ± 0.02 | 0.9 ± 0.02 | 0.6 ± 0.07 |
Fig. 3Microbial compositions of the implant samples during Peri-implantitis development at phylum-level (a) and genus-level (b)
The distribution of dominant OTUs identified during Peri-implantitis development and the 16S rRNA gene fragments of their closest isolates and uncultured bacteria
| Closest isolates | Identity | Closest uncultured (nr/nt) | Identity | Phase T0 | Phase T1 | Phase T2 | Phase T3 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OTU_1 | 99.50% | Uncultured bacterium (JQ192915.1) | 100% | 43.46% | 5.48% | 10.50% | 10.89% | |
| OTU_3 | 97.88% | Uncultured bacterium (KX437329.1) | 100% | 0.19% | 6.29% | 0.95% | 10.98% | |
| OTU_7 | 94.37% | Uncultured | 99.30% | 0.12% | 0.48% | 5.43% | 6.71% | |
| OTU_13 | 95.82% | Uncultured | 100% | 0.58% | 3.05% | 3.99% | 4.66% | |
| OTU_5 | 100% | Uncultured | 100% | 3.49% | 0.61% | 2.32% | 5.30% | |
| OTU_9 | 99.51 | Uncultured | 100% | 0.07% | 8.22% | 0.79% | 2.07% | |
| OTU_8 | 99.53% | Uncultured bacterium (HM328336.1) | 99.76% | 0.29% | 6.92% | 2.65% | 0.88% | |
| OTU_4 | 100% | Uncultured | 100% | 0.23% | 0.09% | 5.68% | 4.53% | |
| OTU_2 | 98.97% | Uncultured | 97.42% | 0.24% | 0.09% | 8.23% | 1.55% | |
| OTU_19 | 97.91% | Uncutlured | 100% | 0.09% | 3.37% | 0.79% | 4.89% | |
| OTU_10 | 100% | Uncultured bacterium (JF241087.1) | 100% | 0.85% | 6.38% | 1.72% | 0.10% | |
| OTU_6 | 94.1% | Uncultured | 99.75% | 0.40% | 0.17% | 5.41% | 2.56% | |
| OTU_14 | 100% | Uncultured | 99.77% | 0.05% | 2.75% | 0.06% | 4.36% | |
| OTU_37 | 99.76% | 99.76% | 0.83% | 1.28% | 2.29% | 1.79% | ||
| OTU_16 | 84.15% | Uncultured | 100% | 0.07% | 0.04% | 3.87% | 1.81% | |
| OTU_17 | 100% | Uncultured | 100% | 4.94% | 0.02% | 0.02% | 0.07% | |
| OTU_15 | 90.59% | 100% | 0.09% | 0.45% | 3.52% | 0.91% | ||
| OTU_11 | 100% | Uncultured bacterium (JF17468.1) | 100% | 0.04% | 2.47% | 1.24% | 1.16% | |
| OTU_47 | 98.34% | Uncultured bacterium (JF223833.1) | 100% | 3.76% | 0.51% | 0.35% | 0.02% | |
| OTU_26 | 94.84% | Uncultured | 100% | 0.08% | 0.94% | 1.66% | 1.77% | |
| OTU_12 | 85.31% | Uncultured bacterium (KJ874155.1) | 92.47% | 0.12% | 1.71% | 1.40% | 1.10% | |
| OTU_30 | 99.01% | 100% | 0.19% | 2.17% | 1.09% | 0.59% |
Fig. 4Microbial distribution differences of the collected implant samples during Peri-implantitis development were displayed with the NMDS (a) and UPGMA (b) based on Bray Curtis distance
Fig. 5Network of co-occurring dominant OTUs (with relative composition > 0.5%) based on correlation analysis. The selection standards for strong correlation are Spearman’s ρ > 0.6, and significant correlation with P < 0.05. The size of each node is proportional to the relative abundance; the thickness of each connection between two nodes (edge) is proportional to the value of Spearman’s correlation coefficients. The line between two nodes in blue shows negative correlation between the two nodes; the line between two nodes in red shows positive correlation between the two nodes