Meghan I Short1, Robert Hudson2, Benjamin D Besasie2, Kelly R Reveles3, Dimpy P Shah4, Susannah Nicholson5, Teresa L Johnson-Pais2, Korri Weldon6, Zhao Lai6, Robin J Leach2,7, Bernard Fongang1,4,8, Michael A Liss9,10. 1. University of Texas Health San Antonio, Glenn Biggs Institute for Alzheimer's and Neurodegenerative Diseases, San Antonio, TX, USA. 2. Department of Urology, University of Texas Health San Antonio, 7703 Floyd Curl Drive, San Antonio, TX, 78229, USA. 3. The University of Texas at Austin, College of Pharmacy, Austin, TX, USA. 4. Department of Population Health Sciences, University of Texas Health San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, USA. 5. Department of Surgery, University of Texas Health San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, USA. 6. University of Texas Health San Antonio, Genome Sequencing Facility, Greehey Children's Cancer Research Institute (GCCRI), San Antonio, TX, USA. 7. Department of Cell Systems and Anatomy, University of Texas Health San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, USA. 8. Department of Biochemistry and Structural Biology, University of Texas Health San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, USA. 9. Department of Urology, University of Texas Health San Antonio, 7703 Floyd Curl Drive, San Antonio, TX, 78229, USA. liss@uthscsa.edu. 10. The University of Texas at Austin, College of Pharmacy, Austin, TX, USA. liss@uthscsa.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Studies of the gut microbiome are becoming increasingly important. Such studies require stool collections that can be processed or frozen in a timely manner so as not to alter the microbial content. Due to the logistical difficulties of home-based stool collection, there has been a challenge in selecting the appropriate sample collection technique and comparing results from different microbiome studies. Thus, we compared stool collection and two alternative clinic-based fecal microbiome collection techniques, including a newer glove-based collection method. RESULTS: We prospectively enrolled 22 adult men from our prostate cancer screening cohort SABOR (San Antonio Biomarkers of Risk for prostate cancer) in San Antonio, TX, from 8/2018 to 4/2019. A rectal swab and glove tip sample were collected from each participant during a one-time visit to our clinics. A single stool sample was collected at the participant's home. DNA was isolated from the fecal material and 16 s rRNA sequencing of the V1-V2 and V3-V4 regions was performed. We found the gut microbiome to be similar in richness and evenness, noting no differences in alpha diversity among the collection methods. The stool collection method, which remains the gold-standard method for the gut microbiome, proved to have different community composition compared to swab and glove tip techniques (p< 0.001) as measured by Bray-Curtis and unifrac distances. There were no significant differences in between the swab and glove tip samples with regard to beta diversity (p> 0.05). Despite differences between home-based stool and office-based fecal collection methods, we noted that the distance metrics for the three methods cluster by participant indicating within-person similarities. Additionally, no taxa differed among the methods in a Linear Discriminant Analysis Effect Size (LEfSe) analysis comparing all-against-all sampling methods. CONCLUSION: The glove tip method provides similar gut microbiome results as rectal swab and stool microbiome collection techniques. The addition of a new office-based collection technique could help easy and practical implementation of gut microbiome research studies and clinical practice.
BACKGROUND: Studies of the gut microbiome are becoming increasingly important. Such studies require stool collections that can be processed or frozen in a timely manner so as not to alter the microbial content. Due to the logistical difficulties of home-based stool collection, there has been a challenge in selecting the appropriate sample collection technique and comparing results from different microbiome studies. Thus, we compared stool collection and two alternative clinic-based fecal microbiome collection techniques, including a newer glove-based collection method. RESULTS: We prospectively enrolled 22 adult men from our prostate cancer screening cohort SABOR (San Antonio Biomarkers of Risk for prostate cancer) in San Antonio, TX, from 8/2018 to 4/2019. A rectal swab and glove tip sample were collected from each participant during a one-time visit to our clinics. A single stool sample was collected at the participant's home. DNA was isolated from the fecal material and 16 s rRNA sequencing of the V1-V2 and V3-V4 regions was performed. We found the gut microbiome to be similar in richness and evenness, noting no differences in alpha diversity among the collection methods. The stool collection method, which remains the gold-standard method for the gut microbiome, proved to have different community composition compared to swab and glove tip techniques (p< 0.001) as measured by Bray-Curtis and unifrac distances. There were no significant differences in between the swab and glove tip samples with regard to beta diversity (p> 0.05). Despite differences between home-based stool and office-based fecal collection methods, we noted that the distance metrics for the three methods cluster by participant indicating within-person similarities. Additionally, no taxa differed among the methods in a Linear Discriminant Analysis Effect Size (LEfSe) analysis comparing all-against-all sampling methods. CONCLUSION: The glove tip method provides similar gut microbiome results as rectal swab and stool microbiome collection techniques. The addition of a new office-based collection technique could help easy and practical implementation of gut microbiome research studies and clinical practice.
Entities:
Keywords:
16 s rRNA gene sequencing; Digital rectal examination; Gut microbiome; Rectal swabs; Stool collection
Authors: Eva Shrestha; James R White; Shu-Han Yu; Ibrahim Kulac; Onur Ertunc; Angelo M De Marzo; Srinivasan Yegnasubramanian; Leslie A Mangold; Alan W Partin; Karen S Sfanos Journal: J Urol Date: 2017-08-07 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Félix Araújo-Pérez; Amber N McCoy; Charles Okechukwu; Ian M Carroll; Kevin M Smith; Kim Jeremiah; Robert S Sandler; Gary N Asher; Temitope O Keku Journal: Gut Microbes Date: 2012-10-11
Authors: Andries E Budding; Matthijs E Grasman; Anat Eck; Johannes A Bogaards; Christina M J E Vandenbroucke-Grauls; Adriaan A van Bodegraven; Paul H M Savelkoul Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-07-14 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Christine M Bassis; Nicholas M Moore; Karen Lolans; Anna M Seekatz; Robert A Weinstein; Vincent B Young; Mary K Hayden Journal: BMC Microbiol Date: 2017-03-31 Impact factor: 3.605
Authors: Roshonda B Jones; Xiangzhu Zhu; Emili Moan; Harvey J Murff; Reid M Ness; Douglas L Seidner; Shan Sun; Chang Yu; Qi Dai; Anthony A Fodor; M Andrea Azcarate-Peril; Martha J Shrubsole Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2018-03-07 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Enis Afgan; Dannon Baker; Bérénice Batut; Marius van den Beek; Dave Bouvier; Martin Cech; John Chilton; Dave Clements; Nate Coraor; Björn A Grüning; Aysam Guerler; Jennifer Hillman-Jackson; Saskia Hiltemann; Vahid Jalili; Helena Rasche; Nicola Soranzo; Jeremy Goecks; James Taylor; Anton Nekrutenko; Daniel Blankenberg Journal: Nucleic Acids Res Date: 2018-07-02 Impact factor: 16.971
Authors: Tatiana V Karpinets; Xiaogang Wu; Travis Solley; Molly B El Alam; Travis T Sims; Kyoko Yoshida-Court; Erica Lynn; Mustapha Ahmed-Kaddar; Greyson Biegert; Jingyan Yue; Xingzhi Song; Huandong Sun; Joseph F Petrosino; Melissa P Mezzari; Pablo Okhuysen; Patricia J Eifel; Anuja Jhingran; Lilie L Lin; Kathleen M Schmeler; Lois Ramondetta; Nadim Ajami; Robert R Jenq; Andrew Futreal; Jianhua Zhang; Ann H Klopp; Lauren E Colbert Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2022-09-01 Impact factor: 4.638