Kana Shibata1, Natsuki Takahashi1, Kazuhiro Ogai2,3, Kohei Ogura4, Shigefumi Okamoto1, Junko Sugama5,6. 1. Department of Clinical Laboratory Science, Faculty of Health Sciences, Institute of Medical, Pharmaceutical and Health Sciences, Kanazawa University, 5-11-80 Kodatsuno, Kanazawa, Ishikawa, 9200942, Japan. 2. AI Hospital/Macro Signal Dynamics Research and Development Center, Institute of Medical, Pharmaceutical and Health Sciences, Kanazawa University, 5-11-80 Kodatsuno, Kanazawa, Ishikawa, 9200942, Japan. kazuhiro@staff.kanazawa-u.ac.jp. 3. Department of Nursing, Faculty of Health Sciences, Institute of Medical, Pharmaceutical and Health Sciences, Kanazawa University, 5-11-80 Kodatsuno, Kanazawa, Ishikawa, 9200942, Japan. kazuhiro@staff.kanazawa-u.ac.jp. 4. Advanced Health Care Science Research Unit, Institute for Frontier Science Initiative, Kanazawa University, 5-11-80 Kodatsuno, Kanazawa, Ishikawa, 9200942, Japan. 5. Department of Nursing, Faculty of Health Sciences, Institute of Medical, Pharmaceutical and Health Sciences, Kanazawa University, 5-11-80 Kodatsuno, Kanazawa, Ishikawa, 9200942, Japan. junkosgm@mhs.mp.kanazawa-u.ac.jp. 6. Advanced Health Care Science Research Unit, Institute for Frontier Science Initiative, Kanazawa University, 5-11-80 Kodatsuno, Kanazawa, Ishikawa, 9200942, Japan. junkosgm@mhs.mp.kanazawa-u.ac.jp.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Medical film dressings have been used to obtain skin microbiota for skin microbiome studies, although their adhesive force may be so strong that the skin could be injured when applied to those who have fragile skin, such as older people. Several products with less adhesive force are available, although their applicability for skin microbiome studies remains unknown. This study aimed to test whether the dressings with less adhesive force could be used for amplicon-based skin microbiome studies. A set of three different film dressings, with acrylic, urethane, or silicone adhesive, was applied to the back skin of nine healthy young participants. The copy number of the 16S ribosomal RNA (rRNA) gene, microbial compositions, and alpha and beta diversity indices were analyzed by amplicon analysis of the 16S rRNA gene using next-generation sequencing and were compared among the three film dressings. RESULTS: The dressing with acrylic adhesive yielded the highest copy number of 16S rRNA genes, followed by that with urethane adhesive. The silicone-adhesive dressing yielded a significantly lower copy number of the 16S rRNA gene. The microbial composition of skin microbiota was similar among the three film dressings, although significant differences in the relative abundance of Pseudomonas species and alpha diversity indices were found in the silicone-adhesive dressing. The Bray-Curtis dissimilarity was significantly higher between the acrylic- and silicone-adhesive dressings than between the acrylic- and urethane-adhesive dressings. No adverse effects related to tape stripping were observed for any of the film dressings. CONCLUSION: We recommend dressings with acrylic or urethane adhesive for amplicon-based skin microbiome studies. An acrylic adhesive has an advantage in the yield of skin microbiota, and a urethane adhesive should be chosen when applied to fragile skin. The adhesive force of the dressing with silicone adhesive was too weak to be used for collecting skin microbiota.
BACKGROUND: Medical film dressings have been used to obtain skin microbiota for skin microbiome studies, although their adhesive force may be so strong that the skin could be injured when applied to those who have fragile skin, such as older people. Several products with less adhesive force are available, although their applicability for skin microbiome studies remains unknown. This study aimed to test whether the dressings with less adhesive force could be used for amplicon-based skin microbiome studies. A set of three different film dressings, with acrylic, urethane, or silicone adhesive, was applied to the back skin of nine healthy young participants. The copy number of the 16S ribosomal RNA (rRNA) gene, microbial compositions, and alpha and beta diversity indices were analyzed by amplicon analysis of the 16S rRNA gene using next-generation sequencing and were compared among the three film dressings. RESULTS: The dressing with acrylic adhesive yielded the highest copy number of 16S rRNA genes, followed by that with urethane adhesive. The silicone-adhesive dressing yielded a significantly lower copy number of the 16S rRNA gene. The microbial composition of skin microbiota was similar among the three film dressings, although significant differences in the relative abundance of Pseudomonas species and alpha diversity indices were found in the silicone-adhesive dressing. The Bray-Curtis dissimilarity was significantly higher between the acrylic- and silicone-adhesive dressings than between the acrylic- and urethane-adhesive dressings. No adverse effects related to tape stripping were observed for any of the film dressings. CONCLUSION: We recommend dressings with acrylic or urethane adhesive for amplicon-based skin microbiome studies. An acrylic adhesive has an advantage in the yield of skin microbiota, and a urethane adhesive should be chosen when applied to fragile skin. The adhesive force of the dressing with silicone adhesive was too weak to be used for collecting skin microbiota.
Entities:
Keywords:
16S rRNA; Adhesive; Microbiome; Next generation sequencing; Skin; Tape-stripping
Authors: Kern Rei Chng; Angeline Su Ling Tay; Chenhao Li; Amanda Hui Qi Ng; Jingjing Wang; Bani Kaur Suri; Sri Anusha Matta; Naomi McGovern; Baptiste Janela; Xuan Fei Colin C Wong; Yang Yie Sio; Bijin Veonice Au; Andreas Wilm; Paola Florez De Sessions; Thiam Chye Lim; Mark Boon Yang Tang; Florent Ginhoux; John E Connolly; E Birgitte Lane; Fook Tim Chew; John E A Common; Niranjan Nagarajan Journal: Nat Microbiol Date: 2016-07-11 Impact factor: 17.745
Authors: Benjamin J Callahan; Paul J McMurdie; Michael J Rosen; Andrew W Han; Amy Jo A Johnson; Susan P Holmes Journal: Nat Methods Date: 2016-05-23 Impact factor: 28.547
Authors: Ahmed Bassiouni; Edward John Cleland; Alkis James Psaltis; Sarah Vreugde; Peter-John Wormald Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-04-14 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Patrick L J M Zeeuwen; Jos Boekhorst; Ellen H van den Bogaard; Heleen D de Koning; Peter M C van de Kerkhof; Delphine M Saulnier; Iris I van Swam; Sacha A F T van Hijum; Michiel Kleerebezem; Joost Schalkwijk; Harro M Timmerman Journal: Genome Biol Date: 2012-11-15 Impact factor: 13.583