| Literature DB >> 33964928 |
Ryanne Lehenaff1, Ryan Tamashiro1, Marcelle M Nascimento2, Kyulim Lee3, Renita Jenkins4, Joan Whitlock1, Eric C Li1, Gurjit Sidhu1, Susanne Anderson5, Ann Progulske-Fox3, Michael R Bubb5, Edward K L Chan6, Gary P Wang7,8.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Subgingival microbiome in disease-associated subgingival sites is known to be dysbiotic and significantly altered. In patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), the extent of dysbiosis in disease- and health-associated subgingival sites is not clear.Entities:
Keywords: 16S rRNA sequencing; Microbial dysbiosis; Periodontal disease; Rheumatoid arthritis; Subgingival microbiome
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33964928 PMCID: PMC8105973 DOI: 10.1186/s12903-021-01597-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Oral Health ISSN: 1472-6831 Impact factor: 2.757
Demographics and clinical characteristics of RA and control subjects
| Characteristic | Biologic-naïve RA (n = 8) | Non-RA control (n = 10) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age, years, mean | 55.1 (16.5) | 53.2 (16.0) | 0.81 |
| Female, % | 62.5% | 70.0% | 1.0 |
| Race+, % | |||
Caucasian Non-Caucasian African American Hispanic Indian Unknown | 50% 50% 25% 12.5% 12.5% 0% | 30% 70% 10% 10% 0% 50% | 0.63 |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 32.6 | – | |
| Diabetes mellitus | 0% | – | |
| Smoking history | |||
| Current | 12.5% | – | |
| Former | 37.5% | – | |
| Never | 50% | – | |
| RA disease characteristics | |||
| Remission, % | 75% | – | – |
| Autoantibody status | |||
| RF positive, % | 75% | – | – |
| ACPA positive, % | 75% | – | – |
| ESR mm/h, mean | 23.38 (17.73) | – | – |
| CRP mg/L, mean | 4.26 (1.64) | – | – |
| RAPID3 score, mean | 10.42 (5.71) | – | – |
| Medication history | |||
| DMARDs, % | 100% | – | – |
| Glucocorticoids, % | 0% | – | – |
| Biologic agents | |||
| TNF-inhibitor, % | 0% | – | – |
| Other, % | 0% | – | – |
| Number of caries, mean | 3 (3.85) | 4.4 (7.07) | 0.62 |
| Probing depth, mean (mm) | |||
| Shallow sites (PD ≤ 3 mm) | 2.58 | 2.08 | 0.02 |
| Deep sites (PD ≥ 4 mm) $ | 4.00 | 3.65 | 0.47 |
| Global PD status | |||
| Healthy, % | 12.5% | 0% | 0.54 |
| Periodontitis stage I, % | 37.5% | 40% | |
| Periodontitis stage II, % | 12.5% | 40% | |
| Periodontitis stage III, % | 37.5% | 20% | |
RF, rheumatoid factor; ACPA, anti-cyclic citrullinated protein antibody; ESR, erythrocyte sedimentation rate; CRP, C-reactive protein; RAPID3, routine assessment of patient index data 3; DMARD, disease modifying antirheumatic drug; TNF, tumor necrosis factor; PD, periodontal disease. Periodontitis stages are described elsewhere [8, 28]
*Age and pocket depth were compared using Student’s t-test. All other parameters were compared using Fisher’s Exact test. P-value in race was calculated with Caucasian vs. non-Caucasian data. Standard deviation is shown in parentheses
+Race was self-reported
$Probing depths were averaged measurements from the facial and/or lingual sites from which subgingival samples were collected
Fig. 1Differences in alpha diversity between RA status and probing depth. Alpha diversity was estimated using three different metrics: observed OTUs, Faith’s phylogenetic distance, and Shannon diversity. Boxplots show the median value and interquartile range (IQR) for each metric. Whiskers extend up to 1.5 times the IQR, and outliers that fall outside of that range are shown as dark points. Statistical significance of differences between groups is shown in Table 2. OTUs operational taxonomic units
Effect of probing depth and RA on alpha diversity of subgingival microbiome
| Observed OTUs | Faith’s phylogenetic diversity | Shannon diversity | |
|---|---|---|---|
Probing depth (ref: shallow) | 26.50 ± 14.41SE, | 1.93 ± 0.73SE, | − 0.09 ± 0.28SE, |
RA status (ref: control) | 8.45 ± 22.01SE, | 0.60 ± 1.10SE, | − 0.28 ± 0.40SE, |
| Probe depth × RA status | − 18.20 ± 23.08SE, | − 1.08 ± 1.20SE, | 0.52 ± 0.45SE, |
Mixed linear models were used to examine the influence of probing depth (deep vs. shallow), RA status, and the interaction of the two conditions on three different alpha diversity metrics: observed OTUs, Faith’s phylogenetic diversity, and Shannon diversity. Subject identity was included as a random effect. Model coefficient estimates, the standard error (SE) of the estimates, and p values are shown. OTUs: operational taxonomic units
Fig. 2Comparison of subgingival microbiome according to probing depth and RA status. Principal Coordinates Analysis (PCoA) was conducted using weighted and unweighted UniFrac distances. PCoA on weighted UniFrac distances were used to examine community structure according to a probing depth and b RA status. PCoA on unweighted UniFrac analysis were used to visualize the relationship between c probing depth or d RA status and community membership. Variation explained by each axis is shown in brackets. lues were estimated using Permutatinal Multivariate Analysis of Variance (PERMANOVA) with 999 permutations
Fig. 3Differentially abundant OTUs between deep and shallow sites in RA subjects. Differentially abundant taxa were identified using LEfSe and met the minimum LDA score of 2. OTUs enriched in deep sites are shown in red, whereas OTUs more abundant in shallow sites are shown in dark blue. OTU: Operational taxonomic unit
Fig. 4Differentially abundant metagenome functions between deep and shallow sites in RA subjects. Gene functions were predicted using 16 S rRNA data and PICRUSt. Differentially abundant genes were identified using LEfSe and met the minimum LDA score of 2. Gene functions enriched in deep sites are shown in red. There were no gene functions associated with shallow sites
Fig. 5Similiarities between shallow and deep subgingival microbiome within subjects in RA and non-RA controls. a Weighted and b unweighted UniFrac distances between paired deep and shallow samples were calculated for each subject and then compared between RA and non-RA controls. The smaller the intra-subject UniFrac distance (y-axis), the more similar the paired samples are to each another. Each subject is shown as a single open circle. Boxplots show the median distance and their interquartile range (IQR). Whiskers extend to 1.5 times the IQR. P values were estimated using unpaired t-tests
Fig. 6Differentially abundant OTUs in RA and non-RA controls. Differentially abundant OTUs were identified by LEfSe with a minimum LDA threshold of 2. Taxa enriched in non-RA controls are indicated by green bars. Those enriched in RA subjects are indicated by yellow bars. The OTUs associated with RA or non-RA controls shown were observed for both shallow and deep sites. OTU, Operational taxonomic unit