| Literature DB >> 34616690 |
Takahiko Shiba1, Keiji Komatsu2, Takeaki Sudo3, Rikai Sawafuji4, Aiko Saso5, Shintaroh Ueda6,7, Takayasu Watanabe8, Takashi Nemoto1, Chihiro Kano1, Takahiko Nagai1, Yujin Ohsugi1, Sayaka Katagiri1, Yasuo Takeuchi1, Hiroaki Kobayashi1, Takanori Iwata1.
Abstract
Ancient dental calculus, formed from dental plaque, is a rich source of ancient DNA and can provide information regarding the food and oral microbiology at that time. Genomic analysis of dental calculus from Neanderthals has revealed the difference in bacterial composition of oral microbiome between Neanderthals and modern humans. There are few reports investigating whether the pathogenic bacteria of periodontitis, a polymicrobial disease induced in response to the accumulation of dental plaque, were different between ancient and modern humans. This study aimed to compare the bacterial composition of the oral microbiome in ancient and modern human samples and to investigate whether lifestyle differences depending on the era have altered the bacterial composition of the oral microbiome and the causative bacteria of periodontitis. Additionally, we introduce a novel diagnostic approach for periodontitis in ancient skeletons using micro-computed tomography. Ancient 16S rDNA sequences were obtained from 12 samples at the Unko-in site (18th-19th century) of the Edo era (1603-1867), a characteristic period in Japan when immigrants were not accepted. Furthermore, modern 16S rDNA data from 53 samples were obtained from a database to compare the modern and ancient microbiome. The microbial co-occurrence network was analyzed based on 16S rDNA read abundance. Eubacterium species, Mollicutes species, and Treponema socranskii were the core species in the Edo co-occurrence network. The co-occurrence relationship between Actinomyces oricola and Eggerthella lenta appeared to have played a key role in causing periodontitis in the Edo era. However, Porphyromonas gingivalis, Fusobacterium nucleatum subsp. vincentii, and Prevotella pleuritidis were the core and highly abundant species in the co-occurrence network of modern samples. These results suggest the possibility of differences in the pathogens causing periodontitis during different eras in history.Entities:
Keywords: 16S rDNA sequencing; EDO; ancient skeletons; periodontal microbiome; periodontitis
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34616690 PMCID: PMC8488429 DOI: 10.3389/fcimb.2021.723821
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Cell Infect Microbiol ISSN: 2235-2988 Impact factor: 6.073
Figure 1(A) Schematic representation of the morphologic examination. Bone resorption was defined as the distance from virtual alveolar crest, which was obtained by subtracting 1 mm from the cemento-enamel junction to the bottom of the nearest bone defect (b, c). Bone resorption was measured using both periodontal probe and micro-computed tomography (micro-CT). Root length was defined as the distance from virtual alveolar crest to the apical end of the root (a–d). Bone resorption ratio was calculated as (b-c)/(b-d). a cement-enamel junction (CEJ), b virtual alveolar crest, c bottom of bone defect (bone level), d: apical end of the root. (B) Mandibular skeleton (sample F24). (C) micro-CT image of the same bone. (D) Tooth morphologic characteristics. White arrows indicate cavities, while black arrows indicate furcation involvement. Red arrows indicate occlusal attrition.
Morphological examination of each individual skeleton.
| Sample type: Periodontitis | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sample No. | EP1 | EP2 | EP3 | EP4 | EP5 | Mean/Prevalence | ||
| Sex | Female | Female | Male | Male | Male | – | ||
| Average bone loss (mm) | 3.55 ± 1.21 | 4.94 ± 1.84 | 2.86 ± 0.72 | 5.22 ± 1.78 | 3.69 ± 0.88 | 4.05 ± 0.88 | ||
| Average ratio of bone resorption (%) | 17.75 ± 9.71 | 20.76 ± 8.35 | 18.67 ± 13.10 | 39.93 ± 16.75 | 12.31 ± 10.33 | 21.88 ± 9.44 | ||
| Attrition | + | + | + | + | + | 100% | ||
| Furcation involvement | + | + | + | + | + | 100% | ||
| Cavity | + | + | – | + | – | 60% | ||
| Torus | – | – | – | – | – | 0% | ||
| Non caries cervical lesion | – | – | – | – | – | 0% | ||
| Periodontitis | + | + | + | + | + | 100% | ||
|
| ||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Sex | Male | Female | Male | Male | Female | Female | Female | – |
| Average bone loss (mm) | 3.70 ± 1.70 | 2.98 ± 0.78 | 2.61 ± 1.15 | 2.30 ± 0.75 | 2.53 ± 0.56 | 2.61 ± 1.15 | 2.42 ± 0.67 | 2.73 ± 0.43 |
| Average ratio of bone resorption (%) | 7.18 ± 11.95 | 5.53 ± 11.16 | 2.83 ± 5.97 | 8.69 ± 13.21 | 5.84 ± 5.95 | 0 | 7.23 ± 6.03 | 5.32 ± 2.75 |
| Attrition | + | + | + | + | + | – | – | 71.42% |
| Furcation involvement | + | + | + | + | + | + | – | 85.71% |
| Cavity | – | – | – | + | + | + | + | 57.14% |
| Torus | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 0% |
| Non caries cervical resion | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 0% |
| Periodontitis | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 0% |
Values are presented as mean ± standard deviation.
Periodontitis was defined as one which has either more than 4mm of average bone resorption or more than 10% of average ratio of bone resorption.
Figure 2Evaluation of bacterial diversity of ancient Edo sample based on 16S rDNA sequences. (A) The number of operational taxonomic units (OTUs) and Shannon index of Edo samples. (B) Rarefaction curve of Edo samples. (C) The number of OTUs and Shannon index of modern samples. *P < 0.05.
Figure 3Percentage compositions of the rank of phylum. (A) Edo samples, (B) modern samples with periodontitis, and (C) modern samples without periodontitis.
Figure 4Principal coordinate analysis (PCoA) was conducted for the dissimilarity matrix value of 1—Spearman’s coefficient. PCoA was used to evaluate bacterial similarity for comparison between Edo and modern microbiomes according to class.
Figure 5Percentage compositions of genus. (A) Edo sample with periodontitis, (B) Edo sample without periodontitis, (C) modern samples with periodontitis, and (D) modern sample without periodontitis. The bars show mean ± SE relative abundances.
Figure 6Percentage compositions according to species. (A) Edo sample with periodontitis, (B) Edo sample without periodontitis, (C) modern samples with periodontitis, and (D) modern sample without periodontitis. The bars show mean ± SE relative abundances.
Figure 7The core microbiome of Edo and modern samples with periodontitis. (A) The model includes the species detected in Edo sample with periodontitis (blue), modern sample with periodontitis (red), and both sites (purple); red text indicates species existing in both co-occurrence networks. (B) The mean relative abundances of common species between Edo and modern samples with periodontitis. The bars show mean ± SE relative abundances.
Figure 8Co-occurrence networks based on species in (A) Edo sample with periodontitis and (B) modern sample with periodontitis.