| Literature DB >> 34859107 |
Jie Zhao1, Ying-Hui Zhou2, Ya-Qiong Zhao1, Yao Feng1, Fei Yan3, Zheng-Rong Gao1, Qin Ye1, Yun Chen1, Qiong Liu1, Li Tan1, Shao-Hui Zhang1, Jing Hu1, Marie Aimee Dusenge1, Yun-Zhi Feng1, Yue Guo1.
Abstract
Periodontitis is a globally prevalent disease that imposes a functional and aesthetic burden on patients. The oral microbiome influences human health. The aim of this study was at assessing gender variation in the subgingival bacterial microbiome of elderly patients with initial periodontitis and to determine the causes of this variation. Twelve males and twenty females (range 50-68 years old) with initial periodontitis provided subgingival plaque samples. 16S rRNA gene sequencing, QIIME-based data processing, and statistical analyses were carried out using several different analytical approaches to detect differences in the oral microbiome between the two groups. Males had higher Chao1 index, observed species, and phylogenetic diversity whole tree values than females. Analysis of β-diversity indicated that the samples were reasonably divided by the gender. The linear discriminant analysis effect size showed that the most representative biomarkers were the genus Haemophilus in males, whereas the dominant bacteria in females were Campylobacter. Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes analysis showed that predicting changes in the female oral microbiota may be related to the immune system and immune system diseases are the main factor in males. These data suggest that gender may be a differentiating factor in the microbial composition of subgingival plaques in elderly patients with initial periodontitis. These results could deepen our understanding of the role of gender in the oral microbiota present during initial periodontitis.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34859107 PMCID: PMC8632398 DOI: 10.1155/2021/7403042
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Immunol Res ISSN: 2314-7156 Impact factor: 4.818
Age information of the enrolled participants.
| Group | Number | Age (year) |
|---|---|---|
| Group 1 | 12 | 54.00 ± 3.54 |
| Group 2 | 20 | 58.55 ± 7.45 |
|
| >0.05 |
Figure 1Venn diagram and α-diversity analysis of elderly males and females with stage 1 periodontitis. (a) Venn diagram based on operational taxonomic units (OTUs). (b–g) Violin plots comparing α-diversity indices (Chao1, observed species, Shannon index, Simpson index, Good's coverage, and PD whole tree) between males and females. ∗∗∗P < 0.001; ∗∗P < 0.01; ns: not significant.
Figure 2Similarity of microbial communities between elderly males and females with stage 1 periodontitis based on the unweighted UniFrac distance. (a) 2D diagram of principal component analysis (PCA). (b) 2D diagram of principal coordinate analysis. (c) 2D diagram of nonmetric multidimensional scale (NMDS) used to analyze the β-diversity of microbial communities between males and females.
Figure 3The oral microbiome composition of elderly males and females with stage 1 periodontitis. (a) Phylum level and (b) genus level composition. (c) Species difference analysis between males and females (group 2) by the Kruskal-Wallis test at the phylum and (d) genus levels.
Figure 4Heat map of differential oral microbiomes between elderly males and females with stage 1 periodontitis. (a) Phylum level. (b) Genus level. The sample information (group and number) and species annotation information are displayed on the horizontal axis and vertical axes, respectively. Colors indicate the Spearman rank correlation.
Figure 5Different rich taxa between elderly males and females with stage 1 periodontitis analyzed by the linear discriminant analysis effect size. (a) Histogram of the LDA scores. (b) The phylogenetic tree in the form of a cladogram.
Linear discriminant analysis (LDA) effect size (LEfSe) results of the distinct taxa between males and females.
| Biomarker | Groups | LDA value |
|---|---|---|
| Bacteria.Proteobacteria.Gammaproteobacteria.Pasteurellales.Pasteurellaceae.Haemophilus | Males | 4.05 |
| Bacteria.Bacteroidetes.Bacteroidia.Bacteroidales.Muribaculaceae | Males | 3.46 |
| Bacteria.Bacteroidetes.Bacteroidia.Bacteroidales.Muribaculaceae.uncultured_bacterium | Males | 3.40 |
| Bacteria.Proteobacteria.Alphaproteobacteria | Males | 3.28 |
| Bacteria.Proteobacteria.Gammaproteobacteria.Pseudomonadales | Males | 3.33 |
| Bacteria.Proteobacteria.Alphaproteobacteria.SAR11_clade | Males | 3.25 |
| Bacteria.Proteobacteria.Alphaproteobacteria.SAR11_clade.Clade_I | Males | 3.18 |
| Bacteria.Proteobacteria.Alphaproteobacteria.SAR11_clade.Clade_I.Clade_Ia | Males | 3.16 |
| Bacteria.Bacteroidetes.Bacteroidia.Bacteroidales.Bacteroidaceae.Bacteroides | Males | 2.72 |
| Bacteria.Bacteroidetes.Bacteroidia.Bacteroidales.Bacteroidaceae | Males | 2.72 |
| Bacteria.Proteobacteria.Gammaproteobacteria.Pseudomonadales.Moraxellaceae | Males | 3.12 |
| Bacteria.Bacteroidetes.Bacteroidia.Bacteroidales.Prevotellaceae.Prevotellaceae_UCG_001 | Males | 2.92 |
| Bacteria.Proteobacteria.Gammaproteobacteria.Pseudomonadales.Moraxellaceae.Acinetobacter | Males | 3.10 |
| Bacteria.Patescibacteria.Gracilibacteria.Absconditabacteriales__SR1_.uncultured_bacterium | Males | 3.02 |
| Bacteria.Patescibacteria.Gracilibacteria.Absconditabacteriales__SR1_.uncultured_bacterium.uncultured_bacterium | Males | 3.02 |
| Bacteria.Actinobacteria.Actinobacteria.Actinomycetales.Actinomycetaceae.Uncultured | Males | 2.84 |
| Bacteria.Bacteroidetes.Bacteroidia.Bacteroidales.Muribaculaceae.uncultured_organism | Males | 2.27 |
| Bacteria.Bacteroidetes.Bacteroidia.Bacteroidales.Prevotellaceae.Prevotellaceae_NK3B31_group | Males | 2.39 |
| Bacteria.Proteobacteria.Gammaproteobacteria.Pasteurellales.Pasteurellaceae.Actinobacillus | Males | 2.51 |
| Bacteria.Firmicutes.Clostridia.Clostridiales.Ruminococcaceae.Ruminococcus_1 | Males | 2.07 |
| Bacteria.Firmicutes.Clostridia.Clostridiales.Ruminococcaceae.Ruminococcaceae_UCG_005 | Males | 2.14 |
| Bacteria.Proteobacteria.Alphaproteobacteria.Rhodobacterales.Rhodobacteraceae | Males | 2.27 |
| Bacteria.Proteobacteria.Alphaproteobacteria.Rhodobacterales | Males | 2.27 |
| Bacteria.Proteobacteria.Alphaproteobacteria.SAR11_clade.Clade_II | Males | 2.31 |
| Bacteria.Proteobacteria.Alphaproteobacteria.SAR11_clade.Clade_II.Ambiguous_taxa | Males | 2.32 |
| Bacteria.Actinobacteria.Actinobacteria.Bifidobacteriales.Bifidobacteriaceae.Bifidobacterium | Males | 2.13 |
| Bacteria.Firmicutes.Clostridia.Clostridiales.Family_XI | Males | 2.01 |
| Bacteria.Firmicutes.Clostridia.Clostridiales.Lachnospiraceae._Bacteroides__pectinophilus_group | Males | 2.10 |
| Bacteria.Bacteroidetes.Bacteroidia.Flavobacteriales.Flavobacteriaceae.NS5_marine_group | Males | 2.03 |
| Bacteria.Epsilonbacteraeota | Females | 3.55 |
| Bacteria.Epsilonbacteraeota.Campylobacteria.Campylobacterales | Females | 3.55 |
| Bacteria.Epsilonbacteraeota.Campylobacteria | Females | 3.55 |
| Bacteria.Epsilonbacteraeota.Campylobacteria.Campylobacterales.Campylobacteraceae.Campylobacter | Females | 3.53 |
| Bacteria.Epsilonbacteraeota.Campylobacteria.Campylobacterales.Campylobacteraceae | Females | 3.53 |
| Bacteria.Bacteroidetes.Bacteroidia.Bacteroidales.F082 | Females | 2.18 |
| Bacteria.Bacteroidetes.Bacteroidia.Bacteroidales.F082.uncultured_rumen_bacterium | Females | 2.08 |
| Bacteria.Proteobacteria.Gammaproteobacteria.Betaproteobacteriales.Burkholderiaceae.Pelomonas | Females | 2.06 |
| Bacteria.Actinobacteria.Actinobacteria.Bifidobacteriales.Bifidobacteriaceae.Gardnerella | Females | 2.00 |
| Bacteria.Bacteroidetes.Bacteroidia.Bacteroidales.Bacteroidales_BS11_gut_group | Females | 2.13 |
| Bacteria.Firmicutes.Negativicutes.Selenomonadales.Veillonellaceae.Selenomonas_1 | Females | 2.00 |
| Bacteria.Bacteroidetes.Bacteroidia.Bacteroidales.uncultured.uncultured_rumen_bacterium | Females | 2.25 |
Only an LDA score of >2.0 is shown.
Figure 6KEGG pathway enrichment analysis. (a) The different pathways in individual patients are shown in clustering heat maps at level 2 and (b) level 3 of KEGG. (c) At level 2 of KEGG, the different pathways between the two groups were clustered into a heat map.