Cargando…

Processing and storage methods affect oral and gut microbiome composition

In microbiome studies, fecal and oral samples are stored and processed in different ways, which could affect the observed microbiome composition. In this study, we compared storage and processing methods applied to samples prior to DNA extraction to determine how each affected microbial community di...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Superdock, Dorothy K., Zhang, Wei, Poole, Angela C.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10579807/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37854339
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2023.1253570
_version_ 1785121807075901440
author Superdock, Dorothy K.
Zhang, Wei
Poole, Angela C.
author_facet Superdock, Dorothy K.
Zhang, Wei
Poole, Angela C.
author_sort Superdock, Dorothy K.
collection PubMed
description In microbiome studies, fecal and oral samples are stored and processed in different ways, which could affect the observed microbiome composition. In this study, we compared storage and processing methods applied to samples prior to DNA extraction to determine how each affected microbial community diversity as assessed by 16S rRNA gene sequencing. We collected dental swabs, saliva, and fecal samples from 10 individuals, with three technical replicates per condition. We assessed four methods of storing and processing fecal samples prior to DNA extraction. We also compared different fractions of thawed saliva and dental samples to fresh samples. We found that lyophilized fecal samples, fresh whole saliva samples, and the supernatant fraction of thawed dental samples had the highest levels of alpha diversity. The supernatant fraction of thawed saliva samples had the second highest evenness compared to fresh saliva samples. Then, we investigated the differences in observed community composition at the domain and phylum levels and identified the amplicon sequence variants (ASVs) that significantly differed in relative abundance between the conditions. Lyophilized fecal samples had a greater prevalence of Archaea as well as a greater ratio of Firmicutes to Bacteroidetes compared to the other conditions. Our results provide practical considerations not only for the selection of storage and processing methods but also for comparing results across studies. Differences in processing and storage methods could be a confounding factor influencing the presence, absence, or differential abundance of microbes reported in conflicting studies.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10579807
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-105798072023-10-18 Processing and storage methods affect oral and gut microbiome composition Superdock, Dorothy K. Zhang, Wei Poole, Angela C. Front Microbiol Microbiology In microbiome studies, fecal and oral samples are stored and processed in different ways, which could affect the observed microbiome composition. In this study, we compared storage and processing methods applied to samples prior to DNA extraction to determine how each affected microbial community diversity as assessed by 16S rRNA gene sequencing. We collected dental swabs, saliva, and fecal samples from 10 individuals, with three technical replicates per condition. We assessed four methods of storing and processing fecal samples prior to DNA extraction. We also compared different fractions of thawed saliva and dental samples to fresh samples. We found that lyophilized fecal samples, fresh whole saliva samples, and the supernatant fraction of thawed dental samples had the highest levels of alpha diversity. The supernatant fraction of thawed saliva samples had the second highest evenness compared to fresh saliva samples. Then, we investigated the differences in observed community composition at the domain and phylum levels and identified the amplicon sequence variants (ASVs) that significantly differed in relative abundance between the conditions. Lyophilized fecal samples had a greater prevalence of Archaea as well as a greater ratio of Firmicutes to Bacteroidetes compared to the other conditions. Our results provide practical considerations not only for the selection of storage and processing methods but also for comparing results across studies. Differences in processing and storage methods could be a confounding factor influencing the presence, absence, or differential abundance of microbes reported in conflicting studies. Frontiers Media S.A. 2023-10-03 /pmc/articles/PMC10579807/ /pubmed/37854339 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2023.1253570 Text en Copyright © 2023 Superdock, Zhang and Poole. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Microbiology
Superdock, Dorothy K.
Zhang, Wei
Poole, Angela C.
Processing and storage methods affect oral and gut microbiome composition
title Processing and storage methods affect oral and gut microbiome composition
title_full Processing and storage methods affect oral and gut microbiome composition
title_fullStr Processing and storage methods affect oral and gut microbiome composition
title_full_unstemmed Processing and storage methods affect oral and gut microbiome composition
title_short Processing and storage methods affect oral and gut microbiome composition
title_sort processing and storage methods affect oral and gut microbiome composition
topic Microbiology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10579807/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37854339
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2023.1253570
work_keys_str_mv AT superdockdorothyk processingandstoragemethodsaffectoralandgutmicrobiomecomposition
AT zhangwei processingandstoragemethodsaffectoralandgutmicrobiomecomposition
AT pooleangelac processingandstoragemethodsaffectoralandgutmicrobiomecomposition