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...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
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 |