Cargando…

Comparison of brush and biopsy sampling methods of the ileal pouch for assessment of mucosa-associated microbiota of human subjects

BACKGROUND: Mucosal biopsy is the most common sampling technique used to assess microbial communities associated with the intestinal mucosa. Biopsies disrupt the epithelium and can be associated with complications such as bleeding. Biopsies sample a limited area of the mucosa, which can lead to pote...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Huse, Susan M, Young, Vincent B, Morrison, Hilary G, Antonopoulos, Dionysios A, Kwon, John, Dalal, Sushila, Arrieta, Rose, Hubert, Nathaniel A, Shen, Lici, Vineis, Joseph H, Koval, Jason C, Sogin, Mitchell L, Chang, Eugene B, Raffals, Laura E
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3931571/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24529162
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2049-2618-2-5
_version_ 1782304676785422336
author Huse, Susan M
Young, Vincent B
Morrison, Hilary G
Antonopoulos, Dionysios A
Kwon, John
Dalal, Sushila
Arrieta, Rose
Hubert, Nathaniel A
Shen, Lici
Vineis, Joseph H
Koval, Jason C
Sogin, Mitchell L
Chang, Eugene B
Raffals, Laura E
author_facet Huse, Susan M
Young, Vincent B
Morrison, Hilary G
Antonopoulos, Dionysios A
Kwon, John
Dalal, Sushila
Arrieta, Rose
Hubert, Nathaniel A
Shen, Lici
Vineis, Joseph H
Koval, Jason C
Sogin, Mitchell L
Chang, Eugene B
Raffals, Laura E
author_sort Huse, Susan M
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Mucosal biopsy is the most common sampling technique used to assess microbial communities associated with the intestinal mucosa. Biopsies disrupt the epithelium and can be associated with complications such as bleeding. Biopsies sample a limited area of the mucosa, which can lead to potential sampling bias. In contrast to the mucosal biopsy, the mucosal brush technique is less invasive and provides greater mucosal coverage, and if it can provide equivalent microbial community data, it would be preferable to mucosal biopsies. RESULTS: We compared microbial samples collected from the intestinal mucosa using either a cytology brush or mucosal biopsy forceps. We collected paired samples from patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) who had previously undergone colectomy and ileal pouch anal anastomosis (IPAA), and profiled the microbial communities of the samples by sequencing V4-V6 or V4-V5 16S rRNA-encoding gene amplicons. Comparisons of 177 taxa in 16 brush-biopsy sample pairs had a mean R(2) of 0.94. We found no taxa that varied significantly between the brush and biopsy samples after adjusting for multiple comparisons (false discovery rate ≤0.05). We also tested the reproducibility of DNA amplification and sequencing in 25 replicate pairs and found negligible variation (mean R(2) = 0.99). A qPCR analysis of the two methods showed that the relative yields of bacterial DNA to human DNA were several-fold higher in the brush samples than in the biopsies. CONCLUSIONS: Mucosal brushing is preferred to mucosal biopsy for sampling the epithelial-associated microbiota. Although both techniques provide similar assessments of the microbial community composition, the brush sampling method has relatively more bacterial to host DNA, covers a larger surface area, and is less traumatic to the epithelium than the mucosal biopsy.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3931571
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-39315712014-02-26 Comparison of brush and biopsy sampling methods of the ileal pouch for assessment of mucosa-associated microbiota of human subjects Huse, Susan M Young, Vincent B Morrison, Hilary G Antonopoulos, Dionysios A Kwon, John Dalal, Sushila Arrieta, Rose Hubert, Nathaniel A Shen, Lici Vineis, Joseph H Koval, Jason C Sogin, Mitchell L Chang, Eugene B Raffals, Laura E Microbiome Research BACKGROUND: Mucosal biopsy is the most common sampling technique used to assess microbial communities associated with the intestinal mucosa. Biopsies disrupt the epithelium and can be associated with complications such as bleeding. Biopsies sample a limited area of the mucosa, which can lead to potential sampling bias. In contrast to the mucosal biopsy, the mucosal brush technique is less invasive and provides greater mucosal coverage, and if it can provide equivalent microbial community data, it would be preferable to mucosal biopsies. RESULTS: We compared microbial samples collected from the intestinal mucosa using either a cytology brush or mucosal biopsy forceps. We collected paired samples from patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) who had previously undergone colectomy and ileal pouch anal anastomosis (IPAA), and profiled the microbial communities of the samples by sequencing V4-V6 or V4-V5 16S rRNA-encoding gene amplicons. Comparisons of 177 taxa in 16 brush-biopsy sample pairs had a mean R(2) of 0.94. We found no taxa that varied significantly between the brush and biopsy samples after adjusting for multiple comparisons (false discovery rate ≤0.05). We also tested the reproducibility of DNA amplification and sequencing in 25 replicate pairs and found negligible variation (mean R(2) = 0.99). A qPCR analysis of the two methods showed that the relative yields of bacterial DNA to human DNA were several-fold higher in the brush samples than in the biopsies. CONCLUSIONS: Mucosal brushing is preferred to mucosal biopsy for sampling the epithelial-associated microbiota. Although both techniques provide similar assessments of the microbial community composition, the brush sampling method has relatively more bacterial to host DNA, covers a larger surface area, and is less traumatic to the epithelium than the mucosal biopsy. BioMed Central 2014-02-14 /pmc/articles/PMC3931571/ /pubmed/24529162 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2049-2618-2-5 Text en Copyright © 2014 Huse et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research
Huse, Susan M
Young, Vincent B
Morrison, Hilary G
Antonopoulos, Dionysios A
Kwon, John
Dalal, Sushila
Arrieta, Rose
Hubert, Nathaniel A
Shen, Lici
Vineis, Joseph H
Koval, Jason C
Sogin, Mitchell L
Chang, Eugene B
Raffals, Laura E
Comparison of brush and biopsy sampling methods of the ileal pouch for assessment of mucosa-associated microbiota of human subjects
title Comparison of brush and biopsy sampling methods of the ileal pouch for assessment of mucosa-associated microbiota of human subjects
title_full Comparison of brush and biopsy sampling methods of the ileal pouch for assessment of mucosa-associated microbiota of human subjects
title_fullStr Comparison of brush and biopsy sampling methods of the ileal pouch for assessment of mucosa-associated microbiota of human subjects
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of brush and biopsy sampling methods of the ileal pouch for assessment of mucosa-associated microbiota of human subjects
title_short Comparison of brush and biopsy sampling methods of the ileal pouch for assessment of mucosa-associated microbiota of human subjects
title_sort comparison of brush and biopsy sampling methods of the ileal pouch for assessment of mucosa-associated microbiota of human subjects
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3931571/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24529162
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2049-2618-2-5
work_keys_str_mv AT husesusanm comparisonofbrushandbiopsysamplingmethodsoftheilealpouchforassessmentofmucosaassociatedmicrobiotaofhumansubjects
AT youngvincentb comparisonofbrushandbiopsysamplingmethodsoftheilealpouchforassessmentofmucosaassociatedmicrobiotaofhumansubjects
AT morrisonhilaryg comparisonofbrushandbiopsysamplingmethodsoftheilealpouchforassessmentofmucosaassociatedmicrobiotaofhumansubjects
AT antonopoulosdionysiosa comparisonofbrushandbiopsysamplingmethodsoftheilealpouchforassessmentofmucosaassociatedmicrobiotaofhumansubjects
AT kwonjohn comparisonofbrushandbiopsysamplingmethodsoftheilealpouchforassessmentofmucosaassociatedmicrobiotaofhumansubjects
AT dalalsushila comparisonofbrushandbiopsysamplingmethodsoftheilealpouchforassessmentofmucosaassociatedmicrobiotaofhumansubjects
AT arrietarose comparisonofbrushandbiopsysamplingmethodsoftheilealpouchforassessmentofmucosaassociatedmicrobiotaofhumansubjects
AT hubertnathaniela comparisonofbrushandbiopsysamplingmethodsoftheilealpouchforassessmentofmucosaassociatedmicrobiotaofhumansubjects
AT shenlici comparisonofbrushandbiopsysamplingmethodsoftheilealpouchforassessmentofmucosaassociatedmicrobiotaofhumansubjects
AT vineisjosephh comparisonofbrushandbiopsysamplingmethodsoftheilealpouchforassessmentofmucosaassociatedmicrobiotaofhumansubjects
AT kovaljasonc comparisonofbrushandbiopsysamplingmethodsoftheilealpouchforassessmentofmucosaassociatedmicrobiotaofhumansubjects
AT soginmitchelll comparisonofbrushandbiopsysamplingmethodsoftheilealpouchforassessmentofmucosaassociatedmicrobiotaofhumansubjects
AT changeugeneb comparisonofbrushandbiopsysamplingmethodsoftheilealpouchforassessmentofmucosaassociatedmicrobiotaofhumansubjects
AT raffalslaurae comparisonofbrushandbiopsysamplingmethodsoftheilealpouchforassessmentofmucosaassociatedmicrobiotaofhumansubjects