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