Cargando…

Sinonasal Microbiome Sampling: A Comparison of Techniques

BACKGROUND: The role of the sino-nasal microbiome in CRS remains unclear. We hypothesized that the bacteria within mucosal-associated biofilms may be different from the more superficial-lying, free-floating bacteria in the sinuses and that this may impact on the microbiome results obtained. This stu...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bassiouni, Ahmed, Cleland, Edward John, Psaltis, Alkis James, Vreugde, Sarah, Wormald, Peter-John
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4396979/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25876035
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0123216
_version_ 1782366649465176064
author Bassiouni, Ahmed
Cleland, Edward John
Psaltis, Alkis James
Vreugde, Sarah
Wormald, Peter-John
author_facet Bassiouni, Ahmed
Cleland, Edward John
Psaltis, Alkis James
Vreugde, Sarah
Wormald, Peter-John
author_sort Bassiouni, Ahmed
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The role of the sino-nasal microbiome in CRS remains unclear. We hypothesized that the bacteria within mucosal-associated biofilms may be different from the more superficial-lying, free-floating bacteria in the sinuses and that this may impact on the microbiome results obtained. This study investigates whether there is a significant difference in the microbiota of a sinonasal mucosal tissue sample versus a swab sample. METHODS: Cross-sectional study with paired design. Mucosal biopsy and swab samples were obtained intra-operatively from the ethmoid sinuses of 6 patients with CRS. Extracted DNA was sequenced on a Roche-454 sequencer using 16S-rRNA gene targeted primers. Data were analyzed using QIIME 1.8 software package. RESULTS: At a maximum subsampling depth of 1,100 reads, the mean observed species richness was 33.3 species (30.6 for swab, versus 36 for mucosa; p > 0.05). There was no significant difference in phylogenetic and non-phylogenetic alpha diversity metrics (Faith’s PD_Whole_Tree and Shannon’s index) between the two sampling methods (p > 0.05). The type of sample also had no significant effect on phylogenetic and non-phylogenetic beta diversity metrics (Unifrac and Bray-Curtis; p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: We observed no significant difference between the microbiota of mucosal tissue and swab samples. This suggests that less invasive swab samples are representative of the sinonasal mucosa microbiome and can be used for future sinonasal microbiome studies.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4396979
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-43969792015-04-21 Sinonasal Microbiome Sampling: A Comparison of Techniques Bassiouni, Ahmed Cleland, Edward John Psaltis, Alkis James Vreugde, Sarah Wormald, Peter-John PLoS One Research Article BACKGROUND: The role of the sino-nasal microbiome in CRS remains unclear. We hypothesized that the bacteria within mucosal-associated biofilms may be different from the more superficial-lying, free-floating bacteria in the sinuses and that this may impact on the microbiome results obtained. This study investigates whether there is a significant difference in the microbiota of a sinonasal mucosal tissue sample versus a swab sample. METHODS: Cross-sectional study with paired design. Mucosal biopsy and swab samples were obtained intra-operatively from the ethmoid sinuses of 6 patients with CRS. Extracted DNA was sequenced on a Roche-454 sequencer using 16S-rRNA gene targeted primers. Data were analyzed using QIIME 1.8 software package. RESULTS: At a maximum subsampling depth of 1,100 reads, the mean observed species richness was 33.3 species (30.6 for swab, versus 36 for mucosa; p > 0.05). There was no significant difference in phylogenetic and non-phylogenetic alpha diversity metrics (Faith’s PD_Whole_Tree and Shannon’s index) between the two sampling methods (p > 0.05). The type of sample also had no significant effect on phylogenetic and non-phylogenetic beta diversity metrics (Unifrac and Bray-Curtis; p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: We observed no significant difference between the microbiota of mucosal tissue and swab samples. This suggests that less invasive swab samples are representative of the sinonasal mucosa microbiome and can be used for future sinonasal microbiome studies. Public Library of Science 2015-04-14 /pmc/articles/PMC4396979/ /pubmed/25876035 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0123216 Text en © 2015 Bassiouni et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are properly credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Bassiouni, Ahmed
Cleland, Edward John
Psaltis, Alkis James
Vreugde, Sarah
Wormald, Peter-John
Sinonasal Microbiome Sampling: A Comparison of Techniques
title Sinonasal Microbiome Sampling: A Comparison of Techniques
title_full Sinonasal Microbiome Sampling: A Comparison of Techniques
title_fullStr Sinonasal Microbiome Sampling: A Comparison of Techniques
title_full_unstemmed Sinonasal Microbiome Sampling: A Comparison of Techniques
title_short Sinonasal Microbiome Sampling: A Comparison of Techniques
title_sort sinonasal microbiome sampling: a comparison of techniques
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4396979/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25876035
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0123216
work_keys_str_mv AT bassiouniahmed sinonasalmicrobiomesamplingacomparisonoftechniques
AT clelandedwardjohn sinonasalmicrobiomesamplingacomparisonoftechniques
AT psaltisalkisjames sinonasalmicrobiomesamplingacomparisonoftechniques
AT vreugdesarah sinonasalmicrobiomesamplingacomparisonoftechniques
AT wormaldpeterjohn sinonasalmicrobiomesamplingacomparisonoftechniques