Cargando…

Comparative analysis of vaginal microbiota sampling using 16S rRNA gene analysis

BACKGROUND: Molecular methods such as next-generation sequencing are actively being employed to characterize the vaginal microbiota in health and disease. Previous studies have focused on characterizing the biological variation in the microbiota, and less is known about how factors related to sampli...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Virtanen, Seppo, Kalliala, Ilkka, Nieminen, Pekka, Salonen, Anne
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5517051/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28723942
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0181477
_version_ 1783251257399443456
author Virtanen, Seppo
Kalliala, Ilkka
Nieminen, Pekka
Salonen, Anne
author_facet Virtanen, Seppo
Kalliala, Ilkka
Nieminen, Pekka
Salonen, Anne
author_sort Virtanen, Seppo
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Molecular methods such as next-generation sequencing are actively being employed to characterize the vaginal microbiota in health and disease. Previous studies have focused on characterizing the biological variation in the microbiota, and less is known about how factors related to sampling contribute to the results. Our aim was to investigate the impact of a sampling device and anatomical sampling site on the quantitative and qualitative outcomes relevant for vaginal microbiota research. We sampled 10 Finnish women representing diverse clinical characteristics with flocked swabs, the Evalyn® self-sampling device, sterile plastic spatulas and a cervical brush that were used to collect samples from fornix, vaginal wall and cervix. Samples were compared on DNA and protein yield, bacterial load, and microbiota diversity and species composition based on Illumina MiSeq sequencing of the 16S rRNA gene. We quantified the relative contributions of sampling variables versus intrinsic variables in the overall microbiota variation, and evaluated the microbiota profiles using several commonly employed metrics such as alpha and beta diversity as well as abundance of major bacterial genera and species. RESULTS: The total DNA yield was strongly dependent on the sampling device and to a lesser extent on the anatomical site of sampling. The sampling strategy did not affect the protein yield or the bacterial load. All tested sampling methods produced highly comparable microbiota profiles based on MiSeq sequencing. The sampling method explained only 2% (p-value = 0.89) of the overall microbiota variation, markedly surpassed by intrinsic factors such as clinical status (microscopy for bacterial vaginosis 53%, p = 0.0001), bleeding (19%, p = 0.0001), and the variation between subjects (11%, p-value 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate that different sampling strategies yield comparable vaginal microbiota composition and diversity. Hence, past and future vaginal microbiota studies employing different sampling strategies should be comparable in the absence of other technical confounders. The Evalyn® self-sampling device performed equally well compared to samples taken by a clinician, and hence offers a good-quality microbiota sample without the need for a gynecological examination. The amount of collected sample as well as the DNA and protein yield varied across the sampling techniques, which may have practical implications for study design.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5517051
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-55170512017-08-07 Comparative analysis of vaginal microbiota sampling using 16S rRNA gene analysis Virtanen, Seppo Kalliala, Ilkka Nieminen, Pekka Salonen, Anne PLoS One Research Article BACKGROUND: Molecular methods such as next-generation sequencing are actively being employed to characterize the vaginal microbiota in health and disease. Previous studies have focused on characterizing the biological variation in the microbiota, and less is known about how factors related to sampling contribute to the results. Our aim was to investigate the impact of a sampling device and anatomical sampling site on the quantitative and qualitative outcomes relevant for vaginal microbiota research. We sampled 10 Finnish women representing diverse clinical characteristics with flocked swabs, the Evalyn® self-sampling device, sterile plastic spatulas and a cervical brush that were used to collect samples from fornix, vaginal wall and cervix. Samples were compared on DNA and protein yield, bacterial load, and microbiota diversity and species composition based on Illumina MiSeq sequencing of the 16S rRNA gene. We quantified the relative contributions of sampling variables versus intrinsic variables in the overall microbiota variation, and evaluated the microbiota profiles using several commonly employed metrics such as alpha and beta diversity as well as abundance of major bacterial genera and species. RESULTS: The total DNA yield was strongly dependent on the sampling device and to a lesser extent on the anatomical site of sampling. The sampling strategy did not affect the protein yield or the bacterial load. All tested sampling methods produced highly comparable microbiota profiles based on MiSeq sequencing. The sampling method explained only 2% (p-value = 0.89) of the overall microbiota variation, markedly surpassed by intrinsic factors such as clinical status (microscopy for bacterial vaginosis 53%, p = 0.0001), bleeding (19%, p = 0.0001), and the variation between subjects (11%, p-value 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate that different sampling strategies yield comparable vaginal microbiota composition and diversity. Hence, past and future vaginal microbiota studies employing different sampling strategies should be comparable in the absence of other technical confounders. The Evalyn® self-sampling device performed equally well compared to samples taken by a clinician, and hence offers a good-quality microbiota sample without the need for a gynecological examination. The amount of collected sample as well as the DNA and protein yield varied across the sampling techniques, which may have practical implications for study design. Public Library of Science 2017-07-19 /pmc/articles/PMC5517051/ /pubmed/28723942 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0181477 Text en © 2017 Virtanen 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 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Virtanen, Seppo
Kalliala, Ilkka
Nieminen, Pekka
Salonen, Anne
Comparative analysis of vaginal microbiota sampling using 16S rRNA gene analysis
title Comparative analysis of vaginal microbiota sampling using 16S rRNA gene analysis
title_full Comparative analysis of vaginal microbiota sampling using 16S rRNA gene analysis
title_fullStr Comparative analysis of vaginal microbiota sampling using 16S rRNA gene analysis
title_full_unstemmed Comparative analysis of vaginal microbiota sampling using 16S rRNA gene analysis
title_short Comparative analysis of vaginal microbiota sampling using 16S rRNA gene analysis
title_sort comparative analysis of vaginal microbiota sampling using 16s rrna gene analysis
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5517051/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28723942
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0181477
work_keys_str_mv AT virtanenseppo comparativeanalysisofvaginalmicrobiotasamplingusing16srrnageneanalysis
AT kallialailkka comparativeanalysisofvaginalmicrobiotasamplingusing16srrnageneanalysis
AT nieminenpekka comparativeanalysisofvaginalmicrobiotasamplingusing16srrnageneanalysis
AT salonenanne comparativeanalysisofvaginalmicrobiotasamplingusing16srrnageneanalysis