Cargando…

The microbiome of diabetic foot ulcers: a comparison of swab and tissue biopsy wound sampling techniques using 16S rRNA gene sequencing

BACKGROUND: Health-care professionals need to collect wound samples to identify potential pathogens that contribute to wound infection. Obtaining appropriate samples from diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) where there is a suspicion of infection is of high importance. Paired swabs and tissue biopsies were...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Travis, J., Malone, M., Hu, H., Baten, A., Johani, K., Huygens, F., Vickery, K., Benkendorff, K.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7296698/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32546123
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12866-020-01843-2
_version_ 1783546885210898432
author Travis, J.
Malone, M.
Hu, H.
Baten, A.
Johani, K.
Huygens, F.
Vickery, K.
Benkendorff, K.
author_facet Travis, J.
Malone, M.
Hu, H.
Baten, A.
Johani, K.
Huygens, F.
Vickery, K.
Benkendorff, K.
author_sort Travis, J.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Health-care professionals need to collect wound samples to identify potential pathogens that contribute to wound infection. Obtaining appropriate samples from diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) where there is a suspicion of infection is of high importance. Paired swabs and tissue biopsies were collected from DFUs and both sampling techniques were compared using 16S rRNA gene sequencing. RESULTS: Mean bacterial abundance determined using quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) was significantly lower in tissue biopsies (p = 0.03). The mean number of reads across all samples was significantly higher in wound swabs [Formula: see text] = 32,014) compared to tissue ([Formula: see text] = 15,256, p = 0.001). Tissue biopsies exhibited greater overall diversity of bacteria relative to swabs (Shannon’s H diversity p = 0.009). However, based on a presence/absence analysis of all paired samples, the frequency of occurrence of bacteria from genera of known and potential pathogens was generally higher in wound swabs than tissue biopsies. Multivariate analysis identified significantly different bacterial communities in swabs compared to tissue (p = 0.001). There was minimal correlation between paired wound swabs and tissue biopsies in the number and types of microorganisms. RELATE analysis revealed low concordance between paired DFU swab and tissue biopsy samples (Rho = 0.043, p = 0.34). CONCLUSIONS: Using 16S rRNA gene sequencing this study identifies the potential for using less invasive swabs to recover high relative abundances of known and potential pathogen genera from DFUs when compared to the gold standard collection method of tissue biopsy.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7296698
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-72966982020-06-16 The microbiome of diabetic foot ulcers: a comparison of swab and tissue biopsy wound sampling techniques using 16S rRNA gene sequencing Travis, J. Malone, M. Hu, H. Baten, A. Johani, K. Huygens, F. Vickery, K. Benkendorff, K. BMC Microbiol Research Article BACKGROUND: Health-care professionals need to collect wound samples to identify potential pathogens that contribute to wound infection. Obtaining appropriate samples from diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) where there is a suspicion of infection is of high importance. Paired swabs and tissue biopsies were collected from DFUs and both sampling techniques were compared using 16S rRNA gene sequencing. RESULTS: Mean bacterial abundance determined using quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) was significantly lower in tissue biopsies (p = 0.03). The mean number of reads across all samples was significantly higher in wound swabs [Formula: see text] = 32,014) compared to tissue ([Formula: see text] = 15,256, p = 0.001). Tissue biopsies exhibited greater overall diversity of bacteria relative to swabs (Shannon’s H diversity p = 0.009). However, based on a presence/absence analysis of all paired samples, the frequency of occurrence of bacteria from genera of known and potential pathogens was generally higher in wound swabs than tissue biopsies. Multivariate analysis identified significantly different bacterial communities in swabs compared to tissue (p = 0.001). There was minimal correlation between paired wound swabs and tissue biopsies in the number and types of microorganisms. RELATE analysis revealed low concordance between paired DFU swab and tissue biopsy samples (Rho = 0.043, p = 0.34). CONCLUSIONS: Using 16S rRNA gene sequencing this study identifies the potential for using less invasive swabs to recover high relative abundances of known and potential pathogen genera from DFUs when compared to the gold standard collection method of tissue biopsy. BioMed Central 2020-06-16 /pmc/articles/PMC7296698/ /pubmed/32546123 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12866-020-01843-2 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. 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 in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research Article
Travis, J.
Malone, M.
Hu, H.
Baten, A.
Johani, K.
Huygens, F.
Vickery, K.
Benkendorff, K.
The microbiome of diabetic foot ulcers: a comparison of swab and tissue biopsy wound sampling techniques using 16S rRNA gene sequencing
title The microbiome of diabetic foot ulcers: a comparison of swab and tissue biopsy wound sampling techniques using 16S rRNA gene sequencing
title_full The microbiome of diabetic foot ulcers: a comparison of swab and tissue biopsy wound sampling techniques using 16S rRNA gene sequencing
title_fullStr The microbiome of diabetic foot ulcers: a comparison of swab and tissue biopsy wound sampling techniques using 16S rRNA gene sequencing
title_full_unstemmed The microbiome of diabetic foot ulcers: a comparison of swab and tissue biopsy wound sampling techniques using 16S rRNA gene sequencing
title_short The microbiome of diabetic foot ulcers: a comparison of swab and tissue biopsy wound sampling techniques using 16S rRNA gene sequencing
title_sort microbiome of diabetic foot ulcers: a comparison of swab and tissue biopsy wound sampling techniques using 16s rrna gene sequencing
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7296698/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32546123
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12866-020-01843-2
work_keys_str_mv AT travisj themicrobiomeofdiabeticfootulcersacomparisonofswabandtissuebiopsywoundsamplingtechniquesusing16srrnagenesequencing
AT malonem themicrobiomeofdiabeticfootulcersacomparisonofswabandtissuebiopsywoundsamplingtechniquesusing16srrnagenesequencing
AT huh themicrobiomeofdiabeticfootulcersacomparisonofswabandtissuebiopsywoundsamplingtechniquesusing16srrnagenesequencing
AT batena themicrobiomeofdiabeticfootulcersacomparisonofswabandtissuebiopsywoundsamplingtechniquesusing16srrnagenesequencing
AT johanik themicrobiomeofdiabeticfootulcersacomparisonofswabandtissuebiopsywoundsamplingtechniquesusing16srrnagenesequencing
AT huygensf themicrobiomeofdiabeticfootulcersacomparisonofswabandtissuebiopsywoundsamplingtechniquesusing16srrnagenesequencing
AT vickeryk themicrobiomeofdiabeticfootulcersacomparisonofswabandtissuebiopsywoundsamplingtechniquesusing16srrnagenesequencing
AT benkendorffk themicrobiomeofdiabeticfootulcersacomparisonofswabandtissuebiopsywoundsamplingtechniquesusing16srrnagenesequencing
AT travisj microbiomeofdiabeticfootulcersacomparisonofswabandtissuebiopsywoundsamplingtechniquesusing16srrnagenesequencing
AT malonem microbiomeofdiabeticfootulcersacomparisonofswabandtissuebiopsywoundsamplingtechniquesusing16srrnagenesequencing
AT huh microbiomeofdiabeticfootulcersacomparisonofswabandtissuebiopsywoundsamplingtechniquesusing16srrnagenesequencing
AT batena microbiomeofdiabeticfootulcersacomparisonofswabandtissuebiopsywoundsamplingtechniquesusing16srrnagenesequencing
AT johanik microbiomeofdiabeticfootulcersacomparisonofswabandtissuebiopsywoundsamplingtechniquesusing16srrnagenesequencing
AT huygensf microbiomeofdiabeticfootulcersacomparisonofswabandtissuebiopsywoundsamplingtechniquesusing16srrnagenesequencing
AT vickeryk microbiomeofdiabeticfootulcersacomparisonofswabandtissuebiopsywoundsamplingtechniquesusing16srrnagenesequencing
AT benkendorffk microbiomeofdiabeticfootulcersacomparisonofswabandtissuebiopsywoundsamplingtechniquesusing16srrnagenesequencing