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