Cargando…

Comparison of Oral Microbiota Collected Using Multiple Methods and Recommendations for New Epidemiologic Studies

Epidemiologic studies use various biosample collection methods to study associations between human oral microbiota and health outcomes. However, the agreement between the different methods is unclear. We compared a commercially available OMNIgene ORAL kit to three alternative collection methods: Sac...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Yano, Yukiko, Hua, Xing, Wan, Yunhu, Suman, Shalabh, Zhu, Bin, Dagnall, Casey L., Hutchinson, Amy, Jones, Kristine, Hicks, Belynda D., Shi, Jianxin, Abnet, Christian C., Vogtmann, Emily
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: American Society for Microbiology 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7343307/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32636335
http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/mSystems.00156-20
_version_ 1783555732127350784
author Yano, Yukiko
Hua, Xing
Wan, Yunhu
Suman, Shalabh
Zhu, Bin
Dagnall, Casey L.
Hutchinson, Amy
Jones, Kristine
Hicks, Belynda D.
Shi, Jianxin
Abnet, Christian C.
Vogtmann, Emily
author_facet Yano, Yukiko
Hua, Xing
Wan, Yunhu
Suman, Shalabh
Zhu, Bin
Dagnall, Casey L.
Hutchinson, Amy
Jones, Kristine
Hicks, Belynda D.
Shi, Jianxin
Abnet, Christian C.
Vogtmann, Emily
author_sort Yano, Yukiko
collection PubMed
description Epidemiologic studies use various biosample collection methods to study associations between human oral microbiota and health outcomes. However, the agreement between the different methods is unclear. We compared a commercially available OMNIgene ORAL kit to three alternative collection methods: Saccomanno’s fixative, Scope mouthwash, and nonethanol mouthwash. Oral samples were collected from 40 individuals over 4 visits. Two samples were collected from each subject per visit: one with OMNIgene and one with an alternative method. DNA was extracted using the DSP DNA Virus Pathogen kit, and the V4 region of the 16S rRNA gene was PCR amplified and sequenced using MiSeq. Oral collection methods were compared based on alpha and beta diversity metrics and phylum- and genus-level relative abundances. All alpha diversity metrics were significantly lower for Saccomanno’s fixative than for OMNIgene (P < 0.001), whereas the two mouthwashes were more similar to OMNIgene. Principal-coordinate analysis (PCoA) using the Bray-Curtis and weighted UniFrac beta diversity matrices showed large differences in the microbial compositions of samples collected with Saccomanno’s compared to those with OMNIgene and the mouthwashes. Clustering by collection method was not observed in unweighted UniFrac PCoA plots, suggesting differences in relative abundances but not specific taxa detected by the collection methods. Relative abundances of most taxa were significantly different between OMNIgene and the other methods at each taxonomic level, with Saccomanno’s showing the least agreement with OMNIgene. There were clear differences in oral microbial communities between the four oral collection methods, particularly for Saccomanno’s fixative. IMPORTANCE We compared four different oral collection methods for studying the human oral microbiome: an OMNIgene ORAL kit, Scope mouthwash, nonethanol mouthwash, and Saccomanno’s fixative. Our study shows that the type of the collection method can have a large impact on the results of an oral microbiome analysis. We recommend that one consistent oral collection method should be used for all oral microbiome comparisons. While Scope and nonethanol mouthwashes are less expensive and provide results similar to those with OMNIgene, Saccomanno’s fixative may be unfavorable due to the microbial differences detected in this study. Our results will help guide the design of future oral microbiome studies.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7343307
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher American Society for Microbiology
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-73433072020-07-16 Comparison of Oral Microbiota Collected Using Multiple Methods and Recommendations for New Epidemiologic Studies Yano, Yukiko Hua, Xing Wan, Yunhu Suman, Shalabh Zhu, Bin Dagnall, Casey L. Hutchinson, Amy Jones, Kristine Hicks, Belynda D. Shi, Jianxin Abnet, Christian C. Vogtmann, Emily mSystems Research Article Epidemiologic studies use various biosample collection methods to study associations between human oral microbiota and health outcomes. However, the agreement between the different methods is unclear. We compared a commercially available OMNIgene ORAL kit to three alternative collection methods: Saccomanno’s fixative, Scope mouthwash, and nonethanol mouthwash. Oral samples were collected from 40 individuals over 4 visits. Two samples were collected from each subject per visit: one with OMNIgene and one with an alternative method. DNA was extracted using the DSP DNA Virus Pathogen kit, and the V4 region of the 16S rRNA gene was PCR amplified and sequenced using MiSeq. Oral collection methods were compared based on alpha and beta diversity metrics and phylum- and genus-level relative abundances. All alpha diversity metrics were significantly lower for Saccomanno’s fixative than for OMNIgene (P < 0.001), whereas the two mouthwashes were more similar to OMNIgene. Principal-coordinate analysis (PCoA) using the Bray-Curtis and weighted UniFrac beta diversity matrices showed large differences in the microbial compositions of samples collected with Saccomanno’s compared to those with OMNIgene and the mouthwashes. Clustering by collection method was not observed in unweighted UniFrac PCoA plots, suggesting differences in relative abundances but not specific taxa detected by the collection methods. Relative abundances of most taxa were significantly different between OMNIgene and the other methods at each taxonomic level, with Saccomanno’s showing the least agreement with OMNIgene. There were clear differences in oral microbial communities between the four oral collection methods, particularly for Saccomanno’s fixative. IMPORTANCE We compared four different oral collection methods for studying the human oral microbiome: an OMNIgene ORAL kit, Scope mouthwash, nonethanol mouthwash, and Saccomanno’s fixative. Our study shows that the type of the collection method can have a large impact on the results of an oral microbiome analysis. We recommend that one consistent oral collection method should be used for all oral microbiome comparisons. While Scope and nonethanol mouthwashes are less expensive and provide results similar to those with OMNIgene, Saccomanno’s fixative may be unfavorable due to the microbial differences detected in this study. Our results will help guide the design of future oral microbiome studies. American Society for Microbiology 2020-07-07 /pmc/articles/PMC7343307/ /pubmed/32636335 http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/mSystems.00156-20 Text en https://doi.org/10.1128/AuthorWarrantyLicense.v1 This is a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Foreign copyrights may apply.
spellingShingle Research Article
Yano, Yukiko
Hua, Xing
Wan, Yunhu
Suman, Shalabh
Zhu, Bin
Dagnall, Casey L.
Hutchinson, Amy
Jones, Kristine
Hicks, Belynda D.
Shi, Jianxin
Abnet, Christian C.
Vogtmann, Emily
Comparison of Oral Microbiota Collected Using Multiple Methods and Recommendations for New Epidemiologic Studies
title Comparison of Oral Microbiota Collected Using Multiple Methods and Recommendations for New Epidemiologic Studies
title_full Comparison of Oral Microbiota Collected Using Multiple Methods and Recommendations for New Epidemiologic Studies
title_fullStr Comparison of Oral Microbiota Collected Using Multiple Methods and Recommendations for New Epidemiologic Studies
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Oral Microbiota Collected Using Multiple Methods and Recommendations for New Epidemiologic Studies
title_short Comparison of Oral Microbiota Collected Using Multiple Methods and Recommendations for New Epidemiologic Studies
title_sort comparison of oral microbiota collected using multiple methods and recommendations for new epidemiologic studies
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7343307/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32636335
http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/mSystems.00156-20
work_keys_str_mv AT yanoyukiko comparisonoforalmicrobiotacollectedusingmultiplemethodsandrecommendationsfornewepidemiologicstudies
AT huaxing comparisonoforalmicrobiotacollectedusingmultiplemethodsandrecommendationsfornewepidemiologicstudies
AT wanyunhu comparisonoforalmicrobiotacollectedusingmultiplemethodsandrecommendationsfornewepidemiologicstudies
AT sumanshalabh comparisonoforalmicrobiotacollectedusingmultiplemethodsandrecommendationsfornewepidemiologicstudies
AT zhubin comparisonoforalmicrobiotacollectedusingmultiplemethodsandrecommendationsfornewepidemiologicstudies
AT dagnallcaseyl comparisonoforalmicrobiotacollectedusingmultiplemethodsandrecommendationsfornewepidemiologicstudies
AT hutchinsonamy comparisonoforalmicrobiotacollectedusingmultiplemethodsandrecommendationsfornewepidemiologicstudies
AT joneskristine comparisonoforalmicrobiotacollectedusingmultiplemethodsandrecommendationsfornewepidemiologicstudies
AT hicksbelyndad comparisonoforalmicrobiotacollectedusingmultiplemethodsandrecommendationsfornewepidemiologicstudies
AT shijianxin comparisonoforalmicrobiotacollectedusingmultiplemethodsandrecommendationsfornewepidemiologicstudies
AT abnetchristianc comparisonoforalmicrobiotacollectedusingmultiplemethodsandrecommendationsfornewepidemiologicstudies
AT vogtmannemily comparisonoforalmicrobiotacollectedusingmultiplemethodsandrecommendationsfornewepidemiologicstudies