Cargando…

Significantly different results in the ocular surface microbiome detected by tear paper and conjunctival swab

BACKGROUND: Great variation has been observed in the composition of the normal microbiota of the ocular surface, and therefore, in addition to differences in detection techniques, the method of collecting ocular surface specimens has a significant impact on the test results.The goal of this study is...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Chen, Zhangling, Xiang, Zhaoyu, Cui, Lipu, Qin, Xinran, Chen, Shuli, Jin, Huiyi, Zou, Haidong
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9883858/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36707800
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12866-023-02775-3
_version_ 1784879594410606592
author Chen, Zhangling
Xiang, Zhaoyu
Cui, Lipu
Qin, Xinran
Chen, Shuli
Jin, Huiyi
Zou, Haidong
author_facet Chen, Zhangling
Xiang, Zhaoyu
Cui, Lipu
Qin, Xinran
Chen, Shuli
Jin, Huiyi
Zou, Haidong
author_sort Chen, Zhangling
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Great variation has been observed in the composition of the normal microbiota of the ocular surface, and therefore, in addition to differences in detection techniques, the method of collecting ocular surface specimens has a significant impact on the test results.The goal of this study is to ascertain whether the eye surface microbial communities detected by two different sampling methods are consistent and hence explore the feasibility of using tear test paper instead of conjunctival swabs to collect eye surface samples for microbial investigation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From July 15, 2021, to July 30, 2021, nonirritating tear test strips and conjunctival swabs of both eyes were used in 158 elderly people (> 60 years old) (79 diabetic and 79 nondiabetic adults) in Xinjing Community for high-throughput sequencing of the V3-V4 region of the 16S rRNA gene. The composition of the microbial communities in tear test paper and conjunctival swab samples was analyzed. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference in Alpha diversity of ocular surface microorganisms represented by tear strip and conjunctival swab in diabetic group (P > 0.05), but there was statistically significant difference in Alpha diversity of ocular surface microorganisms detected by tear strip and conjunctival swab in nondiabetic group (P < 0.05). There were statistically significant differences in Beta diversity of ocular surface microorganisms detected by two sampling methods between diabetic group and nondiabetic group (P < 0.05). There were statistically significant differences in ocular surface microorganisms detected by tear strip method between diabetic group and nondiabetic group (P < 0.05), but there was no statistically significant difference in conjunctival swab method (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Tear test paper and conjunctival swabs detect different compositions of microbes through two different techniques of eye surface microbe sampling. Tear test paper cannot completely replace conjunctival swab specimens for the study of microbes related to eye surface diseases.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9883858
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-98838582023-01-29 Significantly different results in the ocular surface microbiome detected by tear paper and conjunctival swab Chen, Zhangling Xiang, Zhaoyu Cui, Lipu Qin, Xinran Chen, Shuli Jin, Huiyi Zou, Haidong BMC Microbiol Research BACKGROUND: Great variation has been observed in the composition of the normal microbiota of the ocular surface, and therefore, in addition to differences in detection techniques, the method of collecting ocular surface specimens has a significant impact on the test results.The goal of this study is to ascertain whether the eye surface microbial communities detected by two different sampling methods are consistent and hence explore the feasibility of using tear test paper instead of conjunctival swabs to collect eye surface samples for microbial investigation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From July 15, 2021, to July 30, 2021, nonirritating tear test strips and conjunctival swabs of both eyes were used in 158 elderly people (> 60 years old) (79 diabetic and 79 nondiabetic adults) in Xinjing Community for high-throughput sequencing of the V3-V4 region of the 16S rRNA gene. The composition of the microbial communities in tear test paper and conjunctival swab samples was analyzed. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference in Alpha diversity of ocular surface microorganisms represented by tear strip and conjunctival swab in diabetic group (P > 0.05), but there was statistically significant difference in Alpha diversity of ocular surface microorganisms detected by tear strip and conjunctival swab in nondiabetic group (P < 0.05). There were statistically significant differences in Beta diversity of ocular surface microorganisms detected by two sampling methods between diabetic group and nondiabetic group (P < 0.05). There were statistically significant differences in ocular surface microorganisms detected by tear strip method between diabetic group and nondiabetic group (P < 0.05), but there was no statistically significant difference in conjunctival swab method (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Tear test paper and conjunctival swabs detect different compositions of microbes through two different techniques of eye surface microbe sampling. Tear test paper cannot completely replace conjunctival swab specimens for the study of microbes related to eye surface diseases. BioMed Central 2023-01-28 /pmc/articles/PMC9883858/ /pubmed/36707800 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12866-023-02775-3 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/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/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://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
Chen, Zhangling
Xiang, Zhaoyu
Cui, Lipu
Qin, Xinran
Chen, Shuli
Jin, Huiyi
Zou, Haidong
Significantly different results in the ocular surface microbiome detected by tear paper and conjunctival swab
title Significantly different results in the ocular surface microbiome detected by tear paper and conjunctival swab
title_full Significantly different results in the ocular surface microbiome detected by tear paper and conjunctival swab
title_fullStr Significantly different results in the ocular surface microbiome detected by tear paper and conjunctival swab
title_full_unstemmed Significantly different results in the ocular surface microbiome detected by tear paper and conjunctival swab
title_short Significantly different results in the ocular surface microbiome detected by tear paper and conjunctival swab
title_sort significantly different results in the ocular surface microbiome detected by tear paper and conjunctival swab
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9883858/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36707800
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12866-023-02775-3
work_keys_str_mv AT chenzhangling significantlydifferentresultsintheocularsurfacemicrobiomedetectedbytearpaperandconjunctivalswab
AT xiangzhaoyu significantlydifferentresultsintheocularsurfacemicrobiomedetectedbytearpaperandconjunctivalswab
AT cuilipu significantlydifferentresultsintheocularsurfacemicrobiomedetectedbytearpaperandconjunctivalswab
AT qinxinran significantlydifferentresultsintheocularsurfacemicrobiomedetectedbytearpaperandconjunctivalswab
AT chenshuli significantlydifferentresultsintheocularsurfacemicrobiomedetectedbytearpaperandconjunctivalswab
AT jinhuiyi significantlydifferentresultsintheocularsurfacemicrobiomedetectedbytearpaperandconjunctivalswab
AT zouhaidong significantlydifferentresultsintheocularsurfacemicrobiomedetectedbytearpaperandconjunctivalswab