Skip NavigationSkip to Content

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

  1. Author:
    Yano, Yukiko [ORCID]
    Hua, Xing
    Wan, Yunhu
    Suman, Shalabh
    Zhu,Bin
    Dagnall,Casey
    Hutchinson,Amy
    Jones,Kristine
    Hicks,Belynda
    Shi, Jianxin
    Abnet, Christian C
    Vogtmann, Emily [ORCID]
  2. Author Address

    Metabolic Epidemiology Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology & Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, USA yukiko.yano@nih.gov., Biostatistics Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology & Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, USA., Cancer Genomics Research Laboratory, Division of Cancer Epidemiology & Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, USA., Leidos Biomedical Research Laboratory, Inc., Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research, Frederick, Maryland, USA., Metabolic Epidemiology Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology & Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.,
    1. Year: 2020
    2. Date: JUL-AUG
    3. Epub Date: 2020 07 07
  1. Journal: mSystems
    1. 5
    2. 4
    3. Pages: e00156-20
  2. Type of Article: Article
  3. Article Number: e00156-20
  4. ISSN: 2379-5077
  1. Abstract:

    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 39;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 39;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 39;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 39;s showing the least agreement with OMNIgene. There were clear differences in oral microbial communities between the four oral collection methods, particularly for Saccomanno 39;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 39;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 39;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.

    See More

External Sources

  1. DOI: 10.1128/mSystems.00156-20
  2. PMID: 32636335
  3. WOS: 000549921700001
  4. PII : 5/4/e00156-20

Library Notes

  1. Fiscal Year: FY2019-2020
NCI at Frederick

You are leaving a government website.

This external link provides additional information that is consistent with the intended purpose of this site. The government cannot attest to the accuracy of a non-federal site.

Linking to a non-federal site does not constitute an endorsement by this institution or any of its employees of the sponsors or the information and products presented on the site. You will be subject to the destination site's privacy policy when you follow the link.

ContinueCancel