Dataset Information

Comparison of Oral Collection Methods for Studies of Microbiota.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:A number of cohort studies have collected Scope mouthwash samples by mail, which are being used for microbiota measurements. We evaluated the stability of Scope mouthwash samples at ambient temperature and determined the comparability of Scope mouthwash with saliva collection using the OMNIgene ORAL Kit. METHODS:Fifty-three healthy volunteers from Mayo Clinic and 50 cohort members from Bangladesh provided oral samples. One aliquot of the OMNIgene ORAL and Scope mouthwash were frozen immediately and one aliquot of the Scope mouthwash remained at ambient temperature for 4 days and was then frozen. DNA was extracted and the V4 region of the 16S rRNA gene was PCR amplified and sequenced using the HiSeq. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were calculated. RESULTS:The overall stability of the Scope mouthwash samples was relatively high for alpha and beta diversity. For example, the meta-analyzed ICC for the Shannon index was 0.86 (95% confidence interval, 0.76-0.96). Similarly, the ICCs for the relative abundance of the top 25 genera were generally high. The comparability of the two sample types was relatively low when measured using ICCs, but were increased by using a Spearman correlation coefficient (SCC) to compare the rank order of individuals. CONCLUSIONS:Overall, the Scope mouthwash samples appear to be stable at ambient temperature, which suggests that oral rinse samples received by the mail can be used for microbial analyses. However, Scope mouthwash samples were distinct compared with OMNIgene ORAL samples. IMPACT:Studies should try to compare oral microbial metrics within one sample collection type.

SUBMITTER: Vogtmann E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6324947 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison of Oral Collection Methods for Studies of Microbiota.

Vogtmann Emily E Chen Jun J Kibriya Muhammad G MG Amir Amnon A Shi Jianxin J Chen Yu Y Islam Tariqul T Eunes Mahbubul M Ahmed Alauddin A Naher Jabun J Rahman Anisur A Barmon Bhaswati B Knight Rob R Chia Nicholas N Ahsan Habibul H Abnet Christian C CC Sinha Rashmi R

Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology 20180927 1

<h4>Background</h4>A number of cohort studies have collected Scope mouthwash samples by mail, which are being used for microbiota measurements. We evaluated the stability of Scope mouthwash samples at ambient temperature and determined the comparability of Scope mouthwash with saliva collection using the OMNIgene ORAL Kit.<h4>Methods</h4>Fifty-three healthy volunteers from Mayo Clinic and 50 cohort members from Bangladesh provided oral samples. One aliquot of the OMNIgene ORAL and Scope mouthwas ...[more]

PMID: 30262598

Similar Datasets

Project description:To our knowledge, fecal microbiota collection methods have not been evaluated in low- and middle-income countries. Therefore, we evaluated five different fecal sample collection methods for technical reproducibility, stability, and accuracy within the Health Effects of Arsenic Longitudinal Study (HEALS) in Bangladesh. Fifty participants from the HEALS provided fecal samples in the clinic which were aliquoted into no solution, 95% ethanol, RNAlater, postdevelopment fecal occult blood test (FOBT) cards, and fecal immunochemical test (FIT) tubes. Half of the aliquots were frozen immediately at -80°C (day 0) and the remaining samples were left at ambient temperature for 96 h and then frozen (day 4). Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were calculated for the relative abundances of the top three phyla, for two alpha diversity measures, and for four beta diversity measures. The duplicate samples had relatively high ICCs for technical reproducibility at day 0 and day 4 (range, 0.79 to 0.99). The FOBT card and samples preserved in RNAlater and 95% ethanol had the highest ICCs for stability over 4 days. The FIT tube had lower stability measures overall. In comparison to the "gold standard" method using immediately frozen fecal samples with no solution, the ICCs for many of the microbial metrics were low, but the rank order appeared to be preserved as seen by the Spearman correlation. The FOBT cards, 95% ethanol, and RNAlater were effective fecal preservatives. These fecal collection methods are optimal for future cohort studies, particularly in low- and middle-income countries.IMPORTANCE The collection of fecal samples in prospective cohort studies is essential to provide the opportunity to study the effect of the human microbiota on numerous health conditions. However, these collection methods have not been adequately tested in low- and middle-income countries. We present estimates of technical reproducibility, stability at ambient temperature for 4 days, and accuracy comparing a "gold standard" for fecal samples in no solution, 95% ethanol, RNAlater, postdevelopment fecal occult blood test cards, and fecal immunochemical test tubes in a study conducted in Bangladesh. Fecal occult blood test cards and fecal samples stored in 95% ethanol or RNAlater adequately preserve fecal samples in this setting. Therefore, new studies in low- and middle-income countries should include collection of fecal samples using fecal occult blood test cards, 95% ethanol, or RNAlater for prospective cohort studies.

Project description:BackgroundTo initiate fecal and oral collections in prospective cohort studies for microbial analyses, it is essential to understand how field conditions and geographic differences may impact microbial communities. This study aimed to investigate the impact of fecal and oral sample collection methods and room temperature storage on collection samples for studies of the human microbiota.ResultsWe collected fecal and oral samples from participants in two Iranian cohorts located in rural Yazd (n = 46) and urban Gonbad (n = 38) and investigated room temperature stability over 4 days of fecal (RNAlater and fecal occult blood test [FOBT] cards) and comparability of fecal and oral (OMNIgene ORAL kits and Scope mouthwash) collection methods. We calculated interclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) based on 3 alpha and 4 beta diversity metrics and the relative abundance of 3 phyla. After 4 days at room temperature, fecal stability ICCs and ICCs for Scope mouthwash were generally high for all microbial metrics. Similarly, the fecal comparability ICCs for RNAlater and FOBT cards were high, ranging from 0.63 (95% CI: 0.46, 0.75) for the relative abundance of Firmicutes to 0.93 (95% CI: 0.89, 0.96) for unweighted Unifrac. Comparability ICCs for OMNIgene ORAL and Scope mouthwash were lower than fecal ICCs, ranging from 0.55 (95% CI: 0.36, 0.70) for the Shannon index to 0.79 (95% CI: 0.69, 0.86) for Bray-Curtis. Overall, RNAlater, FOBT cards and Scope mouthwash were stable up to 4 days at room temperature. Samples collected using FOBT cards were generally comparable to RNAlater while the OMNIgene ORAL were less similar to Scope mouthwash.ConclusionsAs microbiome measures for feces samples collected using RNAlater, FOBT cards and oral samples collected using Scope mouthwash were stable over four days at room temperature, these would be most appropriate for microbial analyses in these populations. However, one collection method should be consistently since each method may induce some differences.

Project 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.

Project description:Background: Integrated microbiome and metabolomics analyses hold the potential to reveal interactions between host and microbiota in relation to disease risks. However, there are few studies evaluating how field methods influence fecal microbiome characterization and metabolomics profiling. Methods: Five fecal collection methods [immediate freezing at -20°C without preservative, OMNIgene GUT, 95% ethanol, RNAlater, and Flinders Technology Associates (FTA) cards] were used to collect 40 fecal samples from eight healthy volunteers. We performed gut microbiota 16S rRNA sequencing, untargeted metabolomics profiling, and targeted metabolomics focusing on short chained fatty acids (SCFAs). Metrics included α-diversity and β-diversity as well as distributions of predominant phyla. To evaluate the concordance with the "gold standard" immediate freezing, the intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for alternate fecal collection systems were calculated. Correlations between SCFAs and gut microbiota were also examined. Results: The FTA cards had the highest ICCs compared to the immediate freezing method for α-diversity indices (ICCs = 0.96, 0.96, 0.76 for Shannon index, Simpson's Index, Chao-1 Index, respectively), followed by OMNIgene GUT, RNAlater, and 95% ethanol. High ICCs (all >0.88) were observed for all methods for the β-diversity metric. For untargeted metabolomics, in comparison to immediate freezing which detected 621 metabolites at ≥75% detectability level, 95% ethanol showed the largest overlapping set of metabolites (n = 430; 69.2%), followed by FTA cards (n = 330; 53.1%) and OMNIgene GUT (n = 213; 34.3%). Both OMNIgene GUT (ICCs = 0.82, 0.93, 0.64) and FTA cards (ICCs = 0.87, 0.85, 0.54) had acceptable ICCs for the top three predominant SCFAs (butyric acid, propionic acid and acetic acid). Nominally significant correlations between bacterial genera and SCFAs (P < 0.05) were observed in fecal samples collected by different methods. Of note, a high correlation between the genus Blautia (known butyrate producer) and butyric acid was observed for both immediate freezing (r = 0.83) and FTA cards (r = 0.74). Conclusions: Four alternative fecal collection methods are generally comparable with immediate freezing, but there are differences in certain measures of the gut microbiome and fecal metabolome across methods. Choice of method depends on the research interests, simplicity of fecal collection procedures and ease of transportation to the lab, especially for large epidemiological studies.

Project description:When studying the microbiome using next-generation sequencing, the DNA extraction method, sequencing procedures, and bioinformatic processing are crucial to obtain reliable data. Method choice has been demonstrated to strongly affect the final biological interpretation. We assessed the performance of three DNA extraction methods and two bioinformatic pipelines for bacterial microbiota profiling through 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing, using positive and negative controls for DNA extraction and sequencing and eight different types of high- or low-biomass samples. Performance was evaluated based on quality control passing, DNA yield, richness, diversity, and compositional profiles. All DNA extraction methods retrieved the theoretical relative bacterial abundance with a maximum 3-fold change, although differences were seen between methods, and library preparation and sequencing induced little variation. Bioinformatic pipelines showed different results for observed richness, but diversity and compositional profiles were comparable. DNA extraction methods were successful for feces and oral swabs, and variation induced by DNA extraction methods was lower than intersubject (biological) variation. For low-biomass samples, a mixture of genera present in negative controls and sample-specific genera, possibly representing biological signal, were observed. We conclude that the tested bioinformatic pipelines perform equally, with pipeline-specific advantages and disadvantages. Two out of three extraction methods performed equally well, while one method was less accurate regarding retrieval of compositional profiles. Lastly, we again demonstrate the importance of including negative controls when analyzing low-bacterial-biomass samples.IMPORTANCE Method choice throughout the workflow of a microbiome study, from sample collection to DNA extraction and sequencing procedures, can greatly affect results. This study evaluated three different DNA extraction methods and two bioinformatic pipelines by including positive and negative controls and various biological specimens. By identifying an optimal combination of DNA extraction method and bioinformatic pipeline use, we hope to contribute to increased methodological consistency in microbiota studies. Our methods were applied not only to commonly studied samples for microbiota analysis, e.g., feces, but also to more rarely studied, low-biomass samples. Microbiota composition profiles of low-biomass samples (e.g., urine and tumor biopsy specimens) were not always distinguishable from negative controls, or showed partial overlap, confirming the importance of including negative controls in microbiota studies, especially when low bacterial biomass is expected.

Dataset Information

Comparison of Oral Collection Methods for Studies of Microbiota.

Publications

Comparison of Oral Collection Methods for Studies of Microbiota.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets