Back

Processing and Storage Methods Affect Oral and Gut Microbiome Composition

Superdock, D. K.; Zhang, W.; Poole, A. C.

2023-06-14 microbiology
10.1101/2023.06.13.544865 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Across microbiome studies, fecal and oral samples are stored and processed in different ways, which could affect the observed microbiome composition. Here, we compared treatment methods, which included both storage conditions and processing methods, applied to samples prior to DNA extraction to determine how each affects microbial community diversity as assessed by 16S rRNA gene sequencing. We collected dental swab, saliva, and fecal samples from 10 individuals, with three technical replicates per treatment method. We assessed four methods of processing fecal samples prior to DNA extraction. We also compared different fractions of frozen saliva and dental samples to fresh samples. We found that lyophilized fecal samples, fresh whole saliva samples, and the supernatant fraction of thawed dental samples retained the highest levels of alpha diversity in samples. The supernatant fraction of thawed saliva samples had the second highest alpha diversity compared to fresh. Then we investigated the differences in microbes between different treatments at the domain and phylum levels as well as identified the amplicon sequence variants (ASVs) that were significantly different between the methods producing the highest alpha diversity and the other treatment methods. Lyophilized fecal samples had a greater prevalence of Archaea as well as a greater ratio of Firmicutes to Bacteroidetes compared to the other treatment methods. Our results provide practical considerations, not only for selection of processing method, but also for comparing results across studies that use these methods. Our findings also indicate differences in treatment method could be a confounding factor influencing the presence, absence, or differential abundance of microbes reported in conflicting studies.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Microbiology Spectrum
469 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
22.5%
2
Applied and Environmental Microbiology
339 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
7.9%
3
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 10%
6.8%
4
Frontiers in Microbiology
427 papers in training set
Top 1%
6.8%
5
npj Biofilms and Microbiomes
58 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
5.6%
6
Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology
109 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
5.2%
50% of probability mass above
7
mSphere
302 papers in training set
Top 1%
4.9%
8
Microbiome
154 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
3.2%
9
FEMS Microbes
16 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.2%
10
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 38%
3.2%
11
BMC Microbiology
49 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
2.1%
12
Microorganisms
106 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.9%
13
mSystems
394 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.7%
14
Molecular Ecology
336 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
15
mBio
833 papers in training set
Top 8%
1.5%
16
BioTechniques
25 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.1%
17
Journal of Dental Research
13 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.0%
18
FEMS Microbiology Ecology
54 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
1.0%
19
eLife
5828 papers in training set
Top 62%
1.0%
20
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2444 papers in training set
Top 39%
0.9%
21
Animal Microbiome
31 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.9%
22
Communications Biology
993 papers in training set
Top 29%
0.9%
23
iScience
1154 papers in training set
Top 34%
0.9%
24
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 59%
0.6%
25
International Journal of Food Microbiology
11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.6%
26
PeerJ
308 papers in training set
Top 13%
0.6%
27
Microbial Ecology
29 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.6%