Differences in microbial signatures between rectal mucosal biopsies and rectal swabs
Differences in microbial signatures between rectal mucosal biopsies and rectal swabs
复制标题
DOI：
10.4161/gmic.22157
复制
发表时间：
2012-01-01
期刊：
影响因子：
12.2
通讯作者：
Keku, Temitope O.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Araujo-Perez, Felix;McCoy, Amber N.;Keku, Temitope O.
越来越多的证据表明，大肠的微生物群可能会影响发生结直肠癌的风险以及其他疾病，包括1型糖尿病，炎症性肠病和肠易激综合征。获得微生物标本的当前采样方法，例如粪便和粘膜活检，对患者来说是不便且没有吸引力的。通过直肠拭子获取样品可以证明是一种更快，相对较容易的方法，但尚不清楚拭子是否是足够的替代品。我们比较了直肠拭子和直肠粘膜活检的细菌多样性和组成，以便研究直肠拭子的生存能力作为活检的替代性。收集成对的直肠拭子和粘膜活检样品在未预测的参与者中（n = 11），微生物多样性通过末端限制性片段长度多态性（T-RFLP）分析和定量聚合酶链链反应（QPCR）来表征16S rRNA基因。拭子样品中的微生物群落组成与直肠粘膜活检不同（p = 0.001）。总体而言，拭子样品中细菌的多样性高于活检中的细菌多样性，如多样性指数所评估的：丰富度（p = 0.01），均匀度（p = 0.06）和香农的多样性（p = 0.04）。与活检相比，通过qPCR对特定细菌基的分析表明，拭子样品中乳酸杆菌的数量更高（p <0.0001）和Eubacteria（p = 0.0003）。我们的发现表明，直肠拭子和直肠粘膜样品在大肠中提供了微生物群的不同视野。
There is growing evidence the microbiota of the large bowel may influence the risk of developing colorectal cancer as well as other diseases including type-1 diabetes, inflammatory bowel diseases and irritable bowel syndrome. Current sampling methods to obtain microbial specimens, such as feces and mucosal biopsies, are inconvenient and unappealing to patients. Obtaining samples through rectal swabs could prove to be a quicker and relatively easier method, but it is unclear if swabs are an adequate substitute. We compared bacterial diversity and composition from rectal swabs and rectal mucosal biopsies in order to examine the viability of rectal swabs as an alternative to biopsies. Paired rectal swabs and mucosal biopsy samples were collected in un-prepped participants (n = 11) and microbial diversity was characterized by terminal restriction fragment length polymorphism (T-RFLP) analysis and quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) of the 16S rRNA gene. Microbial community composition from swab samples was different from rectal mucosal biopsies (p = 0.001). Overall the bacterial diversity was higher in swab samples than in biopsies as assessed by diversity indexes such as: richness (p = 0.01), evenness (p = 0.06) and Shannon's diversity (p = 0.04). Analysis of specific bacterial groups by qPCR showed higher copy number of Lactobacillus (p < 0.0001) and Eubacteria (p = 0.0003) in swab samples compared with biopsies. Our findings suggest that rectal swabs and rectal mucosal samples provide different views of the microbiota in the large intestine.