Intervertebral disc microbiome in Modic changes: Lack of result replication underscores the need for a consensus in low-biomass microbiome analysis

IF 3.4 3区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS
JOR Spine Pub Date : 2024-04-04 DOI:10.1002/jsp2.1330
Tamara Mengis, Natalia Zajac, Laura Bernhard, Irina Heggli, Nick Herger, Jan Devan, Roy Marcus, Florian Brunner, Christoph Laux, Mazda Farshad, Oliver Distler, Stefan Dudli
{"title":"Intervertebral disc microbiome in Modic changes: Lack of result replication underscores the need for a consensus in low-biomass microbiome analysis","authors":"Tamara Mengis,&nbsp;Natalia Zajac,&nbsp;Laura Bernhard,&nbsp;Irina Heggli,&nbsp;Nick Herger,&nbsp;Jan Devan,&nbsp;Roy Marcus,&nbsp;Florian Brunner,&nbsp;Christoph Laux,&nbsp;Mazda Farshad,&nbsp;Oliver Distler,&nbsp;Stefan Dudli","doi":"10.1002/jsp2.1330","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Introduction</h3>\n \n <p>The emerging field of the disc microbiome challenges traditional views of disc sterility, which opens new avenues for novel clinical insights. However, the lack of methodological consensus in disc microbiome studies introduces discrepancies. The aims of this study were to (1) compare the disc microbiome of non-Modic (nonMC), Modic type 1 change (MC1), and MC2 discs to findings from prior disc microbiome studies, and (2) investigate if discrepancies to prior studies can be explained with bioinformatic variations.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Sequencing of 16S rRNA in 70 discs (24 nonMC, 25 MC1, and 21 MC2) for microbiome profiling. The experimental setup included buffer contamination controls and was performed under aseptic conditions. Methodology and results were contrasted with previous disc microbiome studies. Critical bioinformatic steps that were different in our best-practice approach and previous disc microbiome studies (taxonomic lineage assignment, prevalence cut-off) were varied and their effect on results were compared.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>There was limited overlap of results with a previous study on MC disc microbiome. No bacterial genera were shared using the same bioinformatic parameters. Taxonomic lineage assignment using “amplicon sequencing variants” was more sensitive and detected 48 genera compared to 22 with “operational taxonomic units” (previous study). Increasing filter cut-off from 4% to 50% (previous study) reduced genera from 48 to 4 genera. Despite these differences, both studies observed dysbiosis with an increased abundance of gram-negative bacteria in MC discs as well as a lower beta-diversity. <i>Cutibacterium</i> was persistently detected in all groups independent of the bioinformatic approach, emphasizing its prevalence.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>There is dysbiosis in MC discs. Bioinformatic parameters impact results yet cannot explain the different findings from this and a previous study. Therefore, discrepancies are likely caused by different sample preparations or true biologic differences. Harmonized protocols are required to advance understanding of the disc microbiome and its clinical implications.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":14876,"journal":{"name":"JOR Spine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jsp2.1330","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JOR Spine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jsp2.1330","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

The emerging field of the disc microbiome challenges traditional views of disc sterility, which opens new avenues for novel clinical insights. However, the lack of methodological consensus in disc microbiome studies introduces discrepancies. The aims of this study were to (1) compare the disc microbiome of non-Modic (nonMC), Modic type 1 change (MC1), and MC2 discs to findings from prior disc microbiome studies, and (2) investigate if discrepancies to prior studies can be explained with bioinformatic variations.

Methods

Sequencing of 16S rRNA in 70 discs (24 nonMC, 25 MC1, and 21 MC2) for microbiome profiling. The experimental setup included buffer contamination controls and was performed under aseptic conditions. Methodology and results were contrasted with previous disc microbiome studies. Critical bioinformatic steps that were different in our best-practice approach and previous disc microbiome studies (taxonomic lineage assignment, prevalence cut-off) were varied and their effect on results were compared.

Results

There was limited overlap of results with a previous study on MC disc microbiome. No bacterial genera were shared using the same bioinformatic parameters. Taxonomic lineage assignment using “amplicon sequencing variants” was more sensitive and detected 48 genera compared to 22 with “operational taxonomic units” (previous study). Increasing filter cut-off from 4% to 50% (previous study) reduced genera from 48 to 4 genera. Despite these differences, both studies observed dysbiosis with an increased abundance of gram-negative bacteria in MC discs as well as a lower beta-diversity. Cutibacterium was persistently detected in all groups independent of the bioinformatic approach, emphasizing its prevalence.

Conclusion

There is dysbiosis in MC discs. Bioinformatic parameters impact results yet cannot explain the different findings from this and a previous study. Therefore, discrepancies are likely caused by different sample preparations or true biologic differences. Harmonized protocols are required to advance understanding of the disc microbiome and its clinical implications.

Abstract Image

莫迪氏病变中的椎间盘微生物组:缺乏结果复制凸显低生物量微生物组分析需要共识
导言:椎间盘微生物组这一新兴领域对椎间盘无菌的传统观点提出了挑战,从而为新的临床见解开辟了新的途径。然而,由于椎间盘微生物组研究的方法缺乏共识,导致研究结果存在差异。本研究的目的是:(1)将非莫迪克(non-MC)、莫迪克 1 型改变(MC1)和 MC2 椎间盘的椎间盘微生物组与之前的椎间盘微生物组研究结果进行比较;(2)研究与之前研究的差异是否可以用生物信息学变化来解释。 方法 对 70 个圆片(24 个非 MC、25 个 MC1 和 21 个 MC2)中的 16S rRNA 进行测序,以分析微生物组。实验设置包括缓冲液污染控制,并在无菌条件下进行。实验方法和结果与之前的圆盘微生物组研究进行了对比。我们的最佳实践方法与之前的圆盘微生物组研究中不同的关键生物信息学步骤(分类学谱系分配、流行率截断)被改变,并比较了它们对结果的影响。 结果 与之前关于 MC 盘微生物组的研究结果重叠有限。使用相同的生物信息学参数,没有共享细菌属。使用 "扩增子测序变体 "进行分类系划分的灵敏度更高,检测到 48 个属,而使用 "操作分类单元"(之前的研究)检测到 22 个属。过滤截断率从 4% 提高到 50%(前一项研究),使属从 48 个减少到 4 个。尽管存在这些差异,但这两项研究都观察到了菌群失调现象,即 MC 盘中革兰氏阴性菌的数量增加,β-多样性降低。无论采用哪种生物信息学方法,在所有组别中都能持续检测到切杆菌,强调了切杆菌的普遍性。 结论 MC 盘中存在菌群失调。生物信息学参数会影响结果,但无法解释本研究与之前研究的不同结果。因此,差异很可能是由不同的样本制备或真正的生物差异造成的。要加深对椎间盘微生物群及其临床意义的了解,就必须制定统一的方案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
JOR Spine
JOR Spine ORTHOPEDICS-
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
18.90%
发文量
42
审稿时长
10 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信