Is Short-Read 16S rRNA Sequencing of Oral Microbiome Sampling a Suitable Diagnostic Tool for Head and Neck Cancer?

IF 3.3 3区 医学 Q2 MICROBIOLOGY
Kenny Yeo, Fangmeinuo Wu, Runhao Li, Eric Smith, Peter-John Wormald, Rowan Valentine, Alkis James Psaltis, Sarah Vreugde, Kevin Fenix
{"title":"Is Short-Read 16S rRNA Sequencing of Oral Microbiome Sampling a Suitable Diagnostic Tool for Head and Neck Cancer?","authors":"Kenny Yeo, Fangmeinuo Wu, Runhao Li, Eric Smith, Peter-John Wormald, Rowan Valentine, Alkis James Psaltis, Sarah Vreugde, Kevin Fenix","doi":"10.3390/pathogens13100826","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The oral microbiome, studied by sampling the saliva or by oral rinse, has been long thought to have diagnostic capacity for head and neck cancers (HNC). However, previous reports on the HNC oral microbiome provide inconsistent results. The aim of this study is to consolidate these datasets and determine the oral microbial composition between HNC patients to healthy and premalignant individuals. We analyzed 16 published head and neck cancer (HNC) short-read 16S rRNA sequencing datasets, specifically targeting the V3V4, V4 and V4V5 regions. These datasets included saliva and oral rinse samples from donors with HNC, as well as from healthy and premalignant donors. Differences in diversities and microbial abundance were determined. HNC saliva displayed lower alpha diversity than healthy donors. In contrast, the opposite trend was observed for oral rinse samples. Beta diversity scores were largely similar across different patient types. Similar oral phyla were detected for all samples, but proportions were largely dependent on sample type (i.e., saliva or oral rinse) and primer set utilized for 16S rRNA sequencing. <i>Neisseria</i>, <i>Leptotrichia</i> and <i>Megasphaera</i> were elevated in healthy saliva, while <i>Mycoplasma</i> was elevated in HNC saliva. Oral rinse and saliva displayed similar enrichment for <i>Fusobacterium</i>, while <i>Veillonella</i>, <i>Alloprevotella</i>, and <i>Campylobacter</i> showed conflicting results. The sparse partial least squares discriminant analysis model performed effectively in discriminating HNC from healthy or premalignant patients using V3V4 saliva (AUC = 0.888) and V3V4 oral rinse (AUC = 0.928), while poor discriminative capacity was observed for V4 saliva (AUC = 0.688). In conclusion, our meta-analysis highlighted the limitations of 16S rRNA sequencing, particularly due to variations across study batches, primer sets (i.e., V3V4, V4), and sample types. Hence, caution should be exercised when interpreting 16S rRNA sequencing results across studies, especially when different primer sets and sample types are used.</p>","PeriodicalId":19758,"journal":{"name":"Pathogens","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11510575/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pathogens","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens13100826","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MICROBIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The oral microbiome, studied by sampling the saliva or by oral rinse, has been long thought to have diagnostic capacity for head and neck cancers (HNC). However, previous reports on the HNC oral microbiome provide inconsistent results. The aim of this study is to consolidate these datasets and determine the oral microbial composition between HNC patients to healthy and premalignant individuals. We analyzed 16 published head and neck cancer (HNC) short-read 16S rRNA sequencing datasets, specifically targeting the V3V4, V4 and V4V5 regions. These datasets included saliva and oral rinse samples from donors with HNC, as well as from healthy and premalignant donors. Differences in diversities and microbial abundance were determined. HNC saliva displayed lower alpha diversity than healthy donors. In contrast, the opposite trend was observed for oral rinse samples. Beta diversity scores were largely similar across different patient types. Similar oral phyla were detected for all samples, but proportions were largely dependent on sample type (i.e., saliva or oral rinse) and primer set utilized for 16S rRNA sequencing. Neisseria, Leptotrichia and Megasphaera were elevated in healthy saliva, while Mycoplasma was elevated in HNC saliva. Oral rinse and saliva displayed similar enrichment for Fusobacterium, while Veillonella, Alloprevotella, and Campylobacter showed conflicting results. The sparse partial least squares discriminant analysis model performed effectively in discriminating HNC from healthy or premalignant patients using V3V4 saliva (AUC = 0.888) and V3V4 oral rinse (AUC = 0.928), while poor discriminative capacity was observed for V4 saliva (AUC = 0.688). In conclusion, our meta-analysis highlighted the limitations of 16S rRNA sequencing, particularly due to variations across study batches, primer sets (i.e., V3V4, V4), and sample types. Hence, caution should be exercised when interpreting 16S rRNA sequencing results across studies, especially when different primer sets and sample types are used.

口腔微生物组采样的短读 16S rRNA 测序是头颈癌的合适诊断工具吗?
长期以来,人们一直认为通过唾液采样或口腔漱口研究口腔微生物组具有诊断头颈部癌症(HNC)的能力。然而,以前关于 HNC 口腔微生物组的报告提供的结果并不一致。本研究旨在整合这些数据集,确定 HNC 患者与健康人和癌前病变者之间的口腔微生物组成。我们分析了 16 个已发表的头颈癌(HNC)短读 16S rRNA 测序数据集,特别是针对 V3V4、V4 和 V4V5 区域的数据集。这些数据集包括来自HNC供体、健康供体和癌前供体的唾液和口腔漱口水样本。研究确定了多样性和微生物丰度的差异。与健康供体相比,HNC唾液中的α多样性较低。相比之下,口腔漱口水样本的趋势则相反。不同类型患者的 Beta 多样性得分基本相似。所有样本都检测到了类似的口腔系统,但比例主要取决于样本类型(即唾液或口腔漱口水)和 16S rRNA 测序所使用的引物集。健康唾液中的奈瑟氏菌、钩端螺旋体和 Megasphaera 较高,而 HNC 唾液中的支原体较高。口腔漱口水和唾液中的镰刀菌富集度相似,而 Veillonella、Alloprevotella 和 Campylobacter 则显示出相互矛盾的结果。稀疏偏最小二乘判别分析模型在使用 V3V4 唾液(AUC = 0.888)和 V3V4 口腔漱口水(AUC = 0.928)判别 HNC 与健康或恶性肿瘤前患者时表现有效,而 V4 唾液的判别能力较差(AUC = 0.688)。总之,我们的荟萃分析强调了 16S rRNA 测序的局限性,特别是由于不同研究批次、引物组(即 V3V4、V4)和样本类型之间的差异。因此,在解释不同研究的 16S rRNA 测序结果时应谨慎,尤其是在使用不同引物组和样本类型时。
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
Pathogens
Pathogens Medicine-Immunology and Allergy
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
8.10%
发文量
1285
审稿时长
17.75 days
期刊介绍: Pathogens (ISSN 2076-0817) publishes reviews, regular research papers and short notes on all aspects of pathogens and pathogen-host interactions. There is no restriction on the length of the papers. Our aim is to encourage scientists to publish their experimental and theoretical research in as much detail as possible. Full experimental and/or methodical details must be provided for research articles.
×
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