Feasibility and Comparison Study of Fecal Sample Collection Methods in Healthy Volunteers and Solid Organ Transplant Recipients Using 16S rRNA and Metagenomics Approaches.

IF 1.2 4区 生物学 Q4 CELL BIOLOGY
Biopreservation and Biobanking Pub Date : 2020-10-01 Epub Date: 2020-08-21 DOI:10.1089/bio.2020.0032
Sunil M Kurian, Skyler Gordon, Bethany Barrick, Manoj N Dadlani, Brian Fanelli, Jenny B Cornell, Steven R Head, Christopher L Marsh, Jamie Case
{"title":"Feasibility and Comparison Study of Fecal Sample Collection Methods in Healthy Volunteers and Solid Organ Transplant Recipients Using 16S rRNA and Metagenomics Approaches.","authors":"Sunil M Kurian,&nbsp;Skyler Gordon,&nbsp;Bethany Barrick,&nbsp;Manoj N Dadlani,&nbsp;Brian Fanelli,&nbsp;Jenny B Cornell,&nbsp;Steven R Head,&nbsp;Christopher L Marsh,&nbsp;Jamie Case","doi":"10.1089/bio.2020.0032","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The human microbiome encompasses a variety of microorganisms that change dynamically and are in close contact with the body. The microbiome influences health and homeostasis, as well as the immune system, and any significant change in this equilibrium (dysbiosis) triggers both acute and chronic health conditions. Microbiome research has surged, in part, due to advanced sequencing technologies enabling rapid, accurate, and cost-effective identification of the microbiome. A major prerequisite for stool sample collection to study the gut microbiome in longitudinal prospective studies requires standardized protocols that can be easily replicated. However, there are still significant bottlenecks to stool specimen collection that contribute to low patient retention rates in microbiome studies. These barriers are further exacerbated in solid organ transplant recipients where diarrhea is estimated to occur in up to half the patient population. We sought to test two relatively easy sample collection methods (fecal swab and wipes) and compare them to the more cumbersome \"gold\" standard collection method (scoop) using two different sequencing technologies (16S ribosomal RNA sequencing and shotgun metagenomics). Our comparison of the collection methods shows that both the swabs and the wipes are comparable to the scoop method in terms of bacterial abundance and diversity. The swabs, however, were closer in representation to the scoop and were easier to collect and process compared to the wipes. Potential contamination of the swab and the wipe samples by abundant skin commensals was low in our analysis. Comparison of the two sequencing technologies showed that they were complementary, and that 16S sequencing provided enough coverage to detect and differentiate between bacterial species identified in the collected samples. Our pilot study demonstrates that alternative collection methods for stool sampling are a viable option in clinical applications, such as organ transplant studies. The use of these methods may result in better patient retention recruitment rates in serial microbiome studies.</p>","PeriodicalId":49231,"journal":{"name":"Biopreservation and Biobanking","volume":" ","pages":"425-440"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1089/bio.2020.0032","citationCount":"9","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Biopreservation and Biobanking","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/bio.2020.0032","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/8/21 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CELL BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

Abstract

The human microbiome encompasses a variety of microorganisms that change dynamically and are in close contact with the body. The microbiome influences health and homeostasis, as well as the immune system, and any significant change in this equilibrium (dysbiosis) triggers both acute and chronic health conditions. Microbiome research has surged, in part, due to advanced sequencing technologies enabling rapid, accurate, and cost-effective identification of the microbiome. A major prerequisite for stool sample collection to study the gut microbiome in longitudinal prospective studies requires standardized protocols that can be easily replicated. However, there are still significant bottlenecks to stool specimen collection that contribute to low patient retention rates in microbiome studies. These barriers are further exacerbated in solid organ transplant recipients where diarrhea is estimated to occur in up to half the patient population. We sought to test two relatively easy sample collection methods (fecal swab and wipes) and compare them to the more cumbersome "gold" standard collection method (scoop) using two different sequencing technologies (16S ribosomal RNA sequencing and shotgun metagenomics). Our comparison of the collection methods shows that both the swabs and the wipes are comparable to the scoop method in terms of bacterial abundance and diversity. The swabs, however, were closer in representation to the scoop and were easier to collect and process compared to the wipes. Potential contamination of the swab and the wipe samples by abundant skin commensals was low in our analysis. Comparison of the two sequencing technologies showed that they were complementary, and that 16S sequencing provided enough coverage to detect and differentiate between bacterial species identified in the collected samples. Our pilot study demonstrates that alternative collection methods for stool sampling are a viable option in clinical applications, such as organ transplant studies. The use of these methods may result in better patient retention recruitment rates in serial microbiome studies.

采用16S rRNA和宏基因组学方法采集健康志愿者和实体器官移植受者粪便样本的可行性及比较研究。
人体微生物群包括各种动态变化的微生物,并与人体密切接触。微生物组影响健康和体内平衡,以及免疫系统,这种平衡的任何重大变化(生态失调)都会引发急性和慢性健康状况。微生物组研究激增,部分原因是由于先进的测序技术能够快速、准确和经济地识别微生物组。在纵向前瞻性研究中,粪便样本采集以研究肠道微生物组的一个主要先决条件需要易于复制的标准化方案。然而,粪便标本收集仍然存在显著的瓶颈,导致微生物组研究中患者保留率低。这些障碍在实体器官移植受者中进一步加剧,据估计,多达一半的患者会出现腹泻。我们试图测试两种相对容易的样本收集方法(粪便拭子和湿巾),并使用两种不同的测序技术(16S核糖体RNA测序和霰弹枪宏基因组学)将它们与更麻烦的“金”标准收集方法(勺)进行比较。我们对收集方法的比较表明,在细菌丰度和多样性方面,拭子和湿巾与勺法相当。然而,与湿巾相比,棉签更接近勺子,更容易收集和处理。在我们的分析中,棉签和擦拭样本被大量皮肤共生体污染的可能性很低。两种测序技术的比较表明,它们是互补的,16S测序提供了足够的覆盖范围来检测和区分所收集样品中鉴定的细菌种类。我们的初步研究表明,粪便采样的替代收集方法在临床应用中是可行的选择,例如器官移植研究。这些方法的使用可能会导致在一系列微生物组研究中更好的患者保留招募率。
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
Biopreservation and Biobanking
Biopreservation and Biobanking CELL BIOLOGY-MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
12.50%
发文量
114
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Biopreservation and Biobanking is the first journal to provide a unifying forum for the peer-reviewed communication of recent advances in the emerging and evolving field of biospecimen procurement, processing, preservation and banking, distribution, and use. The Journal publishes a range of original articles focusing on current challenges and problems in biopreservation, and advances in methods to address these issues related to the processing of macromolecules, cells, and tissues for research. In a new section dedicated to Emerging Markets and Technologies, the Journal highlights the emergence of new markets and technologies that are either adopting or disrupting the biobank framework as they imprint on society. The solutions presented here are anticipated to help drive innovation within the biobank community. Biopreservation and Biobanking also explores the ethical, legal, and societal considerations surrounding biobanking and biorepository operation. Ideas and practical solutions relevant to improved quality, efficiency, and sustainability of repositories, and relating to their management, operation and oversight are discussed as well.
×
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