验证灌胃取样作为小鼠胃腔微生物群纵向取样工具的有效性。

IF 1.7 4区 生物学 Q4 BIOCHEMICAL RESEARCH METHODS
Patrick S. Ortiz, Ankan Choudhury, Christopher M. Kearney
{"title":"验证灌胃取样作为小鼠胃腔微生物群纵向取样工具的有效性。","authors":"Patrick S. Ortiz,&nbsp;Ankan Choudhury,&nbsp;Christopher M. Kearney","doi":"10.1016/j.mimet.2024.106939","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Fecal samples are commonly used for longitudinal studies of the gut lumen microbiome to track the course of response to infection or drug treatment, but no comparable method has been evaluated for longitudinal analysis of the gastric lumen microbiome in mice. Herein, a buffer flush of the stomach with a flexible gavage needle was used to collect gastric contents at one or several time points without harming the mouse. These samples were compared to samples collected by sacrifice and dissection of the mouse stomach. Microbiota from these samples were sequenced and evaluated in two ways: the composition of samples as measured by beta diversity and the richness of samples as measured by alpha diversity. Additionally, the effect of multiple sampling every two days on these metrics were studied. DNA was extracted from each of these samples and Illumina 16S rRNA gene sequencing was performed.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>First, taxonomic richness of gavage and dissection samples was compared. A greater number of taxa was detected in gavage samples than in dissection samples. Second, taxonomic richness was analyzed over time. No significant difference in taxonomic richness was observed with repeated gavage flushes. Third, a comparison was made of the taxonomic composition of samples collected by gavage versus dissection followed by a comparison of samples collected over multiple samplings. Nonmetric multidimensional scaling analysis revealed no clear differences between collection by gavage flushing or dissection. Using weighted Unifrac and Aitchison taxonomic distances between gavage and dissection samples were not significantly different from distances between gavage samples themselves, and no significant difference was found in the taxonomic composition of mice which were sampled repeatedly. Finally, relative abundances of specific identified taxa were compared, and eleven taxa were found to differ in frequency between collection methods. Using the more stringent Analysis of Composition of Microbiomes (ANCOM), seven was found to differ. Similarly, no significant differences were uncovered using these analyses over multiple samples by gastric flush.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>In summary, the consistency of the microbiota collected by gastric flushing recommends its use for microbiome analysis of gastric fluid similar to the use of fecal sampling to study the gut lumen microbiome.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":16409,"journal":{"name":"Journal of microbiological methods","volume":"221 ","pages":"Article 106939"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Validation of gavage sampling as tool for longitudinal sampling of microbiota of the mouse gastric lumen\",\"authors\":\"Patrick S. Ortiz,&nbsp;Ankan Choudhury,&nbsp;Christopher M. Kearney\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.mimet.2024.106939\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Fecal samples are commonly used for longitudinal studies of the gut lumen microbiome to track the course of response to infection or drug treatment, but no comparable method has been evaluated for longitudinal analysis of the gastric lumen microbiome in mice. Herein, a buffer flush of the stomach with a flexible gavage needle was used to collect gastric contents at one or several time points without harming the mouse. These samples were compared to samples collected by sacrifice and dissection of the mouse stomach. Microbiota from these samples were sequenced and evaluated in two ways: the composition of samples as measured by beta diversity and the richness of samples as measured by alpha diversity. Additionally, the effect of multiple sampling every two days on these metrics were studied. DNA was extracted from each of these samples and Illumina 16S rRNA gene sequencing was performed.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>First, taxonomic richness of gavage and dissection samples was compared. A greater number of taxa was detected in gavage samples than in dissection samples. Second, taxonomic richness was analyzed over time. No significant difference in taxonomic richness was observed with repeated gavage flushes. Third, a comparison was made of the taxonomic composition of samples collected by gavage versus dissection followed by a comparison of samples collected over multiple samplings. Nonmetric multidimensional scaling analysis revealed no clear differences between collection by gavage flushing or dissection. Using weighted Unifrac and Aitchison taxonomic distances between gavage and dissection samples were not significantly different from distances between gavage samples themselves, and no significant difference was found in the taxonomic composition of mice which were sampled repeatedly. Finally, relative abundances of specific identified taxa were compared, and eleven taxa were found to differ in frequency between collection methods. Using the more stringent Analysis of Composition of Microbiomes (ANCOM), seven was found to differ. Similarly, no significant differences were uncovered using these analyses over multiple samples by gastric flush.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>In summary, the consistency of the microbiota collected by gastric flushing recommends its use for microbiome analysis of gastric fluid similar to the use of fecal sampling to study the gut lumen microbiome.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16409,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of microbiological methods\",\"volume\":\"221 \",\"pages\":\"Article 106939\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of microbiological methods\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"99\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167701224000514\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"生物学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"BIOCHEMICAL RESEARCH METHODS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of microbiological methods","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167701224000514","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"BIOCHEMICAL RESEARCH METHODS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景粪便样本通常用于肠腔微生物组的纵向研究,以追踪对感染或药物治疗的反应过程,但还没有评估过用于小鼠胃腔微生物组纵向分析的类似方法。在此,我们使用柔性灌胃针对胃部进行缓冲冲洗,在不伤害小鼠的情况下收集一个或多个时间点的胃内容物。这些样本与通过牺牲和解剖小鼠胃部收集的样本进行了比较。对这些样本中的微生物群进行了测序,并从两个方面进行了评估:以β多样性衡量样本的组成,以α多样性衡量样本的丰富度。此外,还研究了每两天多次取样对这些指标的影响。从每个样本中提取 DNA 并进行 Illumina 16S rRNA 基因测序。灌胃样本中检测到的分类群数量多于解剖样本。其次,分析了随时间变化的分类丰富度。多次灌胃观察并未发现分类丰富度有明显差异。第三,比较了灌胃采集的样本与解剖采集的样本的分类组成,然后比较了多次采样采集的样本的分类组成。非度量多维尺度分析表明,灌胃冲洗法和剖腹取样法的采集结果没有明显差异。使用加权 Unifrac 和艾奇逊分类学方法,灌胃样本和剖腹样本之间的距离与灌胃样本之间的距离没有显著差异,重复采样的小鼠的分类组成也没有发现显著差异。最后,比较了特定鉴定分类群的相对丰度,发现有 11 个分类群在不同采集方法下的出现频率存在差异。使用更严格的微生物组构成分析(ANCOM),发现有 7 个分类群存在差异。总之,胃冲洗法收集的微生物群具有一致性,建议将其用于胃液微生物群分析,类似于使用粪便取样法研究肠腔微生物群。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Validation of gavage sampling as tool for longitudinal sampling of microbiota of the mouse gastric lumen

Background

Fecal samples are commonly used for longitudinal studies of the gut lumen microbiome to track the course of response to infection or drug treatment, but no comparable method has been evaluated for longitudinal analysis of the gastric lumen microbiome in mice. Herein, a buffer flush of the stomach with a flexible gavage needle was used to collect gastric contents at one or several time points without harming the mouse. These samples were compared to samples collected by sacrifice and dissection of the mouse stomach. Microbiota from these samples were sequenced and evaluated in two ways: the composition of samples as measured by beta diversity and the richness of samples as measured by alpha diversity. Additionally, the effect of multiple sampling every two days on these metrics were studied. DNA was extracted from each of these samples and Illumina 16S rRNA gene sequencing was performed.

Results

First, taxonomic richness of gavage and dissection samples was compared. A greater number of taxa was detected in gavage samples than in dissection samples. Second, taxonomic richness was analyzed over time. No significant difference in taxonomic richness was observed with repeated gavage flushes. Third, a comparison was made of the taxonomic composition of samples collected by gavage versus dissection followed by a comparison of samples collected over multiple samplings. Nonmetric multidimensional scaling analysis revealed no clear differences between collection by gavage flushing or dissection. Using weighted Unifrac and Aitchison taxonomic distances between gavage and dissection samples were not significantly different from distances between gavage samples themselves, and no significant difference was found in the taxonomic composition of mice which were sampled repeatedly. Finally, relative abundances of specific identified taxa were compared, and eleven taxa were found to differ in frequency between collection methods. Using the more stringent Analysis of Composition of Microbiomes (ANCOM), seven was found to differ. Similarly, no significant differences were uncovered using these analyses over multiple samples by gastric flush.

Conclusion

In summary, the consistency of the microbiota collected by gastric flushing recommends its use for microbiome analysis of gastric fluid similar to the use of fecal sampling to study the gut lumen microbiome.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of microbiological methods
Journal of microbiological methods 生物-生化研究方法
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
4.50%
发文量
151
审稿时长
29 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Microbiological Methods publishes scholarly and original articles, notes and review articles. These articles must include novel and/or state-of-the-art methods, or significant improvements to existing methods. Novel and innovative applications of current methods that are validated and useful will also be published. JMM strives for scholarship, innovation and excellence. This demands scientific rigour, the best available methods and technologies, correctly replicated experiments/tests, the inclusion of proper controls, calibrations, and the correct statistical analysis. The presentation of the data must support the interpretation of the method/approach. All aspects of microbiology are covered, except virology. These include agricultural microbiology, applied and environmental microbiology, bioassays, bioinformatics, biotechnology, biochemical microbiology, clinical microbiology, diagnostics, food monitoring and quality control microbiology, microbial genetics and genomics, geomicrobiology, microbiome methods regardless of habitat, high through-put sequencing methods and analysis, microbial pathogenesis and host responses, metabolomics, metagenomics, metaproteomics, microbial ecology and diversity, microbial physiology, microbial ultra-structure, microscopic and imaging methods, molecular microbiology, mycology, novel mathematical microbiology and modelling, parasitology, plant-microbe interactions, protein markers/profiles, proteomics, pyrosequencing, public health microbiology, radioisotopes applied to microbiology, robotics applied to microbiological methods,rumen microbiology, microbiological methods for space missions and extreme environments, sampling methods and samplers, soil and sediment microbiology, transcriptomics, veterinary microbiology, sero-diagnostics and typing/identification.
×
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