figshare
Browse
Image_1_Processing and storage methods affect oral and gut microbiome composition.png (620.2 kB)

Image_1_Processing and storage methods affect oral and gut microbiome composition.png

Download (620.2 kB)
figure
posted on 2023-10-03, 04:16 authored by Dorothy K. Superdock, Wei Zhang, Angela C. Poole

In microbiome studies, fecal and oral samples are stored and processed in different ways, which could affect the observed microbiome composition. In this study, we compared storage and processing methods applied to samples prior to DNA extraction to determine how each affected microbial community diversity as assessed by 16S rRNA gene sequencing. We collected dental swabs, saliva, and fecal samples from 10 individuals, with three technical replicates per condition. We assessed four methods of storing and processing fecal samples prior to DNA extraction. We also compared different fractions of thawed saliva and dental samples to fresh samples. We found that lyophilized fecal samples, fresh whole saliva samples, and the supernatant fraction of thawed dental samples had the highest levels of alpha diversity. The supernatant fraction of thawed saliva samples had the second highest evenness compared to fresh saliva samples. Then, we investigated the differences in observed community composition at the domain and phylum levels and identified the amplicon sequence variants (ASVs) that significantly differed in relative abundance between the conditions. Lyophilized fecal samples had a greater prevalence of Archaea as well as a greater ratio of Firmicutes to Bacteroidetes compared to the other conditions. Our results provide practical considerations not only for the selection of storage and processing methods but also for comparing results across studies. Differences in processing and storage methods could be a confounding factor influencing the presence, absence, or differential abundance of microbes reported in conflicting studies.

History

Usage metrics

    Frontiers in Microbiology

    Licence

    Exports

    RefWorks
    BibTeX
    Ref. manager
    Endnote
    DataCite
    NLM
    DC