Oral Collection Methods Research Articles

Comparison of fecal and oral collection methods for studies of the human microbiota in two Iranian cohorts

BackgroundTo initiate fecal and oral collections in prospective cohort studies for microbial analyses, it is essential to understand how field conditions and geographic differences may impact microbial communities. This study aimed to investigate the impact of fecal and oral sample collection methods and room temperature storage on collection samples for studies of the human microbiota.ResultsWe collected fecal and oral samples from participants in two Iranian cohorts located in rural Yazd (n = 46) and urban Gonbad (n = 38) and investigated room temperature stability over 4 days of fecal (RNAlater and fecal occult blood test [FOBT] cards) and comparability of fecal and oral (OMNIgene ORAL kits and Scope mouthwash) collection methods. We calculated interclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) based on 3 alpha and 4 beta diversity metrics and the relative abundance of 3 phyla. After 4 days at room temperature, fecal stability ICCs and ICCs for Scope mouthwash were generally high for all microbial metrics. Similarly, the fecal comparability ICCs for RNAlater and FOBT cards were high, ranging from 0.63 (95% CI: 0.46, 0.75) for the relative abundance of Firmicutes to 0.93 (95% CI: 0.89, 0.96) for unweighted Unifrac. Comparability ICCs for OMNIgene ORAL and Scope mouthwash were lower than fecal ICCs, ranging from 0.55 (95% CI: 0.36, 0.70) for the Shannon index to 0.79 (95% CI: 0.69, 0.86) for Bray-Curtis. Overall, RNAlater, FOBT cards and Scope mouthwash were stable up to 4 days at room temperature. Samples collected using FOBT cards were generally comparable to RNAlater while the OMNIgene ORAL were less similar to Scope mouthwash.ConclusionsAs microbiome measures for feces samples collected using RNAlater, FOBT cards and oral samples collected using Scope mouthwash were stable over four days at room temperature, these would be most appropriate for microbial analyses in these populations. However, one collection method should be consistently since each method may induce some differences.

Comparison of Oral Microbiota Collected Using Multiple Methods and Recommendations for New Epidemiologic Studies.

Epidemiologic studies use various biosample collection methods to study associations between human oral microbiota and health outcomes. However, the agreement between the different methods is unclear. We compared a commercially available OMNIgene ORAL kit to three alternative collection methods: Saccomanno's fixative, Scope mouthwash, and nonethanol mouthwash. Oral samples were collected from 40 individuals over 4 visits. Two samples were collected from each subject per visit: one with OMNIgene and one with an alternative method. DNA was extracted using the DSP DNA Virus Pathogen kit, and the V4 region of the 16S rRNA gene was PCR amplified and sequenced using MiSeq. Oral collection methods were compared based on alpha and beta diversity metrics and phylum- and genus-level relative abundances. All alpha diversity metrics were significantly lower for Saccomanno's fixative than for OMNIgene (P < 0.001), whereas the two mouthwashes were more similar to OMNIgene. Principal-coordinate analysis (PCoA) using the Bray-Curtis and weighted UniFrac beta diversity matrices showed large differences in the microbial compositions of samples collected with Saccomanno's compared to those with OMNIgene and the mouthwashes. Clustering by collection method was not observed in unweighted UniFrac PCoA plots, suggesting differences in relative abundances but not specific taxa detected by the collection methods. Relative abundances of most taxa were significantly different between OMNIgene and the other methods at each taxonomic level, with Saccomanno's showing the least agreement with OMNIgene. There were clear differences in oral microbial communities between the four oral collection methods, particularly for Saccomanno's fixative.IMPORTANCE We compared four different oral collection methods for studying the human oral microbiome: an OMNIgene ORAL kit, Scope mouthwash, nonethanol mouthwash, and Saccomanno's fixative. Our study shows that the type of the collection method can have a large impact on the results of an oral microbiome analysis. We recommend that one consistent oral collection method should be used for all oral microbiome comparisons. While Scope and nonethanol mouthwashes are less expensive and provide results similar to those with OMNIgene, Saccomanno's fixative may be unfavorable due to the microbial differences detected in this study. Our results will help guide the design of future oral microbiome studies.