4.7 Article

Characterization of Bacterial Communities in Venous Insufficiency Wounds by Use of Conventional Culture and Molecular Diagnostic Methods

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY
Volume 49, Issue 11, Pages 3812-3819

Publisher

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/JCM.00847-11

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. National Psoriasis Foundation
  2. Dermatology Foundation
  3. National Institutes of Health (NIH) [BRS ACURE-Q0600136, R01 AI080935-01, R01 DC02148, U19AI084024, U01 DK082316]
  4. NIH/NIAID [RO1 AI035097, 1R21AI074077-01A2]
  5. NIH/NIDCR [R01 DE017486-01A1, R01DE 13932-4]
  6. Abbott Molecular

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Microbial infections delay wound healing, but the effect of the composition of the wound microbiome on healing parameters is unknown. To better understand bacterial communities in chronic wounds, we analyzed debridement samples from lower-extremity venous insufficiency ulcers using the following: conventional anaerobic and aerobic bacterial cultures; the Ibis T5000 universal biosensor (Abbott Molecular); and 16S 454 FLX titanium series pyrosequencing (Roche). Wound debridement samples were obtained from 10 patients monitored clinically for at least 6 months, at which point 5 of the 10 sampled wounds had healed. Pyrosequencing data revealed significantly higher bacterial abundance and diversity in wounds that had not healed at 6 months. Additionally, Actinomycetales was increased in wounds that had not healed, and Pseudomonadaceae was increased in wounds that had healed by the 6-month follow-up. Baseline wound surface area, duration, or analysis by Ibis or conventional culture did not reveal significant differences between wounds that healed after 6 months and those that did not. Thus, pyrosequencing identified distinctive baseline characteristics of wounds that did not heal by the 6-month follow-up, furthering our understanding of potentially unique microbiome characteristics of chronic wounds.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available