4.5 Article

Exploring Bacterial Diversity of Endodontic Microbiota by Cloning and Sequencing 16S rRNA

Journal

JOURNAL OF ENDODONTICS
Volume 37, Issue 7, Pages 922-926

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2011.04.007

Keywords

165 rRNA; bacterial diversity; clinical study; in vivo; metagenomic analysis; primary endodontic infection

Funding

  1. Sao Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) [07/52492-3, 06/59856-8]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction: The characterization of microbial communities infecting the endodontic system in each clinical condition may help on the establishment of a correct prognosis and distinct strategies of treatment. The purpose of this study was to determine the bacterial diversity in primary endodontic infections by 16S ribosomal-RNA (rRNA) sequence analysis. Methods: Samples from root canals of untreated asymptomatic teeth (n = 12) exhibiting periapical lesions were obtained, 165 rRNA bacterial genomic libraries were constructed and sequenced, and bacterial diversity was estimated. Results: A total of 489 clones were analyzed (mean, 40.7 +/- 8.0 clones per sample). Seventy phylotypes were identified of which six were novel phylotypes belonging to the family Ruminococcaceae. The mean number of taxa per canal was 10.0, ranging from 3 to 21 per sample; 65.7% of the cloned sequences represented phylotypes for which no cultivated isolates have been reported. The most prevalent taxa were Atopobium rimae (50.0%), Dialister invisus, Pre-votella oris, Pseudoramibacter alactolyticus, and Tannerella forsythia (33.3%). Conclusions: Although several key species predominate in endodontic samples of asymptomatic cases with periapical lesions, the primary endodontic infection is characterized by a wide bacterial diversity, which is mostly represented by members of the phylum Firmicutes belonging to the class Clostridia followed by the phylum Bacteroidetes. (J Ended 2011;37:922-926)

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available