4.2 Article

Comprehensive description of blood microbiome from healthy donors assessed by 16S targeted metagenomic sequencing

Journal

TRANSFUSION
Volume 56, Issue 5, Pages 1138-1147

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/trf.13477

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND: Recent studies have revealed that the blood of healthy humans is not as sterile as previously supposed. The objective of this study was to provide a comprehensive description of the microbiome present in different fractions of the blood of healthy individuals. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: The study was conducted in 30 healthy blood donors to the French national blood collection center (Etablissement Francais du Sang). We have set up a 16S rDNA quantitative polymerase chain reaction assay as well as a 16S targeted metagenomics sequencing pipeline specifically designed to analyze the blood microbiome, which we have used on whole blood as well as on different blood fractions (buffy coat [BC], red blood cells [RBCs], and plasma). RESULTS: Most of the blood bacterial DNA is located in the BC (93.74%), and RBCs contain more bacterial DNA (6.23%) than the plasma (0.03%). The distribution of 16S DNA is different for each fraction and spreads over a relatively broad range among donors. At the phylum level, blood fractions contain bacterial DNA mostly from the Proteobacteria phylum (more than 80%) but also from Actinobacteria, Firmicutes, and Bacteroidetes. At deeper taxonomic levels, there are striking differences between the bacterial profiles of the different blood fractions. CONCLUSION: We demonstrate that a diversified microbiome exists in healthy blood. This microbiome has most likely an important physiologic role and could be implicated in certain transfusion-transmitted bacterial infections. In this regard, the amount of 16S bacterial DNA or the microbiome profile could be monitored to improve the safety of the blood supply.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available