4.7 Article

Inter-niche and inter-individual variation in gut microbial community assessment using stool, rectal swab, and mucosal samples

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 8, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-22408-4

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Ingram Cancer Center Endowment Fund
  2. Vanderbilt CTSA from NCRR/NIH [UL1 RR024975]
  3. NIH/National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases [P30DK34987]
  4. Vanderbilt Institute for Clinical and Translational Research [UL1TR000445]
  5. [R03CA183019]
  6. [R01CA149633]
  7. [R01DK110166]
  8. [P30CA68485]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The purpose of this study is to evaluate similarities and differences in gut bacterial measurements and stability in the microbial communities of three different types of samples that could be used to assess different niches of the gut microbiome: rectal swab, stool, and normal rectal mucosa samples. In swab-stool comparisons, there were substantial taxa differences with some taxa varying largely by sample type (e.g. Thermaceae), inter-individual subject variation (e.g. Desulfovibrionaceae), or by both sample type and participant (e.g. Enterobacteriaceae). Comparing all three sample types with whole-genome metagenome shotgun sequencing, swab samples were much closer to stool samples than mucosa samples although all KEGG functional Level 1 and Level 2 pathways were significantly different across all sample types (e.g. transcription and environmental adaptation). However, the individual signature of participants was also observed and was largely stable between two time points. Thus, we found that while the distribution of some taxa was associated with these different sampling techniques, other taxa largely reflected individual differences in the microbial community that were insensitive to sampling technique. There is substantial variability in the assessment of the gut microbial community according to the type of sample.

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