4.7 Article

Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps is characterized by dysbacteriosis of the nasal microbiota

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 8, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-26327-2

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. European Commission [260895]
  2. Flemish Scientific Research Board, FWO [A12/5-HB- KH3]
  3. Global Allergy and Asthma European Network (GA2LEN) project [G.0436.04, 3G.0489, G.0642.10N]
  4. Interuniversity Attraction Poles Program-Belgian State Belgian Science Policy [IAP P7/30]
  5. Royal Thai Government

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyp (CRSwNP) patients are often characterized by asthma comorbidity and a type-2 inflammation of the sinonasal mucosa. The mucosal microbiota has been suggested to be implicated in the persistence of inflammation, but associations have not been well defined. To compare the bacterial communities of healthy subjects with CRSwNP patients, we collected nasal swabs from 17 healthy subjects, 21 CRSwNP patients without asthma (CRSwNP-A), and 20 CRSwNP patients with co-morbid asthma (CRSwNP+A). We analysed the microbiota using high-throughput sequencing of the bacterial 16S rRNA. Bacterial communities were different between the three groups. Haemophilus influenzae was significantly enriched in CRSwNP patients, Propionibacterium acnes in the healthy group; Staphylococcus aureus was abundant in the CRSwNP-A group, even though present in 57% of patients. Escherichia coli was found in high amounts in CRSwNP+A patients. Nasal tissues of CRSwNP+ A patients expressed significantly higher concentrations of IgE, SE-IgE, and IL-5 compared to those of CRSwNP-A patients. Co-cultivation demonstrated that P. acnes growth was inhibited by H. influenzae, E. coli and S. aureus. The nasal microbiota of healthy subjects are different from those of CRSwNP-A and CRSwNP+A patients. However, the most abundant species in healthy status could not inhibit those in CRSwNP disease.

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