4.7 Article

Proof of Concept of Culturomics Use of Time of Care

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fcimb.2020.524769

关键词

culturomics; gut microbiota; fastidious bacteria; anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies; rapid culture

资金

  1. National Research Agency under the program Investissements d'avenir [ANR10-IAHU-03]
  2. Region Provence-Alpes-Cote d'Azur
  3. European funding FEDER PRIMI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Culturomics, a high throughput culture method with rapid identification of the colonies by Matrix Assisted Laser Desorption Ionization/Time Of Flight Mass Spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS), has demonstrated its contribution to the exploration of the gut microbiota over the past 10 years. However, the cost, work time and workload, considerably limit its use on a large scale or emergency context. Here, by testing two different stool samples, including a stool sample from a patient requiring rapid immunotherapy treatment, we tested a new fast culturomic protocol using two pre-incubation media, blood culture bottle and YCFA modified medium. Both media were supplemented with 2 ml of rumen fluid filtered at 0.2 mu m and 2 ml of defibrinated and sterile sheep blood. Unlike the standard culturomics, subculturing of blood culture bottle were performed at reduced incubation time (3 h, 6 h, 9 h, 24 h) and at a longer incubation time (3 days, 7 days, and 10 days) at 37 degrees C. By testing 5,200 colonies per MALDI-TOF MS and obtaining a comparable number of cultured bacterial species (131 to 143) in a stool sample, this new protocol reduced the number of colonies tested by 57%, working time by 78.6% and cost by 72.2%. In addition, we highlighted that the proportion of strict anaerobic species has increased by 24%, known to be the preferential targets for biotherapy, including Faecalibacterium prausnitzii, Akkermansia muciniphila, Christensenella minuta, and Phascolarctobacterium faecium. Finally, this work showed that some bacterial species grew earlier but disappeared with prolonged incubation times.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据