4.7 Article

Salivary Microbiome in Adenoid Cystic Carcinoma Detected by 16S rRNA Sequencing and Shotgun Metagenomics

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fcimb.2021.774453

关键词

microbiota; salivary adenoid cystic carcinoma; oral cancer; 16S rRNA sequencing; metagenomics; bioinformatics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Microorganisms have been found to be closely linked to the development of cancer in humans. This study compared the salivary microbiome of salivary adenoid cystic carcinoma (SACC) patients and healthy controls, revealing higher abundance of Streptococcus and Rothia in SACC patients and more Prevotella and Alloprevotella in healthy controls. Functional gene analysis identified specific KEGG pathways, carbohydrate-active enzymes, antibiotic resistances, and virulence factors in SACC patients.
Microorganisms are confirmed to be closely related to the occurrence and development of cancers in human beings. However, there has been no published report detailing relationships between the oral microbiota and salivary adenoid cystic carcinoma (SACC). In this study, unstimulated saliva was collected from 13 SACC patients and 10 healthy controls. The microbial diversities, compositions and functions were comprehensively analyzed after 16S rRNA sequencing and whole-genome shotgun metagenomic sequencing. The alpha diversity showed no significant difference between SACC patients and healthy controls, while beta diversity showed a separation trend. The SACC patients showed higher abundances of Streptococcus and Rothia, while Prevotella and Alloprevotella were more abundant in healthy controls. The prevalent KEGG pathways, carbohydrate-active enzymes, antibiotic resistances and virulence factors as well as the biomarkers in SACC were determined by functional gene analysis. Our study preliminarily investigated the salivary microbiome of SACC patients compared with healthy controls and might be the basis for further studies on novel diagnostic and treatment strategies.

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