4.5 Article

Characterising the tear bacterial microbiome in young adults

期刊

EXPERIMENTAL EYE RESEARCH
卷 219, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.exer.2022.109080

关键词

Tear microbiome; V3-V4 region of 16S rRNA gene; Bacterial composition

资金

  1. Hyderabad Eye Research Foundation and Science and Engineering Research Board (SERB) , India [CRG/2020/003685]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, a less invasive approach of tear collection was used to establish the bacterial microbiome in healthy eyes. The results showed that tear microbiome is comparable with conjunctival swab microbiome, but differs in the abundance of the bacterial genera.
Conjunctival swabs (CS) are the major source of sampling for ocular microbiome studies, however collecting CS from the diseased eyes is difficult and painful. In this study, as an alternative to CS, a less invasive approach of tear collection was used to establish the bacterial microbiome in healthy eyes. Tear bacterial microbiome was generated from the DNA of tears (n = 24; male = 16 and female = 8) of healthy volunteers aged from 20 to 52 years. Sequencing of V3-V4 region of 16S rRNA gene was performed on the Illumina platform. Reads were processed in QIIME to assign the taxa. Statistical analysis of the tear microbiome was done in R to assess the alphadiversity and betadiversity indices. Tear microbiome was generated in all the 24 tear samples. Eight out of the top 10 predominant bacterial genera remained same in both tear and CS microbiomes, which include genera such as Corynebacterium, Staphylococcus, Streptococcus, Mycobacterium, Escherichia-Shigella, Lactobacillus, Bacillus and Acinetobacter. The similarity network analysis indicates that 144 out of 145 genera of tear cohort matched with conjunctival swabs. However, tear and CS microbiomes differed in the abundance of the predominant bacterial genera. The bacterial microbiome of tears in adults appears to be stable and is comparable with that of CS microbiome.

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

4.5
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