ABSTRACT
Aim: The goal of this study is to compare microbiome composition in three different sample types in women, namely stool brought from home vs. solid stool samples obtained at the time of an unprepped sigmoidoscopy vs. biopsies of the colonic mucosa at the time of an unprepped sigmoidoscopy, using alpha- and beta-diversity metrics following bacterial 16S rRNA sequencing. The findings may have relevance to health and disease states in which bacterial metabolism has a significant impact on molecules/metabolites that are recirculated between the gut lumen and mucosa and systemic circulation, such as estrogens (as in breast cancer) or bile acids. Methods: Concomitant at-home-collected stool, endoscopically-collected stool, and colonic biopsy samples were collected from 48 subjects (24 breast cancer, 24 control.) After 16S rRNA sequencing, an amplicon sequence variant (ASV) based approach was used to analyze the data. Alpha diversity metrics (Chao1, Pielou's Evenness, Faith PD, Shannon, and Simpson) and beta diversity metrics (Bray-Curtis, Weighted and Unweighted Unifrac) were calculated. LEfSe was used to analyze differences in the abundance of various taxa between sample types. Results: Alpha and beta diversity metrics were significantly different between the three sample types. Biopsy samples were different than stool samples in all metrics. The highest variation in microbiome diversity was noted in the colonic biopsy samples. At-home and endoscopically-collected stool showed more similarities in count-based and weighted beta diversity metrics. There were significant differences in rare taxa and phylogenetically-diverse taxa between the two types of stool samples. Generally, there were higher levels of Proteobacteria in biopsy samples, with significantly more Actinobacteria and Firmicutes in stool (all p < 0.001, q-value < 0.05). Overall, there was a significantly higher relative abundance of Lachnospiraceae and Ruminococcaceae in stool samples (at-home collected and endoscopically-collected) and higher abundances of Tisserellaceae in biopsy samples (all p < 0.001, q-value < 0.05). Conclusion: Our data shows that different sampling methods can impact results when looking at the composition of the gut microbiome using ASV-based approaches.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: Bowel preparations (BPs) taken before colonoscopy may introduce a confounding effect on the results of gastrointestinal microbiota studies. This study aimed to determine the effect of bowel preparation on the mucosa-associated and luminal colonic microbiota in healthy subjects (HC) and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients. METHODS: Biopsy samples (n=36) and fecal samples (n=30) were collected from 10 HC and 8 IBD subjects pre- and post-BP. 16S rRNA gene was pyrosequenced using 454 Titanium protocols. We compared the differences between the pre- and post-BP samples (i.e., comparisons-across-bowel-prep); we examined the effect of BP on the expected separation of the mucosal vs. the luminal compartments (i.e., comparisons-across-compartments). Last, we compared the baseline differences between the HC vs. IBD groups (a secondary analysis), and examined whether the differences between the HC vs. IBD changed after BP. RESULTS: In comparisons-across-bowel-prep, the Shannon's index (SI) decreased only in the biopsy samples of IBD subjects post-BP (P=0.025) and phylogenetic diversity-whole tree (PD-WT) metric decreased in biopsy samples of HC subjects post-BP (P=0.021). In secondary comparisons, the subtle differences between the fecal samples of the HC vs. IBD groups, in terms of evenness and the SI, were not apparent post-BP. In terms of ß-diversity, in comparisons-across-bowel-prep, the proportion of shared operational taxonomic units (OTUs) in pre- and post-BP samples was low (~30%) and unweighted Unifrac distances between pre- and post-BP specimens ranged from 0.52 to 0.66. HC biopsies were affected more than IBD biopsies with BP (P=0.004). In comparisons-across-compartments, the proportion of shared OTUs between biopsy and fecal samples increased and Unifrac distances decreased post-BP in IBD subjects, reducing the differences between the mucosal and luminal compartments of the gut microbiota. Interindividual differences in Unifrac distances were preserved even with BP effects, although the effects were greater on weighted Unifrac distances. Bacteroidetes and its subtypes increased post-BP in both the luminal and mucosal compartments. CONCLUSIONS: Bowel preparations affect the composition and diversity of the fecal and luminal microbiota in the short term, introducing potential bias into experiments examining the gut microbiota. The magnitude of the effect of BP is not greater than that of interindividual variation. Both the luminal and mucosal compartments of the gut microbiota get affected, and samples from controls and IBD subjects may get affected differently. Studies of the colonic microbiota should take into account the direction and the magnitude of the change introduced by BP during the design stage of the experiments, and consider sample sizes so that potential bias is minimized.
