AI Article Synopsis

  • * Analysis of different sample types (saliva and oral rinse) showed lower microbial diversity in HNC saliva compared to healthy samples, with varying results based on the sequencing method used.
  • * Despite challenges with 16S rRNA sequencing, the study found effective models for distinguishing HNC using specific saliva and oral rinse samples, emphasizing the importance of consistent methodology for accurate interpretations.

Article Abstract

The oral microbiome, studied by sampling the saliva or by oral rinse, has been long thought to have diagnostic capacity for head and neck cancers (HNC). However, previous reports on the HNC oral microbiome provide inconsistent results. The aim of this study is to consolidate these datasets and determine the oral microbial composition between HNC patients to healthy and premalignant individuals. We analyzed 16 published head and neck cancer (HNC) short-read 16S rRNA sequencing datasets, specifically targeting the V3V4, V4 and V4V5 regions. These datasets included saliva and oral rinse samples from donors with HNC, as well as from healthy and premalignant donors. Differences in diversities and microbial abundance were determined. HNC saliva displayed lower alpha diversity than healthy donors. In contrast, the opposite trend was observed for oral rinse samples. Beta diversity scores were largely similar across different patient types. Similar oral phyla were detected for all samples, but proportions were largely dependent on sample type (i.e., saliva or oral rinse) and primer set utilized for 16S rRNA sequencing. , and were elevated in healthy saliva, while was elevated in HNC saliva. Oral rinse and saliva displayed similar enrichment for , while , , and showed conflicting results. The sparse partial least squares discriminant analysis model performed effectively in discriminating HNC from healthy or premalignant patients using V3V4 saliva (AUC = 0.888) and V3V4 oral rinse (AUC = 0.928), while poor discriminative capacity was observed for V4 saliva (AUC = 0.688). In conclusion, our meta-analysis highlighted the limitations of 16S rRNA sequencing, particularly due to variations across study batches, primer sets (i.e., V3V4, V4), and sample types. Hence, caution should be exercised when interpreting 16S rRNA sequencing results across studies, especially when different primer sets and sample types are used.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11510575PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/pathogens13100826DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

oral rinse
24
16s rrna
20
rrna sequencing
20
saliva oral
16
oral microbiome
12
head neck
12
healthy premalignant
12
oral
11
saliva
9
short-read 16s
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!