CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 226Oral microbiology and periodontitis researchGut microbiota and healthMicrobial Community Ecology and Physiology

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 54 of the 54 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Inter-personal diversity and temporal dynamics of dental, tongue, and salivary microbiota in the healthy oral cavity

Open access
Hall, Michael W., Singh, Natasha, Ng, Kester F., Lam, David K., Goldberg, Michael B., Tenenbaum, Howard C., Neufeld, Josh D., G. Beiko, Robert, Senadheera, Dilani B.·2017·npj Biofilms and Microbiomes
DOI 10.1038/s41522-016-0011-0PMC PMC5445578
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Oral microbes form a complex and dynamic biofilm community, which is subjected to daily host and environmental challenges. Dysbiosis of the oral biofilm is correlated with local and distal infections and postulating a baseline for the healthy core oral microbiota provides an opportunity to examine such shifts during the onset and recurrence of disease. Here we quantified the daily, weekly, and monthly variability of the oral microbiome by sequencing the largest oral microbiota time-series to date, covering multiple oral sites in ten healthy individuals. Temporal dynamics of salivary, dental, and tongue consortia were examined by high-throughput 16S rRNA gene sequencing over 90 days, with four individuals sampled additionally 1 year later. Distinct communities were observed between dental, tongue, and salivary samples, with high levels of similarity observed between the tongue and salivary communities. Twenty-six core OTUs that classified within Streptococcus, Fusobacterium, Haemophilus, Neisseria, Prevotella , and Rothia genera were present in ≥95% samples and accounted for ~65% of the total sequence data. Phylogenetic diversity varied from person to person, but remained relatively stable within individuals over time compared to inter-individual variation. In contrast, the composition of rare microorganisms was highly variable over time, within most individuals. Using machine learning, an individual's oral microbial assemblage could be correctly assigned to them with 88–97% accuracy, depending on the sample site; 83% of samples taken a year after initial sampling could be confidently traced back to the source subject.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41522-016-0011-0

Cites

54 of 54 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Fig. 1 NMDS ordinations of samples showing sample dissimilarity patterns under the Bray–Curtis measure. a All samples colored by oral site (stress value: 0.16). b Tongue and saliva samples colored by oral site (stress value: 0.20). c All samples colored by subject number (stress value: 0.16). d Supragingival plaque samples colored by subject number (stress value: 0.16). e Tongue and saliva samples colored by subject number (stress value: 0.20)
Fig. 1 NMDS ordinations of samples showing sample dissimilarity patterns under the Bray–Curtis measure. a All samples colored by oral site (stress value: 0.16). b Tongue and saliva samples colored by oral site (stress value: 0.20). c All samples colored by subject number (stress value: 0.16). d Supragingival plaque samples colored by subject number (stress value: 0.16). e Tongue and saliva samples colored by subject number (stress value: 0.20)CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 2 Boxplots of phylogenetic diversity measures. a PD values grouped by sample site (*** = significant at p < 0.001 by pairwise Wilcox test with false discovery rate correction). b PD values grouped by sample site and subject
Fig. 2 Boxplots of phylogenetic diversity measures. a PD values grouped by sample site (*** = significant at p < 0.001 by pairwise Wilcox test with false discovery rate correction). b PD values grouped by sample site and subjectCC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 3 Venn diagram showing the taxonomic classifications of some of the core OTUs present within ≥95% of the samples in the indicated subsets of oral sites. For example, Bulleidia moorei was found in ≥95% of tongue plaque and saliva samples, but <95% of supragingival plaque samples, while Rothia dentocariosa was found in ≥95% of the samples from all three sites. This list is not exhaustive; see Supplementary File 1 for a complete list
Fig. 3 Venn diagram showing the taxonomic classifications of some of the core OTUs present within ≥95% of the samples in the indicated subsets of oral sites. For example, Bulleidia moorei was found in ≥95% of tongue plaque and saliva samples, but <95% of supragingival plaque samples, while Rothia dentocariosa was found in ≥95% of the samples from all three sites. This list is not exhaustive; see Supplementary File 1 for a complete listCC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 4 Lag plots of beta-diversity measures between sample pairs against the time elapsed between sample dates. Yellow lines are the linear least squares regression fits with 95% confidence bands and blue lines are the Loess locally weighted regression curves with 95% confidence bands. a Bray–Curtis distances between saliva samples from subject 7. b Sorensen distances between saliva samples from subject 7. c Sorensen distances between saliva samples from subject 1. d Sorensen distances between saliva samples from subject 10
Fig. 4 Lag plots of beta-diversity measures between sample pairs against the time elapsed between sample dates. Yellow lines are the linear least squares regression fits with 95% confidence bands and blue lines are the Loess locally weighted regression curves with 95% confidence bands. a Bray–Curtis distances between saliva samples from subject 7. b Sorensen distances between saliva samples from subject 7. c Sorensen distances between saliva samples from subject 1. d Sorensen distances between saliva samples from subject 10CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 54 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Marsh, P. D., Martin, M. V., Lewis, M. A. & Williams, D. Oral Microbiol. (Elsevier Health Sciences, 2009).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Hall, M. W., Singh, N., Ng, K. F., Lam, D. K., Goldberg, M. B., Tenenbaum, H. C., Neufeld, J. D., G. Beiko, R., & Senadheera, D. B.
Affiliations
  • Dalhousie University (CA)
  • University of Toronto (CA)
  • Mount Sinai Hospital (CA)
  • University of Waterloo (CA)
Corresponding author
Senadheera, Dilani B.
ORCID
Venue
npj Biofilms and Microbiomes
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2017-01-26
Volume
3
Issue
1
Pages
2-2
ISSN
2055-5008 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1038/s41522-016-0011-0
PMC
PMC5445578
OpenAlex
W2581739967
Cited by
226
References
54
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 29 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 37 · 2020: 42 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 4
FWCI
31.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • npj Biofilms and Microbiomes (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • Canada Research Chairs
  • Canadian Institutes of Health Research (115192)
  • Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Dentistry › Periodontics › Oral microbiology and periodontitis research
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gut microbiota and health
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Microbial Community Ecology and Physiology
Keywords
oral microbiota, temporal dynamics, salivary microbiota, dental plaque microbiota, tongue microbiota, interindividual variability, core microbiome, dental plaque, dysbiosis, phylogenetic diversity, microbial community stability

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review