Effects of specimen collection methodologies and storage conditions on the short-term stability of oral microbiome taxonomy
Open accessAbstract
UNLABELLED: Community profiling of the oral microbiome requires the recovery of quality sequences in order to accurately describe microbial community structure and composition. Our objective was to assess the effects of specimen collection method, storage medium, and storage conditions on the relative abundance of taxa in saliva and plaque identified using 16S rRNA genes. We also assessed short-term changes in taxon composition and relative abundance and compared the salivary and dental plaque communities in children and adults. Over a 2-week period, four successive saliva and dental plaque specimens were collected from four adults with no dental decay (108 samples), and two successive specimens were collected from six children with four or more erupted teeth (48 samples). There were minimal differences in community composition at the phylum and operational taxonomic unit levels between dental plaque collection using a scaler and collection using a CytoSoft brush. Plaque samples stored in OMNIgene medium showed higher within-sample Shannon diversity, were compositionally different, and were more similar to each other than plaque stored in liquid dental transport medium. Saliva samples stored in OMNIgene recovered similar communities for at least a week following storage at room temperature. However, the microbial communities recovered from plaque and saliva stored in OMNIgene were significantly different in composition from their counterparts stored in liquid dental transport medium. Dental plaque communities collected from the same tooth type over four successive visits from the same adult did not significantly differ in structure or composition. IMPORTANCE: Large-scale epidemiologic studies require collection over time and space, often with multiple teams collecting, storing, and processing data. Therefore, it is essential to understand how sensitive study results are to modest changes in collection and storage protocols that may occur with variation in personnel, resources available at a study site, and shipping requirements. The research presented in this paper measures the effects of multiple storage parameters and collection methodologies on the measured ecology of the oral microbiome from healthy adults and children. These results will potentially enable investigators to conduct oral microbiome studies at maximal efficiency by guiding informed administrative decisions pertaining to the necessary field or clinical work.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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.
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?
There remains a high degree of variability in results on nitrate-reducing bacteria depending on methodological factors, including source and sampling of sample, direct sampling versus culture, and choice of 16S variable region for sequencing.
“Yet, despite these varied attempts, there remains a high degree of variability in results depending on numerous methodological factors[206], including source and sampling of sample (saliva versus oral wash versus tongue scraping), direct sampling versus culture, and choice of 16S variable region for sequencing.”
From Enterosalivary nitrate metabolism and the microbiome: Intersection of microbial metabolism, nitric oxide and diet in cardiac and pulmonary vascular health (2017) · cites this paper as [206]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 38 · Cited by 45
- Authors
- Luo, T., Srinivasan, U., Ramadugu, K., Shedden, K. A., Neiswanger, K., Trumble, E., Li, J. J., McNeil, D. W., Crout, R. J., Weyant, R. J., Marazita, M. L., & Foxman, B.
- Affiliations
- University of Michigan (US)
- University of Pittsburgh (US)
- University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
- West Virginia University (US)
- ORCID
- Venue
- Applied and Environmental Microbiology
- Publisher
- American Society for Microbiology
- Published
- 2016-09-15
- Volume
- 82
- Issue
- 18
- Pages
- 5519-5529
- ISSN
- 0099-2240 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-5336
- PMC
- PMC5007772
- OpenAlex
- W2470672650
- Cited by
- 45
- References
- 38
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1
- FWCI
- 4.97
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Applied and Environmental Microbiology (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- HHS | NIH | National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (R01 DE014899)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Dentistry › Periodontics › Oral microbiology and periodontitis research
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gut microbiota and health
- Health Sciences › Dentistry › General Dentistry › Dental Research and COVID-19
- Keywords
- oral microbiota, saliva, dental plaque, specimen collection methods, sample storage conditions, 16S rRNA gene sequencing, microbial community stability
- MeSH terms
- Bacteria, Dental Plaque, DNA, Ribosomal, Humans, Phylogeny, RNA, Ribosomal, 16S, Saliva, Specimen Handling, Cluster Analysis, Sequence Analysis, DNA, Microbiota
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