CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 9

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Dysbiosis of Oral Microbiota Associated with Palmoplantar Pustulosis

Kageyama, Yasunari, Shimokawa, Yutaka, Kawauchi, Kimihiko, Morimoto, Masafumi, Aida, Koichi, Akiyama, Tetsu, Nakamura, Tsutomu·2021·Dermatology
DOI 10.1159/000511622
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background: Dysbiosis of oral microbiota is implicated not only in oral inflammatory lesions, but also in a variety of extraoral diseases. The etiology of palmoplantar pustulosis (PPP) remains unclear; however, it has been suggested that chronic inflammation caused by periodontopathic bacterial infection may play a role. Objectives/Methods: To determine whether patients with PPP have altered diversity and composition of oral microbiota, we conducted the 16S rDNA analysis using saliva samples collected from 21 outpatients with PPP and 10 healthy individuals. Results: We found that the proportion of bacteria in the phylum Proteobacteria was significantly lower in PPP patients (p = 0.025). At the genus level, patients with PPP had a significantly lower abundance of Neisseria (p = 0.014), which best accounted for the observed decrease in Proteobacteria. We also identified multiple minor genera and species that were represented at a significantly higher level in the PPP group, several of which have been associated with periodontal diseases. Conclusion: Our results suggest a possible link between PPP and dysbiosis of oral microbiota, particularly the lower abundance of Neisseria, the most predominant genus of Proteobacteria in healthy oral microbiota. Probiotics that improves oral dysbiosis may be beneficial for patients with PPP as an adjunctive therapy.

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 · 10.1159/000511622

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Fig. 1 Flowchart of the Materials and Methods.
Fig. 1 Flowchart of the Materials and Methods.CC-BY-NC · From the PDF
Fig. 2 α- and β-Diversity comparisons of the oral microbiomes of the PPP and HC groups. a-d α-Diversity comparisons based on the species richness ( a ), species evenness ( b ), and species diversity ( c , d ). The mean values and outliers are shown by cross marks and open circles, respectively. Species richness, defined as the number of species identified in each sample, is the simplest measure of biodiversity. Pielou's evenness is a good measure of 'relative evenness' for each community. Species diversity (Shannon index and
Fig. 2 α- and β-Diversity comparisons of the oral microbiomes of the PPP and HC groups. a-d α-Diversity comparisons based on the species richness ( a ), species evenness ( b ), and species diversity ( c , d ). The mean values and outliers are shown by cross marks and open circles, respectively. Species richness, defined as the number of species identified in each sample, is the simplest measure of biodiversity. Pielou's evenness is a good measure of 'relative evenness' for each community. Species diversity (Shannon index andCC-BY-NC · From the PDF
(For legend see next page.)
(For legend see next page.)CC-BY-NC · From the PDF
Fig. 4 Taxonomic composition analysis of the oral microbiomes of the PPP and HC groups at the genus level. a Comparisons of the genus-level abundance within Proteobacteria of PPP and HC are shown in bar plots. The genera representing < 0.1% of the total oral microbes of HC are included in 'others.' b-e Comparisons of the
Fig. 4 Taxonomic composition analysis of the oral microbiomes of the PPP and HC groups at the genus level. a Comparisons of the genus-level abundance within Proteobacteria of PPP and HC are shown in bar plots. The genera representing < 0.1% of the total oral microbes of HC are included in 'others.' b-e Comparisons of theCC-BY-NC · From the PDF
Image 5
CC-BY-NC · From the PDF

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 2 references

Research works printed but not linked: 44

  1. 10.1038/nrdp.2017.38 · DOI · Paper page
  2. 10.1177/0022034517742139 · DOI · Paper page
  3. 10.1177/0022034518805739 · DOI · Paper page
  4. 10.1038/sj.bdj.2018.217 · DOI
  5. 10.1111/odi.12589 · DOI
  6. 10.1111/odi.12472 · DOI
  7. 10.1016/j.atherosclerosis.2015.10.097 · DOI
  8. 10.1073/pnas.1011383107 · DOI · Paper page
  9. 10.1016/j.atherosclerosis.2012.05.021 · DOI
  10. 10.1111/eos.12423 · DOI
  11. 10.1111/jre.12432 · DOI
  12. 10.1371/journal.pone.0204724 · DOI
  13. 10.1002/art.34539 · DOI
  14. 10.1038/nm.3914 · DOI · Paper page
  15. 10.1186/s40168-017-0252-z · DOI
  16. 10.1016/j.jaut.2018.10.009 · DOI
  17. 10.1038/srep23561 · DOI
  18. 10.1093/rheumatology/key215 · DOI
  19. 10.1111/j.1346-8138.1995.tb03948.x · DOI
  20. 10.1046/j.1365-2133.1998.02113.x · DOI
  21. 10.3233/BME-2009-0563 · DOI
  22. 10.1067/mjd.2000.104305 · DOI
  23. 10.2340/00015555-1552 · DOI
  24. 10.1111/1346-8138.13751 · DOI
  25. 10.3389/fmicb.2015.00119 · DOI
  26. 10.1902/jop.2012.110566 · DOI
  27. 10.1186/1472-6831-14-157 · DOI
  28. 10.1111/jcpe.12470 · DOI
  29. 10.1038/nmicrobiol.2016.70 · DOI
  30. 10.1128/AEM.00462-17 · DOI
  31. 10.1038/ismej.2008.91 · DOI
  32. 10.3389/fmicb.2017.02244 · DOI
  33. 10.1002/1097-0215(20001101)88:3<342::AID-IJC4>3.0.CO;2-I · DOI
  34. 10.1080/20002297.2018.1492316 · DOI
  35. 10.3402/jom.v2i0.5104 · DOI
  36. 10.1111/j.1600-0765.2012.01516.x · DOI
  37. 10.1016/j.micpath.2015.11.029 · DOI
  38. 10.1111/j.1462-2920.2009.01949.x · DOI
  39. 10.1111/j.1462-2920.2009.02135.x · DOI
  40. 10.1177/0022034515594779 · DOI
  41. 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2009.01392.x · DOI
  42. 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2012.01914.x · DOI
  43. 10.3920/BM2017.0139 · DOI
  44. 10.1080/20002297.2019.1586422 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Kageyama, Y., Shimokawa, Y., Kawauchi, K., Morimoto, M., Aida, K., Akiyama, T., & Nakamura, T.
Venue
Dermatology
Publisher
S. Karger AG
Published
2020-12-04
Volume
237
Issue
3
Pages
347-356
ISSN
  • 1018-8665
  • 1421-9832
DOI
10.1159/000511622
Cited by
9
References
2
Language
en
Licence

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