CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 26

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Direct metagenomics investigation of non-surgical hard-to-heal wounds: a review

Morsli, Madjid, Salipante, Florian, Magnan, Chloé, Dunyach-Remy, Catherine, Sotto, Albert, Lavigne, Jean-Philippe·2024·Annals of Clinical Microbiology and Antimicrobials
DOI 10.1186/s12941-024-00698-z
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background: Non-surgical chronic wounds, including diabetes-related foot diseases (DRFD), pressure injuries (PIs) and venous leg ulcers (VLU), are common hard-to-heal wounds. Wound evolution partly depends on microbial colonisation or infection, which is often confused by clinicians, thereby hampering proper management. Current routine microbiology investigation of these wounds is based on in vitro culture, focusing only on a limited panel of the most frequently isolated bacteria, leaving a large part of the wound microbiome undocumented. Methods: A literature search was conducted on original studies published through October 2022 reporting metagenomic next generation sequencing (mNGS) of chronic wound samples. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they applied 16 S rRNA metagenomics or shotgun metagenomics for microbiome analysis or diagnosis. Case reports, prospective, or retrospective studies were included. However, review articles, animal studies, in vitro model optimisation, benchmarking, treatment optimisation studies, and non-clinical studies were excluded. Articles were identified in PubMed, Google Scholar, Web of Science, Microsoft Academic, Crossref and Semantic Scholar databases. Results: Of the 3,202 articles found in the initial search, 2,336 articles were removed after deduplication and 834 articles following title and abstract screening. A further 14 were removed after full text reading, with 18 articles finally included. Data were provided for 3,628 patients, including 1,535 DRFDs, 956 VLUs, and 791 PIs, with 164 microbial genera and 116 species identified using mNGS approaches. A high microbial diversity was observed depending on the geographical location and wound evolution. Clinically infected wounds were the most diverse, possibly due to a widespread colonisation by pathogenic bacteria from body and environmental microbiota. mNGS data identified the presence of virus (EBV) and fungi (Candida and Aspergillus species), as well as Staphylococcus and Pseudomonas bacteriophages. Conclusion: This study highlighted the benefit of mNGS for time-effective pathogen genome detection. Despite the majority of the included studies investigating only 16 S rDNA, ignoring a part of viral, fungal and parasite colonisation, mNGS detected a large number of bacteria through the included studies. Such technology could be implemented in routine microbiology for hard-to-heal wound microbiota investigation and post-treatment wound colonisation surveillance.

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 · 10.1186/s12941-024-00698-z

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 3 references

Research works printed but not linked: 77

  1. Tomic-Canic M, Burgess JL, O’Neill KE, Strbo N, Pastar I. Skin Microbiota and its Interplay with Wound Healing. Am J Clin Dermatol [Internet]. 2020;21:36–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40257-020-00536-w. · DOI
  2. Lindholm C, Searle R. Wound management for the 21st century: combining effectiveness and efficiency. Int Wound J. 2016;13:5–15. · DOI
  3. Zhao R, Liang H, Clarke E, Jackson C, Xue M. Inflammation in chronic wounds. Int J Mol Sci. 2016;17:1–14. · DOI
  4. Kirsner RS. The wound healing society chronic wound ulcer healing guidelines update of the 2006 guidelines - blending old with new. Wound Repair Regen. 2016;24:110–1. · DOI
  5. Kirsner RS, Vivas AC. Lower-extremity ulcers: diagnosis and management. Br J Dermatol. 2015;173:379–90. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjd.13953. · DOI
  6. Edmonds M, Manu C, Vas P. The current burden of diabetic foot disease. J Clin Orthop Trauma. 2021;17:88–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcot.2021.01.017. · DOI
  7. Jia L, Parker CN, Parker TJ, Kinnear EM, Derhy PH, Alvarado AM, et al. Incidence and risk factors for developing infection in patients presenting with uninfected diabetic foot ulcers. PLoS ONE. 2017;12:1–15. · DOI
  8. Lipsky BA, Senneville É, Abbas ZG, Aragón-Sánchez J, Diggle M, Embil JM, et al. Guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of foot infection in persons with diabetes (IWGDF 2019 update). Diabetes Metab Res Rev. 2020;36:e3280. · DOI
  9. Edsberg LE, Black JM, Goldberg M, McNichol L, Moore L, Sieggreen M. Revised National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel Pressure Injury Staging System. J Wound, Ostomy Cont Nurs. 2016;43:585–97. · DOI
  10. Gomes F, Furtado GE, Henriques M, Sousa LB, Santos-Costa P, Bernardes R, et al. The skin microbiome of infected pressure ulcers: a review and implications for health professionals. Eur J Clin Invest. 2022;52:1–17. · DOI
  11. Papp AA. Incisional negative pressure therapy reduces complications and costs in pressure ulcer reconstruction. Int Wound J. 2019;16:394–400. · DOI
  12. Probst S, Weller CD, Bobbink P, Saini C, Pugliese M, Skinner MB, et al. Prevalence and incidence of venous leg ulcers—a protocol for a systematic review. Syst Rev. 2021;10:1–4. · DOI
  13. Li S, Renick P, Senkowsky J, Nair A, Tang L. Diagnostics for Wound infections. Adv Wound Care. 2021;10:317–27. · DOI
  14. Rahim K, Saleha S, Zhu X, Huo L, Basit A, Franco OL. Bacterial contribution in chronicity of wounds. Microb Ecol. 2017;73:710–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00248-016-0867-9. · DOI
  15. Avila-Herrera A, Thissen JB, Mulakken N, Schobel SA, Morrison MD, Zhou X, et al. Metagenomic features of bioburden serve as outcome indicators in combat extremity wounds. Sci Rep. 2022;12:1–17. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-16170-x. · DOI
  16. Wolcott RD, Hanson JD, Rees EJ, Koenig LD, Phillips CD, Wolcott RA, et al. Analysis of the chronic wound microbiota of 2,963 patients by 16S rDNA pyrosequencing. Wound Repair Regen. 2016;24:163–74. · DOI
  17. Dunyach-Remy C, Salipante F, Lavigne JP, Brunaud M, Demattei C, Yahiaoui-Martinez A et al. Pressure ulcers microbiota dynamics and wound evolution. Sci Rep. 2021;11. · DOI
  18. Sergent AP, Slekovec C, Pauchot J, Jeunet L, Bertrand X, Hocquet D, et al. Bacterial contamination of the hospital environment during wound dressing change. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2012;98:441–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2012.02.005. · DOI
  19. Giamarellou H, Antoniadou A, Kanellakopoulou K. Acinetobacter baumannii: a universal threat to public health? Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2008;32:106–19. · DOI
  20. Çitil MU, Mete E, Oğuz EO, Abban Mete G, Şahin B, Kaleli İ. Investigation of the effect of ibuprofen on wound healing in experimental Staphylococcus aureus soft tissue infections. Mikrobiyol Bul. 2015;49:166–80. · DOI
  21. Kramer A, Dissemond J, Kim S, Willy C, Mayer D, Papke R, et al. Consensus on Wound Antisepsis: Update 2018. Skin Pharmacol Physiol. 2018;31:28–58. · DOI
  22. Stańkowska M, Garbacz K, Korzon-Burakowska A, Bronk M, Skotarczak M, Szymańska-Dubowik A. Microbiological, clinical and radiological aspects of diabetic foot ulcers infected with methicillin-resistant and-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus. Pathogens. 2022;11:701. · DOI
  23. Heravi FS, Zakrzewski M, Vickery K, Armstrong DG, Hu H. Bacterial diversity of diabetic foot ulcers: current status and future prospectives. J Clin Med. 2019;8:1935. · DOI
  24. Hoyo J, Bassegoda A, Ferreres G, Hinojosa-Caballero D, Gutiérrez-Capitán M, Baldi A, et al. Rapid colorimetric detection of wound infection with a fluidic paper device. Int J Mol Sci. 2022;23:9129. · DOI
  25. Diban F, Di Lodovico S, Di Fermo P, D’Ercole S, D’Arcangelo S, Di Giulio M, et al. Biofilms in chronic wound infections: innovative antimicrobial approaches using the in vitro lubbock chronic wound biofilm model. Int J Mol Sci. 2023;24:1004. · DOI
  26. Esin S, Kaya E, Maisetta G, Romanelli M, Batoni G. The antibacterial and antibiofilm activity of Granudacyn in vitro in a 3D collagen wound infection model. J Wound Care. 2022;31:908–22. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36367808/. · DOI
  27. Wolcott RD, Gontcharova V, Sun Y, Dowd SE. Evaluation of the bacterial diversity among and within individual venous leg ulcers using bacterial tag-encoded FLX and Titanium amplicon pyrosequencing and metagenomic approaches. BMC Microbiol. 2009;9:1–11. · DOI
  28. Johani K, Fritz BG, Bjarnsholt T, Lipsky BA, Jensen SO, Yang M, et al. Understanding the microbiome of diabetic foot osteomyelitis: insights from molecular and microscopic approaches. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2019;25:332–9. http://www.clinicalmicrobiologyandinfection.com/article/S1198743X1830421X/fulltext. · DOI
  29. Park JU, Oh B, Lee JP, Choi MH, Lee MJ, Kim BS. Influence of microbiota on diabetic foot wound in comparison with adjacent normal skin based on the clinical features. Biomed Res Int. 2020;2019:7459236. · DOI
  30. Zou M, Cai Y, Hu P, Cao Y, Luo X, Fan X, et al. Analysis of the composition and functions of the microbiome in diabetic foot osteomyelitis based on 16s rRNA and metagenome sequencing technology. Diabetes. 2020;69:2423–39. · DOI
  31. Moon J, Kim N, Lee HS, Lee ST, Jung KH, Park KI, et al. Nanopore 16S amplicon sequencing enhances the understanding of pathogens in medically intractable diabetic foot infections. Diabetes. 2021;70:1357–71. · DOI
  32. Jnana A, Muthuraman V, Varghese VH, Chakrabarty S, Murali TS, Ramachandra L, et al. Microbial community distribution and core microbiome in successive wound grades of individuals with diabetic foot ulcers. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2020;86:e02608-19. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31924616/. · DOI
  33. Suryaletha K, John J, Radhakrishnan MP, George S, Thomas S. Metataxonomic approach to decipher the polymicrobial burden in diabetic foot ulcer and its biofilm mode of infection. Int Wound J. 2018;15:473–81. · DOI
  34. Chen Y, Shi Y, Zhu W, You J, Yang J, Xie Y, et al. Combining CRISPR-Cas12a-based technology and metagenomics next generation sequencing: a new paradigm for rapid and full-scale detection of microbes in infectious diabetic foot samples. Front Microbiol. 2021;12:742040. · DOI
  35. Saeb ATM, Tayeb HT, Ouizi S, Nassar MS, Alfadda A, Raja GKU, et al. Comparative investigation of the diabetic foot ulcer microbiome. bioRxiv [Internet]. 2021.01.21.427721. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2021/01/22/2021.01.21.427721.
  36. Mudrik-Zohar H, Carasso S, Gefen T, Zalmanovich A, Katzir M, Cohen Y, et al. Microbiome characterization of infected diabetic foot ulcers in association with clinical outcomes: traditional cultures versus molecular sequencing methods. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2022;12:836699. · DOI
  37. Yang WT, Chiang I, Tseng CH, Cheng C, Lin JH, Liu PY, et al. Metagenomic sequencing and histology on a chronic wound identified Epstein-Barr virus-associated lymphoma. Evol Bioinform Online. 2022;18:11769343221110663. · DOI
  38. Choi Y, Oda E, Waldman O, Sajda T, Beck C, Oh I. Next-generation sequencing for pathogen identification in infected foot ulcers. Foot Ankle Orthop. 2021;6:1–8. · DOI
  39. Kalan LR, Meisel JS, Loesche MA, Horwinski J, Soaita I, Chen X, et al. Efficacy Cell Host Microbe. 2019;25:641–55. · DOI
  40. Radzieta M, Sadeghpour-Heravi F, Peters TJ, Hu H, Vickery K, Jeffries T, et al. A multiomics approach to identify host-microbe alterations associated with infection severity in diabetic foot infections: a pilot study. NPJ Biofilms Microbiomes [Internet]. 2021;7:29. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41522-021-00202-x. · DOI
  41. Gardiner M, Vicaretti M, Sparks J, Bansal S, Bush S, Liu M, et al. A longitudinal study of the diabetic skin and wound microbiome. PeerJ. 2017;2017:3543. · DOI
  42. Malone M, Johani K, Jensen SO, Gosbell IB, Dickson HG, Hu H, et al. Next generation DNA sequencing of tissues from infected Diabetic Foot Ulcers. EBioMedicine. 2017;21:142–9. · DOI
  43. Dunyach-Remy C, Salipante F, Lavigne JP, Brunaud M, Demattei C, Yahiaoui-Martinez A, et al. Pressure ulcers microbiota dynamics and wound evolution. Sci Rep. 2020;11:18506. · DOI
  44. Ladhani HA, Yowler CJ, Claridge JA. Burn wound colonization, infection, and sepsis. 2021;22:44–8. https://doi.org/10.1089/sur.2020.346. · DOI
  45. Bowler PG. Wound pathophysiology, infection and therapeutic options. Ann Med. 2002;34:419–27. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/078538902321012360. · DOI
  46. Tomic-Canic M, Burgess JL, O’Neill KE, Strbo N, Pastar I. Skin microbiota and its interplay with Wound Healing. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2020;21:36–43. · DOI
  47. Tang Q, Xue N, Ding X, Tsai KHY, Hew JJ, Jiang R, et al. Role of wound microbiome, strategies of microbiota delivery system and clinical management. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2023;192:114671. · DOI
  48. Pohl HG, Groah SL, Pérez-Losada M, Ljungberg I, Sprague BM, Chandal N, et al. The urine microbiome of healthy men and women differs by urine collection method. Int Neurourol J. 2020;24:41–51. · DOI
  49. Ogai K, Nana BC, Lloyd YM, Arios JP, Jiyarom B, Awanakam H, et al. Skin microbiome profile of healthy Cameroonians and Japanese. Sci Rep. 2022;12:1364. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-05244-5. · DOI
  50. Dréno B, Araviiskaia E, Berardesca E, Gontijo G, Sanchez Viera M, Xiang LF, et al. Microbiome in healthy skin, update for dermatologists. J Eur Acad Dermatology Venereol. 2016;30:2038–47. · DOI · Paper page
  51. Zeng Q, Li D, He Y, Li Y, Yang Z, Zhao X, et al. Discrepant gut microbiota markers for the classification of obesity-related metabolic abnormalities. Sci Rep. 2019;9:13424. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-49462-w. · DOI
  52. Elizabeth A, Grice, Julia A. Segre. The skin microbiome. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2011;588:S209.
  53. Shahi SK, Zarei K, Guseva NV, Mangalam AK. Microbiota analysis using two-step PCR and next-generation 16S rRNA gene sequencing. J Vis Exp. 2019;152:10.3791/59980. · DOI
  54. Ge Y, Wang Q. Current research on fungi in chronic wounds. Front Mol Biosci. 2023;9:1057766. · DOI
  55. Chin K-Y. Editorial: new strategies for the diagnosis and treatment of multi-drug resistant bacteria or fungi in wounds. Front Mol Biosci. 2023;10:1248534. · DOI
  56. Verbanic S, Deacon JM, Chen IA. The chronic wound phageome: phage diversity and associations with wounds and healing outcomes. Microbiol Spectr. 2022;10:e0277721. · DOI
  57. Verbanic S, Shen Y, Lee J, Deacon JM, Chen IA. Microbial predictors of healing and short-term effect of debridement on the microbiome of chronic wounds. NPJ Biofilms Microbiomes. 2020;6:21. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41522-020-0130-5. · DOI
  58. Sen CK. Human wound and its Burden: updated 2020 Compendium of estimates. Adv Wound Care. 2021;10:281–92. · DOI
  59. Yu Y, Dunaway S, Champer J, Kim J, Alikhan A. Changing our microbiome: probiotics in dermatology. Br J Dermatol. 2020;182:39–46. · DOI
  60. Johnson TR, Gómez BI, McIntyre MK, Dubick MA, Christy RJ, Nicholson SE, et al. The cutaneous microbiome and wounds: new molecular targets to promote wound healing. Int J Mol Sci. 2018;19:2699. · DOI
  61. Bjarnsholt T. The role of bacterial biofilms in chronic infections. APMIS Suppl. 2013;1–51. · DOI
  62. Grice EA, Segre JA. Interaction of the microbiome with the innate immune response in chronic wounds. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2012;946:55–68. · DOI
  63. Yatsunenko T, Rey FE, Manary MJ, Trehan I, Dominguez-Bello MG, Contreras M, et al. Human gut microbiome viewed across age and geography. Nature. 2012;486:222–7. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22699611/. · DOI · Paper page
  64. Pasolli E, Asnicar F, Manara S, Zolfo M, Karcher N, Armanini F, et al. Extensive unexplored human microbiome diversity revealed by over 150,000 genomes from metagenomes spanning age, geography, and lifestyle. Cell. 2019;176:649. · DOI · Paper page
  65. Frank DN, Wysocki A, Specht-Glick DD, Rooney A, Feldman RA, St Amand AL, et al. Microbial diversity in chronic open wounds. Wound Repair Regen. 2009;17:163–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-475X.2009.00472.x. · DOI · Paper page
  66. Pang M, Yao Z, Chen C, Lei X, Cheng B. Human-microorganism mutualism theory: possible mechanisms for the delayed chronic wound healing process. Med Hypotheses. 2020;141:109720. · DOI
  67. Black CE, Costerton JW. Current concepts regarding the Effect of Wound Microbial Ecology and Biofilms on Wound Healing. Surg Clin North Am. 2010;90:1147–60. · DOI · Paper page
  68. Wall IB, Davies CE, Hill KE, Wilson MJ, Stephens P, Harding KG, et al. Potential role of anaerobic cocci in impaired human wound healing. Wound Repair Regen. 2002;10:346–53. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1524-475X.2002.t01-1-10602.x. · DOI · Paper page
  69. Dekker D, Pankok F, Thye T, Taudien S, Oppong K, Akenten CW, et al. Clonal clusters, molecular resistance mechanisms and virulence factors of gram-negative bacteria isolated from chronic wounds in Ghana. 2021;10:339. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics10030339. · DOI
  70. Pang M, Zhu M, Lei X, Xu P, Cheng B. Microbiome imbalances: an overlooked potential mechanism in chronic nonhealing wounds. Int J Low Extrem Wounds. 2019;18:31–41. · DOI
  71. Ammons MCB, Morrissey K, Tripet BP, Van Leuven JT, Han A, Lazarus GS, et al. Biochemical association of metabolic profile and microbiome in chronic pressure ulcer wounds. PLoS ONE. 2015;10:1–22. · DOI
  72. Moysidis M, Stavrou G, Cheva A, Abba Deka I, Tsetis JK, Birba V, et al. The 3-D configuration of excisional skin wound healing after topical probiotic application. Injury. 2022;53:1385–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2022.02.006. · DOI
  73. Tarapatzi G, Filidou E, Kandilogiannakis L, Spathakis M, Gaitanidou M, Arvanitidis K, et al. The probiotic strains Bifidοbacterium lactis, Lactobacillus acidophilus, Lactiplantibacillus plantarum and Saccharomyces boulardii regulate wound healing and chemokine responses in human intestinal subepithelial myofibroblasts. Pharmaceuticals. 2022;15:1293. · DOI
  74. Plumet L, Morsli M, Ahmad-Mansour N, Clavijo-Coppens F, Berry L, Sotto A, et al. Isolation and characterization of new bacteriophages against staphylococcal clinical isolates from diabetic foot ulcers. Viruses 2023;15:2287. https://doi.org/10.3390/v15122287. · DOI
  75. Karkhanis AV, Lee S, Chan J, Navasankari R, Farissa A, Afandi B, et al. Poster ID 238/(N) metabolimic biomarkers dicovery of chronc venous leg and diabetic foot ulcers in an Asian population 2022;2–3. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359279208_Metabolomic_Biomarker_Discovery_of_Chronic_Venous_Leg_and_Diabetic_Foot_Ulcers_in_Asian_Population.
  76. Jost G, Schwendener S, Liassine N, Perreten V. Methicillin-resistant Macrococcus canis in a human wound. Infect Genet Evol. 2021;96:105125. · DOI
  77. Whittle E, Yonkus JA, Jeraldo P, Alva-Ruiz R, Nelson H, Kendrick ML, et al. Optimizing nanopore sequencing for rapid detection of microbial species and antimicrobial resistance in patients at risk of surgical site infections. mSphere. 2022;7:e0096421. · DOI

Metadata

Authors
Morsli, M., Salipante, F., Magnan, C., Dunyach-Remy, C., Sotto, A., & Lavigne, J.-P.
Venue
Annals of Clinical Microbiology and Antimicrobials
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2024-05-03
Volume
23
Issue
1
ISSN
1476-0711
DOI
10.1186/s12941-024-00698-z
Cited by
26
References
3
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