CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 77

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 15 of the 15 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Profiling the Salivary microbiome of the Qatari population

Murugesan, Selvasankar, Al Ahmad, Sara Fahad, Singh, Parul, Saadaoui, Marwa, Kumar, Manoj, Al Khodor, Souhaila·2020·Journal of Translational Medicine
DOI 10.1186/s12967-020-02291-2PMC PMC7071716
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background: The role of the human microbiome in human health and disease has been studied in various body sites. However, compared to the gut microbiome, where most of the research focus is, the salivary microbiome still bears a vast amount of information that needs to be revealed. This study aims to characterize the salivary microbiome composition in the Qatari population, and to explore specific microbial signatures that can be associated with various lifestyles and different oral conditions. Materials and methods: We characterized the salivary microbiome of 997 Qatari adults using high-throughput sequencing of the V1–V3 region of the 16S rRNA gene. Results: In this study, we have characterized the salivary microbiome of 997 Qatari participants. Our data show that Bacteroidetes , Firmicutes , Actinobacteria and Proteobacteria are the common phyla isolated from the saliva samples, with Bacteroidetes being the most predominant phylum. Bacteroidetes was also more predominant in males versus females in the study cohort, although differences in the microbial diversity were not statistically significant. We also show that, a lower diversity of the salivary microbiome is observed in the elderly participants, with Prevotella and Treponema being the most significant genera. In participants with oral conditions such as mouth ulcers, bleeding or painful gum, our data show that Prevotella and Capnocytophaga are the most dominant genera as compared to the controls. Similar patterns were observed in participants with various smoking habits as compared to the non-smoking participants. Our data show that Streptococcus and Neisseria are more dominant among denture users, as compared to the non-denture users. Our data also show that, abnormal oral conditions are associated with a reduced microbial diversity and microbial richness. Moreover, in this study we show that frequent coffee drinkers have higher microbial diversity compared to the non-drinkers, indicating that coffee may cause changes to the salivary microbiome. Furthermore, tea drinkers show higher microbial richness as compared to the non-tea drinkers. Conclusion: This is the first study to assess the salivary microbiome in an Arab population, and one of the largest population-based studies aiming to the characterize the salivary microbiome composition and its association with age, oral health, denture use, smoking and coffee-tea consumption.

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/s12967-020-02291-2

Cites

15 of 15 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Fig. 1 Gender and the salivary microbiome. Y-axis shows % of relative abundance; X-axis indicates the microbial abundance in males and females; each taxonomic category is shown by a different color: a at the phylum level; b at the genus level; c graphs of linear discriminant analysis (LDA) scores for differentially abundant bacterial phyla and genera; among the two groups. LDA scores indicate overrepresented bacteria in males (green) and females (red). Features with LDA scores ≥ 2 are presented. d Alpha diversity measures for the two groups. Alpha diversity was measured by the number of OTUs observed or by the Chao1, Shannon and Simpson diversity measures; e Principle Coordinates Analysis (PCoA) based on Bray–Curtis dissimilarities of salivary microbiome. Axes are scaled to the amount of variation explained; *P < 0.05
Fig. 1 Gender and the salivary microbiome. Y-axis shows % of relative abundance; X-axis indicates the microbial abundance in males and females; each taxonomic category is shown by a different color: a at the phylum level; b at the genus level; c graphs of linear discriminant analysis (LDA) scores for differentially abundant bacterial phyla and genera; among the two groups. LDA scores indicate overrepresented bacteria in males (green) and females (red). Features with LDA scores ≥ 2 are presented. d Alpha diversity measures for the two groups. Alpha diversity was measured by the number of OTUs observed or by the Chao1, Shannon and Simpson diversity measures; e Principle Coordinates Analysis (PCoA) based on Bray–Curtis dissimilarities of salivary microbiome. Axes are scaled to the amount of variation explained; *P < 0.05CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 2 The salivary microbiome composition and aging. Y-axis shows % of relative abundance; X-axis indicates the microbial abundance in males and females; each taxonomic category is shown by a different color: a at the phylum level; b at the genus level; c graphs of linear discriminant analysis (LDA) scores for differentially abundant bacterial phyla and genera; among the two groups. LDA scores indicate overrepresented bacteria in Elderly (green) and Adults (red). Features with LDA scores ≥ 2 are presented. d Alpha diversity measures for the two groups. Alpha diversity was measured by the number of OTUs observed or by the Chao1, Shannon and Simpson diversity measures; e Principle Coordinates Analysis (PCoA) based on Bray–Curtis dissimilarities of salivary microbiome. Axes are scaled to the amount of variation explained; ***P < 0.001
Fig. 2 The salivary microbiome composition and aging. Y-axis shows % of relative abundance; X-axis indicates the microbial abundance in males and females; each taxonomic category is shown by a different color: a at the phylum level; b at the genus level; c graphs of linear discriminant analysis (LDA) scores for differentially abundant bacterial phyla and genera; among the two groups. LDA scores indicate overrepresented bacteria in Elderly (green) and Adults (red). Features with LDA scores ≥ 2 are presented. d Alpha diversity measures for the two groups. Alpha diversity was measured by the number of OTUs observed or by the Chao1, Shannon and Simpson diversity measures; e Principle Coordinates Analysis (PCoA) based on Bray–Curtis dissimilarities of salivary microbiome. Axes are scaled to the amount of variation explained; ***P < 0.001CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 3 Bleeding gum and the salivary microbiome composition. Y-axis shows % of relative abundance; X-axis indicates the microbial abundance in males and females; each taxonomic category is shown by a different color: a at the phylum level; b at the genus level; c graphs of linear discriminant analysis (LDA) scores for differentially abundant bacterial phyla and genera; among the two groups. LDA scores indicate overrepresented bacteria in individuals that did not report bleeding (green) and the participants that reported bleeding gums (red). Features with LDA scores ≥ 2 are presented. d Alpha diversity measures for the two groups. Alpha diversity was measured by the number of OTUs observed or by the Chao1, Shannon and Simpson diversity measures; e Principle Coordinates Analysis (PCoA) based on Bray–Curtis dissimilarities of salivary microbiome. Axes are scaled to the amount of variation explained; **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001
Fig. 3 Bleeding gum and the salivary microbiome composition. Y-axis shows % of relative abundance; X-axis indicates the microbial abundance in males and females; each taxonomic category is shown by a different color: a at the phylum level; b at the genus level; c graphs of linear discriminant analysis (LDA) scores for differentially abundant bacterial phyla and genera; among the two groups. LDA scores indicate overrepresented bacteria in individuals that did not report bleeding (green) and the participants that reported bleeding gums (red). Features with LDA scores ≥ 2 are presented. d Alpha diversity measures for the two groups. Alpha diversity was measured by the number of OTUs observed or by the Chao1, Shannon and Simpson diversity measures; e Principle Coordinates Analysis (PCoA) based on Bray–Curtis dissimilarities of salivary microbiome. Axes are scaled to the amount of variation explained; **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 4 Mouth ulceration and the salivary microbiome composition. Y-axis shows % of relative abundance; X-axis indicates the microbial abundance in males and females; each taxonomic category is shown by a different color: a at the phylum level; b at the genus level; c graphs of linear discriminant analysis (LDA) scores for differentially abundant bacterial phyla and genera; among the two groups. LDA scores indicate overrepresented bacteria in individuals that did not report any mouth ulcer (green) and the participants that reported having mouth ulcers (red). Features with LDA scores ≥ 2 are presented. d Alpha diversity measures for the two groups. Alpha diversity was measured by the number of OTUs observed or by the Chao1, Shannon and Simpson diversity measures; e Principle Coordinates Analysis (PCoA) based on Bray–Curtis dissimilarities of salivary microbiome. Axes are scaled to the amount of variation explained; ***P < 0.001
Fig. 4 Mouth ulceration and the salivary microbiome composition. Y-axis shows % of relative abundance; X-axis indicates the microbial abundance in males and females; each taxonomic category is shown by a different color: a at the phylum level; b at the genus level; c graphs of linear discriminant analysis (LDA) scores for differentially abundant bacterial phyla and genera; among the two groups. LDA scores indicate overrepresented bacteria in individuals that did not report any mouth ulcer (green) and the participants that reported having mouth ulcers (red). Features with LDA scores ≥ 2 are presented. d Alpha diversity measures for the two groups. Alpha diversity was measured by the number of OTUs observed or by the Chao1, Shannon and Simpson diversity measures; e Principle Coordinates Analysis (PCoA) based on Bray–Curtis dissimilarities of salivary microbiome. Axes are scaled to the amount of variation explained; ***P < 0.001CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 5 Denture use and the salivary microbiome composition. Y-axis shows % of relative abundance; X-axis indicates the microbial abundance in males and females; each taxonomic category is shown by a different color: a at the phylum level; b at the genus level; c graphs of linear discriminant analysis (LDA) scores for differentially abundant bacterial phyla and genera; among the two groups. LDA scores indicate overrepresented bacteria in individuals that did not use dentures (green) and the participants that reported using dentures (red). Features with LDA scores ≥ 2 are presented. d Alpha diversity measures for the two groups. Alpha diversity was measured by the number of OTUs observed or by the Chao1, Shannon and Simpson diversity measures; e Principle Coordinates Analysis (PCoA) based on Bray–Curtis dissimilarities of salivary microbiome. Axes are scaled to the amount of variation explained; *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001
Fig. 5 Denture use and the salivary microbiome composition. Y-axis shows % of relative abundance; X-axis indicates the microbial abundance in males and females; each taxonomic category is shown by a different color: a at the phylum level; b at the genus level; c graphs of linear discriminant analysis (LDA) scores for differentially abundant bacterial phyla and genera; among the two groups. LDA scores indicate overrepresented bacteria in individuals that did not use dentures (green) and the participants that reported using dentures (red). Features with LDA scores ≥ 2 are presented. d Alpha diversity measures for the two groups. Alpha diversity was measured by the number of OTUs observed or by the Chao1, Shannon and Simpson diversity measures; e Principle Coordinates Analysis (PCoA) based on Bray–Curtis dissimilarities of salivary microbiome. Axes are scaled to the amount of variation explained; *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 6 The salivary microbiome composition is influenced by smoking habits. Y-axis shows % of relative abundance; X-axis indicates the microbial abundance in males and females; each taxonomic category is shown by a different color: a at the phylum level; b at the genus level; c graphs of linear discriminant analysis (LDA) scores for differentially abundant bacterial phyla and genera; among the two groups. LDA scores indicate overrepresented bacteria in smokers (green) and non- smokers (red). Features with LDA scores ≥ 2 are presented. d Alpha diversity measures for the two groups. Alpha diversity was measured by the number of OTUs observed or by the Chao1, Shannon and Simpson diversity measures; e Principle Coordinates Analysis (PCoA) based on Bray–Curtis dissimilarities of salivary microbiome. Axes are scaled to the amount of variation explained; *P < 0.05
Fig. 6 The salivary microbiome composition is influenced by smoking habits. Y-axis shows % of relative abundance; X-axis indicates the microbial abundance in males and females; each taxonomic category is shown by a different color: a at the phylum level; b at the genus level; c graphs of linear discriminant analysis (LDA) scores for differentially abundant bacterial phyla and genera; among the two groups. LDA scores indicate overrepresented bacteria in smokers (green) and non- smokers (red). Features with LDA scores ≥ 2 are presented. d Alpha diversity measures for the two groups. Alpha diversity was measured by the number of OTUs observed or by the Chao1, Shannon and Simpson diversity measures; e Principle Coordinates Analysis (PCoA) based on Bray–Curtis dissimilarities of salivary microbiome. Axes are scaled to the amount of variation explained; *P < 0.05CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 7 Influence of Coffee consumption on the salivary microbiome composition. Y-axis shows % of relative abundance; X-axis indicates the microbial abundance in males and females; each taxonomic category is shown by a different color: a at the phylum level; b at the genus level; c graphs of linear discriminant analysis (LDA) scores for differentially abundant bacterial phyla and genera; among the two groups. LDA scores indicate overrepresented bacteria in individuals that do not drink coffee (green) and the participants that are considered coffee drinkers (red). Features with LDA scores ≥ 2 are presented. d Alpha diversity measures for the two groups. Alpha diversity was measured by the number of OTUs observed or by the Chao1, Shannon and Simpson diversity measures; e Principle Coordinates Analysis (PCoA) based on Bray–Curtis dissimilarities of salivary microbiome. Axes are scaled to the amount of variation explained; ***P < 0.001
Fig. 7 Influence of Coffee consumption on the salivary microbiome composition. Y-axis shows % of relative abundance; X-axis indicates the microbial abundance in males and females; each taxonomic category is shown by a different color: a at the phylum level; b at the genus level; c graphs of linear discriminant analysis (LDA) scores for differentially abundant bacterial phyla and genera; among the two groups. LDA scores indicate overrepresented bacteria in individuals that do not drink coffee (green) and the participants that are considered coffee drinkers (red). Features with LDA scores ≥ 2 are presented. d Alpha diversity measures for the two groups. Alpha diversity was measured by the number of OTUs observed or by the Chao1, Shannon and Simpson diversity measures; e Principle Coordinates Analysis (PCoA) based on Bray–Curtis dissimilarities of salivary microbiome. Axes are scaled to the amount of variation explained; ***P < 0.001CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 8 Influence of tea consumption on the salivary microbiome composition. Y-axis shows % of relative abundance; X-axis indicates the microbial abundance in males and females; each taxonomic category is shown by a different color: a at the phylum level; b at the genus level; c Graphs of linear discriminant analysis (LDA) scores for differentially abundant bacterial phyla and genera; among the two groups. Features with LDA scores ≥ 2 are presented. d Alpha diversity measures for the two groups. Alpha diversity was measured by the number of OTUs observed or by the Chao1, Shannon and Simpson diversity measures; e Principle Coordinates Analysis (PCoA) based on Bray–Curtis dissimilarities of salivary microbiome. Axes are scaled to the amount of variation explained; *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01
Fig. 8 Influence of tea consumption on the salivary microbiome composition. Y-axis shows % of relative abundance; X-axis indicates the microbial abundance in males and females; each taxonomic category is shown by a different color: a at the phylum level; b at the genus level; c Graphs of linear discriminant analysis (LDA) scores for differentially abundant bacterial phyla and genera; among the two groups. Features with LDA scores ≥ 2 are presented. d Alpha diversity measures for the two groups. Alpha diversity was measured by the number of OTUs observed or by the Chao1, Shannon and Simpson diversity measures; e Principle Coordinates Analysis (PCoA) based on Bray–Curtis dissimilarities of salivary microbiome. Axes are scaled to the amount of variation explained; *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01CC 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 15 references

Research works printed but not linked: 80

  1. Lloyd-Price J, Abu-Ali G, Huttenhower C. The healthy human microbiome. Genome Med. 2016;8:51. · DOI · Paper page
  2. Liang D, Leung RK, Guan W, Au WW. Involvement of gut microbiome in human health and disease: brief overview, knowledge gaps and research opportunities. Gut Pathog. 2018;10:3. · DOI
  3. Cao Y, Fanning S, Proos S, Jordan K, Srikumar S. A review on the applications of next generation sequencing technologies as applied to food-related microbiome studies. Front Microbiol. 1829;2017:8.
  4. Roblegg E, Coughran A, Sirjani D. Saliva: an all-rounder of our body. Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 2019;142:133–41. · DOI
  5. Humphrey SP, Williamson RT. A review of saliva: normal composition, flow, and function. J Prosthet Dent. 2001;85:162–9. · DOI
  6. Mandel ID. The functions of saliva. J Dent Res. 1987;66 Spec No:623–7. · DOI
  7. Kaczor-Urbanowicz KE, Martin Carreras-Presas C, Aro K, Tu M, Garcia-Godoy F, Wong DT. Saliva diagnostics—current views and directions. Exp Biol Med (Maywood). 2017;242:459–72. · DOI
  8. Lee YH, Wong DT. Saliva: an emerging biofluid for early detection of diseases. Am J Dent. 2009;22:241–8.
  9. Kodukula K, Faller DV, Harpp DN, Kanara I, Pernokas J, Pernokas M, Powers WR, Soukos NS, Steliou K, Moos WH. Gut microbiota and salivary diagnostics: the mouth is salivating to tell us something. BioResearch open access. 2017;6:123–32. · DOI
  10. Belstrøm D, Holmstrup P, Bardow A, Kokaras A, Fiehn N-E, Paster BJ. Temporal stability of the salivary microbiota in oral health. PLoS ONE. 2016;11:e0147472. · DOI
  11. Cameron SJ, Huws SA, Hegarty MJ, Smith DP, Mur LA. The human salivary microbiome exhibits temporal stability in bacterial diversity. FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2015;91:fiv091. · DOI
  12. Rasiah IA, Wong L, Anderson SA, Sissons CH. Variation in bacterial DGGE patterns from human saliva: over time, between individuals and in corresponding dental plaque microcosms. Arch Oral Biol. 2005;50:779–87. · DOI
  13. Stahringer SS, Clemente JC, Corley RP, Hewitt J, Knights D, Walters WA, Knight R, Krauter KS. Nurture trumps nature in a longitudinal survey of salivary bacterial communities in twins from early adolescence to early adulthood. Genome Res. 2012;22:2146–52. · DOI · Paper page
  14. Yamanaka W, Takeshita T, Shibata Y, Matsuo K, Eshima N, Yokoyama T, Yamashita Y. Compositional stability of a salivary bacterial population against supragingival microbiota shift following periodontal therapy. PLoS ONE. 2012;7:e42806. · DOI
  15. Zhou Y, Gao H, Mihindukulasuriya KA, La Rosa PS, Wylie KM, Vishnivetskaya T, Podar M, Warner B, Tarr PI, Nelson DE, et al. Biogeography of the ecosystems of the healthy human body. Genome Biol. 2013;14:R1. · DOI
  16. Priya KY, Prathibha KM. Methods of collection of saliva-a review. Int J Oral Health Dent. 2017;3:149–53.
  17. Lim Y, Totsika M, Morrison M, Punyadeera C. The saliva microbiome profiles are minimally affected by collection method or DNA extraction protocols. Sci Rep. 2017;7:8523. · DOI · Paper page
  18. Rosier BT, Marsh PD, Mira A. Resilience of the oral microbiota in health: mechanisms that prevent dysbiosis. J Dent Res. 2018;97:371–80. · DOI · Paper page
  19. He J, Li Y, Cao Y, Xue J, Zhou X. The oral microbiome diversity and its relation to human diseases. Folia Microbiol (Praha). 2015;60:69–80. · DOI · Paper page
  20. Aas JA, Paster BJ, Stokes LN, Olsen I, Dewhirst FE. Defining the normal bacterial flora of the oral cavity. J Clin Microbiol. 2005;43:5721–32. · DOI · Paper page
  21. Bik EM, Long CD, Armitage GC, Loomer P, Emerson J, Mongodin EF, Nelson KE, Gill SR, Fraser-Liggett CM, Relman DA. Bacterial diversity in the oral cavity of 10 healthy individuals. ISME J. 2010;4:962–74. · DOI · Paper page
  22. Segata N, Haake SK, Mannon P, Lemon KP, Waldron L, Gevers D, Huttenhower C, Izard J. Composition of the adult digestive tract bacterial microbiome based on seven mouth surfaces, tonsils, throat and stool samples. Genome Biol. 2012;13:R42. · DOI · Paper page
  23. Wu Y, Chi X, Zhang Q, Chen F, Deng X. Characterization of the salivary microbiome in people with obesity. PeerJ. 2018;6:e4458. · DOI
  24. Rusthen S, Kristoffersen AK, Young A, Galtung HK, Petrovski BE, Palm O, Enersen M, Jensen JL. Dysbiotic salivary microbiota in dry mouth and primary Sjogren’s syndrome patients. PLoS ONE. 2019;14:e0218319. · DOI
  25. Lira-Junior R, Akerman S, Klinge B, Bostrom EA, Gustafsson A. Salivary microbial profiles in relation to age, periodontal, and systemic diseases. PLoS ONE. 2018;13:e0189374. · DOI
  26. Rodríguez-Rabassa M, López P, Rodríguez-Santiago RE, Cases A, Felici M, Sánchez R, Yamamura Y, Rivera-Amill V. Cigarette smoking modulation of saliva microbial composition and cytokine levels. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018;15:2479. · DOI
  27. Li X, Kolltveit KM, Tronstad L, Olsen I. Systemic diseases caused by oral infection. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2000;13:547–58. · DOI · Paper page
  28. Yasunaga H, Takeshita T, Shibata Y, Furuta M, Shimazaki Y, Akifusa S, Ninomiya T, Kiyohara Y, Takahashi I, Yamashita Y. Exploration of bacterial species associated with the salivary microbiome of individuals with a low susceptibility to dental caries. Clin Oral Investig. 2017;21:2399–406. · DOI
  29. Belstrom D, Holmstrup P, Fiehn NE, Kirkby N, Kokaras A, Paster BJ, Bardow A. Salivary microbiota in individuals with different levels of caries experience. J Oral Microbiol. 2017;9:1270614. · DOI · Paper page
  30. Schoilew K, Ueffing H, Dalpke A, Wolff B, Frese C, Wolff D, Boutin S. Bacterial biofilm composition in healthy subjects with and without caries experience. J Oral Microbiol. 2019;11:1633194. · DOI
  31. Ennibi OK, Claesson R, Akkaoui S, Reddahi S, Kwamin F, Haubek D, Johansson A. High salivary levels of JP2 genotype of Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans is associated with clinical attachment loss in Moroccan adolescents. Clin Exp Dent Res. 2019;5:44–51. · DOI
  32. Salminen A, Kopra KA, Hyvarinen K, Paju S, Mantyla P, Buhlin K, Nieminen MS, Sinisalo J, Pussinen PJ. Quantitative PCR analysis of salivary pathogen burden in periodontitis. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2015;5:69. · DOI
  33. Khemwong T, Kobayashi H, Ikeda Y, Matsuura T, Sudo T, Kano C, Mikami R, Izumi Y. Fretibacterium sp. human oral taxon 360 is a novel biomarker for periodontitis screening in the Japanese population. PLoS ONE. 2019;14:e0218266. · DOI
  34. Janem WF, Scannapieco FA, Sabharwal A, Tsompana M, Berman HA, Haase EM, Miecznikowski JC, Mastrandrea LD. Salivary inflammatory markers and microbiome in normoglycemic lean and obese children compared to obese children with type 2 diabetes. PLoS ONE. 2017;12:e0172647. · DOI
  35. Acharya A, Chan Y, Kheur S, Jin LJ, Watt RM, Mattheos N. Salivary microbiome in non-oral disease: a summary of evidence and commentary. Arch Oral Biol. 2017;83:169–73. · DOI
  36. Pereira PAB, Aho VTE, Paulin L, Pekkonen E, Auvinen P, Scheperjans F. Oral and nasal microbiota in Parkinson’s disease. Parkinsonism Related Disord. 2017;38:61–7. · DOI
  37. Karpiński TM. Role of oral microbiota in cancer development. Microorganisms. 2019;7:20. · DOI
  38. Zhang X, Zhang D, Jia H, Feng Q, Wang D, Liang D, Wu X, Li J, Tang L, Li Y, et al. The oral and gut microbiomes are perturbed in rheumatoid arthritis and partly normalized after treatment. Nat Med. 2015;21:895. · DOI · Paper page
  39. Gao L, Xu T, Huang G, Jiang S, Gu Y, Chen F. Oral microbiomes: more and more importance in oral cavity and whole body. Protein Cell. 2018;9:488–500. · DOI · Paper page
  40. Takeshita T, Kageyama S, Furuta M, Tsuboi H, Takeuchi K, Shibata Y, Shimazaki Y, Akifusa S, Ninomiya T, Kiyohara Y, Yamashita Y. Bacterial diversity in saliva and oral health-related conditions: the Hisayama Study. Sci Rep. 2016;6:22164. · DOI · Paper page
  41. Vogtmann E, Chen J, Kibriya MG, Amir A, Shi J, Chen Y, Islam T, Eunes M, Ahmed A, Naher J, et al. Comparison of oral collection methods for studies of microbiota. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2019;28:137–43. · DOI
  42. Xun Z, Zhang Q, Xu T, Chen N, Chen F. Dysbiosis and ecotypes of the salivary microbiome associated with inflammatory bowel diseases and the assistance in diagnosis of diseases using oral bacterial profiles. Front Microbiol. 2018;9:1136. · DOI
  43. Shaw L, Ribeiro ALR, Levine AP, Pontikos N, Balloux F, Segal AW, Roberts AP, Smith AM. The human salivary microbiome is shaped by shared environment rather than genetics: evidence from a large family of closely related individuals. MBio. 2017;8:e01237-17. · DOI
  44. Raju SC, Lagstrom S, Ellonen P, de Vos WM, Eriksson JG, Weiderpass E, Rounge TB. Gender-specific associations between saliva microbiota and body size. Front Microbiol. 2019;10:767. · DOI
  45. Cabral DJ, Wurster JI, Flokas ME, Alevizakos M, Zabat M, Korry BJ, Rowan AD, Sano WH, Andreatos N, Ducharme RB, et al. The salivary microbiome is consistent between subjects and resistant to impacts of short-term hospitalization. Sci Rep. 2017;7:11040. · DOI
  46. Xu X, He J, Xue J, Wang Y, Li K, Zhang K, Guo Q, Liu X, Zhou Y, Cheng L, et al. Oral cavity contains distinct niches with dynamic microbial communities. Environ Microbiol. 2015;17:699–710. · DOI · Paper page
  47. Zaura E, Brandt BW, Mattos MJ, Buijs MJ, Caspers MP, Rashid MU, Weintraub A, Nord CE, Savell A, Hu Y, et al. Same exposure but two radically different responses to antibiotics: resilience of the salivary microbiome versus long-term microbial shifts in feces. MBio. 2015;6:e01693-01615. · DOI
  48. Frandsen EV, Kjeldsen M, Kilian M. Inhibition of Prevotella and Capnocytophaga immunoglobulin A1 proteases by human serum. Clin Diagn Lab Immunol. 1997;4:458–64. · DOI
  49. Affoo RH, Foley N, Garrick R, Siqueira WL, Martin RE. Meta-analysis of salivary flow rates in young and older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2015;63:2142–51. · DOI · Paper page
  50. Cruz-Almeida Y, Aguirre M, Sorenson H, Tighe P, Wallet SM, Riley JL 3rd. Age differences in salivary markers of inflammation in response to experimental pain: does venipuncture matter? J Pain Res. 2017;10:2365–72. · DOI
  51. Jiang Q, Liu J, Chen L, Gan N, Yang D. The oral microbiome in the elderly with dental caries and health. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2018;8:442. · DOI
  52. Marchini L, Campos MS, Silva AM, Paulino LC, Nobrega FG. Bacterial diversity in aphthous ulcers. Oral Microbiol Immunol. 2007;22:225–31. · DOI
  53. Lourenvarsigmao TGB, Spencer SJ, Alm EJ, Colombo APV. Defining the gut microbiota in individuals with periodontal diseases: an exploratory study. J Oral Microbiol. 2018;10:1487741. · DOI
  54. Mashima I, Theodorea CF, Thaweboon B, Thaweboon S, Scannapieco FA, Nakazawa F. Exploring the salivary microbiome of children stratified by the oral hygiene index. PLoS ONE. 2017;12:e0185274. · DOI
  55. Shi B, Wu T, McLean J, Edlund A, Young Y, He X, Lv H, Zhou X, Shi W, Li H, Lux R. The denture-associated oral microbiome in health and stomatitis. mSphere. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1128/mSphere.00215-16. · DOI
  56. O’Donnell LE, Robertson D, Nile CJ, Cross LJ, Riggio M, Sherriff A, Bradshaw D, Lambert M, Malcolm J, Buijs MJ, et al. The oral microbiome of denture wearers is influenced by levels of natural dentition. PLoS ONE. 2015;10:e0137717. · DOI
  57. Teles FR, Teles RP, Sachdeo A, Uzel NG, Song XQ, Torresyap G, Singh M, Papas A, Haffajee AD, Socransky SS. Comparison of microbial changes in early redeveloping biofilms on natural teeth and dentures. J Periodontol. 2012;83:1139–48. · DOI
  58. Brook I. The impact of smoking on oral and nasopharyngeal bacterial flora. J Dent Res. 2011;90:704–10. · DOI
  59. Berkowitz L, Schultz BM, Salazar GA, Pardo-Roa C, Sebastian VP, Alvarez-Lobos MM, Bueno SM. Impact of cigarette smoking on the gastrointestinal tract inflammation: opposing effects in Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis. Front Immunol. 2018;9:74. · DOI
  60. Yu G, Phillips S, Gail MH, Goedert JJ, Humphrys MS, Ravel J, Ren Y, Caporaso NE. The effect of cigarette smoking on the oral and nasal microbiota. Microbiome. 2017;5:3. · DOI
  61. Grover N, Sharma J, Sengupta S, Singh S, Singh N, Kaur H. Long-term effect of tobacco on unstimulated salivary pH. J Oral Maxillofac Pathol. 2016;20:16–9. · DOI
  62. Peters BA, McCullough ML, Purdue MP, Freedman ND, Um CY, Gapstur SM, Hayes RB, Ahn J. Association of coffee and tea intake with the oral microbiome: results from a large cross-sectional study. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2018;27:814–21. · DOI
  63. Oz HS. Chronic inflammatory diseases and green tea polyphenols. Nutrients. 2017;9:561. · DOI
  64. Loftfield E, Shiels MS, Graubard BI, Katki HA, Chaturvedi AK, Trabert B, Pinto LA, Kemp TJ, Shebl FM, Mayne ST, et al. Associations of coffee drinking with systemic immune and inflammatory markers. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2015;24:1052–60. · DOI
  65. Signoretto C, Bianchi F, Burlacchini G, Sivieri F, Spratt D, Canepari P. Drinking habits are associated with changes in the dental plaque microbial community. J Clin Microbiol. 2010;48:347–56. · DOI
  66. Signoretto C, Burlacchini G, Bianchi F, Cavalleri G, Canepari P. Differences in microbiological composition of saliva and dental plaque in subjects with different drinking habits. N Microbiol. 2006;29:293–302.
  67. Palmer RJ Jr. Composition and development of oral bacterial communities. Periodontol. 2000;2014(64):20–39.
  68. Leite AZ, Rodrigues NC, Gonzaga MI, Paiolo JCC, de Souza CA, Stefanutto NAV, Omori WP, Pinheiro DG, Brisotti JL, Matheucci Junior E, et al. Detection of increased plasma interleukin-6 levels and prevalence of Prevotella copri and Bacteroides vulgatus in the feces of type 2 diabetes patients. Front Immunol. 2017;8:1107. · DOI
  69. Takeshita T, Nakano Y, Kumagai T, Yasui M, Kamio N, Shibata Y, Shiota S, Yamashita Y. The ecological proportion of indigenous bacterial populations in saliva is correlated with oral health status. ISME J. 2009;3:65–78. · DOI
  70. Shahi SK, Freedman SN, Murra AC, Zarei K, Sompallae R, Gibson-Corley KN, Karandikar NJ, Murray JA, Mangalam AK. Prevotella histicola, a human gut commensal, is as potent as COPAXONE(R) in an animal model of multiple sclerosis. Front Immunol. 2019;10:462. · DOI
  71. Kovatcheva-Datchary P, Nilsson A, Akrami R, Lee YS, De Vadder F, Arora T, Hallen A, Martens E, Bjorck I, Backhed F. Dietary fiber-induced improvement in glucose metabolism is associated with increased abundance of prevotella. Cell Metab. 2015;22:971–82. · DOI · Paper page
  72. Zheng W, Tsompana M, Ruscitto A, Sharma A, Genco R, Sun Y, Buck MJ. An accurate and efficient experimental approach for characterization of the complex oral microbiota. Microbiome. 2015;3:48. · DOI
  73. Mattei V, Murugesan S, Al Hashmi M, Mathew R, James N, Singh P, Kumar M, Lakshmanan AP, Terranegra A, Al Khodor S, Tomei S. Evaluation of methods for the extraction of microbial DNA from vaginal swabs used for microbiome studies. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2019;9:197. · DOI
  74. Zhang J, Kobert K, Flouri T, Stamatakis A. PEAR: a fast and accurate Illumina Paired-End reAd mergeR. Bioinformatics. 2014;30:614–20. · DOI · Paper page
  75. Bolger AM, Lohse M, Usadel B. Trimmomatic: a flexible trimmer for Illumina sequence data. Bioinformatics. 2014;30:2114–20. · DOI · Paper page
  76. Caporaso JG, Kuczynski J, Stombaugh J, Bittinger K, Bushman FD, Costello EK, Fierer N, Peña AG, Goodrich JK, Gordon JI, et al. QIIME allows analysis of high-throughput community sequencing data. Nat Methods. 2010;7:335–6. · DOI · Paper page
  77. Escapa IF, Chen T, Huang Y, Gajare P, Dewhirst FE, Lemon KP. New insights into human nostril microbiome from the expanded human oral microbiome database (eHOMD): a resource for the microbiome of the human aerodigestive tract. Systems. 2018;3:e00187-00118.
  78. Segata N, Izard J, Waldron L, Gevers D, Miropolsky L, Garrett WS, Huttenhower C. Metagenomic biomarker discovery and explanation. Genome Biol. 2011;12:R60. · DOI · Paper page
  79. McMurdie PJ, Holmes S. phyloseq: an R package for reproducible interactive analysis and graphics of microbiome census data. PLoS ONE. 2013;8:e61217. · DOI
  80. Lozupone CA, Hamady M, Kelley ST, Knight R. Quantitative and qualitative beta diversity measures lead to different insights into factors that structure microbial communities. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2007;73:1576–85. · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Murugesan, S., Al Ahmad, S. F., Singh, P., Saadaoui, M., Kumar, M., & Al Khodor, S.
Venue
Journal of Translational Medicine
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2020-03-14
Volume
18
Issue
1
ISSN
1479-5876
DOI
10.1186/s12967-020-02291-2
PMC
PMC7071716
Cited by
77
References
15
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