Cited by 183Oral microbiology and periodontitis researchGut microbiota and healthMicrobial Community Ecology and Physiology

Oral microbiome profiles: 16S rRNA pyrosequencing and microarray assay comparison

Open access
Ahn, Jiyoung, Yang, Liying, Paster, Bruce J., Ganly, Ian, Morris, Luc, Pei, Zhiheng, Hayes, Richard B.·2011·PLoS ONE

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The human oral microbiome is potentially related to diverse health conditions and high-throughput technology provides the possibility of surveying microbial community structure at high resolution. We compared two oral microbiome survey methods: broad-based microbiome identification by 16S rRNA gene sequencing and targeted characterization of microbes by custom DNA microarray. METHODS: Oral wash samples were collected from 20 individuals at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. 16S rRNA gene survey was performed by 454 pyrosequencing of the V3-V5 region (450 bp). Targeted identification by DNA microarray was carried out with the Human Oral Microbe Identification Microarray (HOMIM). Correlations and relative abundance were compared at phylum and genus level, between 16S rRNA sequence read ratio and HOMIM hybridization intensity. RESULTS: The major phyla, Firmicutes, Proteobacteria, Bacteroidetes, Actinobacteria, and Fusobacteria were identified with high correlation by the two methods (r = 0.70∼0.86). 16S rRNA gene pyrosequencing identified 77 genera and HOMIM identified 49, with 37 genera detected by both methods; more than 98% of classified bacteria were assigned in these 37 genera. Concordance by the two assays (presence/absence) and correlations were high for common genera (Streptococcus, Veillonella, Leptotrichia, Prevotella, and Haemophilus; Correlation = 0.70-0.84). CONCLUSION: Microbiome community profiles assessed by 16S rRNA pyrosequencing and HOMIM were highly correlated at the phylum level and, when comparing the more commonly detected taxa, also at the genus level. Both methods are currently suitable for high-throughput epidemiologic investigations relating identified and more common oral microbial taxa to disease risk; yet, pyrosequencing may provide a broader spectrum of taxa identification, a distinct sequence-read record, and greater detection sensitivity.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0022788

Cites

14 of 14 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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?

  • Up to 80% of oral bacteria are dominated by about 200 species in the Phyla Firmicutes and Proteobacteria, with contributions from Bacteroidetes, Actinobacteria and Fusobacteria totaling upwards of 95% of all identified oral microbiota.

    “Up to 80% of oral bacteria are dominated by about 200 species in the Phyla Firmicutes (esp. Streptococcus, Veillonella, Granulicatella, Gemella spp.) and Proteobacteria (esp. Neisseria, Haemophilus spp.), with contributions from Bacteroidetes, Actinobacteria and Fusobacteria totaling upwards of 95% of all identified oral microbiota (Figure 2)[171–177].”

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ahn, J., Yang, L., Paster, B. J., Ganly, I., Morris, L., Pei, Z., & Hayes, R. B.
Affiliations
  • New York University (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (US)
Corresponding author
Ahn, Jiyoung
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2011-07-29
Volume
6
Issue
7
Pages
e22788
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2032525833
Cited by
183
References
14
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 21 · 2015: 19 · 2014: 21 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 17
FWCI
22.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (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)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Cancer Institute (R01CA159036, UH3CA140233)
  • National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (R01AI063477)
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, 16S rRNA pyrosequencing, DNA microarrays, method comparison, microbial community analysis, Streptococcus, Veillonella, Prevotella, Haemophilus, Leptotrichia, cancer patients
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Bacteria, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Mouth, RNA, Bacterial, RNA, Ribosomal, 16S, Biomarkers, Oligonucleotide Array Sequence Analysis, Gene Expression Profiling, Metagenome, Young Adult, DNA Barcoding, Taxonomic

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