AI Hospital/Macro Signal Dynamics Research and Development Center, Institute of Medical, Pharmaceutical and Health Sciences, Kanazawa University, 5-11-80 Kodatsuno, Kanazawa, Ishikawa, 9200942, Japan.
Department of Nursing, Faculty of Health Sciences, Institute of Medical, Pharmaceutical and Health Sciences, Kanazawa University, 5-11-80 Kodatsuno, Kanazawa, Ishikawa, 9200942, Japan.
BMC Microbiol. 2021 Feb 18;21(1):54. doi: 10.1186/s12866-021-02122-4.
Medical film dressings have been used to obtain skin microbiota for skin microbiome studies, although their adhesive force may be so strong that the skin could be injured when applied to those who have fragile skin, such as older people. Several products with less adhesive force are available, although their applicability for skin microbiome studies remains unknown. This study aimed to test whether the dressings with less adhesive force could be used for amplicon-based skin microbiome studies. A set of three different film dressings, with acrylic, urethane, or silicone adhesive, was applied to the back skin of nine healthy young participants. The copy number of the 16S ribosomal RNA (rRNA) gene, microbial compositions, and alpha and beta diversity indices were analyzed by amplicon analysis of the 16S rRNA gene using next-generation sequencing and were compared among the three film dressings.
The dressing with acrylic adhesive yielded the highest copy number of 16S rRNA genes, followed by that with urethane adhesive. The silicone-adhesive dressing yielded a significantly lower copy number of the 16S rRNA gene. The microbial composition of skin microbiota was similar among the three film dressings, although significant differences in the relative abundance of Pseudomonas species and alpha diversity indices were found in the silicone-adhesive dressing. The Bray-Curtis dissimilarity was significantly higher between the acrylic- and silicone-adhesive dressings than between the acrylic- and urethane-adhesive dressings. No adverse effects related to tape stripping were observed for any of the film dressings.
We recommend dressings with acrylic or urethane adhesive for amplicon-based skin microbiome studies. An acrylic adhesive has an advantage in the yield of skin microbiota, and a urethane adhesive should be chosen when applied to fragile skin. The adhesive force of the dressing with silicone adhesive was too weak to be used for collecting skin microbiota.
医用胶片敷料已被用于获取皮肤微生物群进行皮肤微生物组学研究,但其粘性可能很强,以至于对于皮肤脆弱的人(如老年人)来说,应用时可能会造成皮肤损伤。目前有几种粘性较低的产品,但它们在皮肤微生物组学研究中的适用性仍不清楚。本研究旨在测试粘性较低的敷料是否可用于基于扩增子的皮肤微生物组学研究。一套三种不同的胶片敷料,具有丙烯酸酯、氨酯或硅酮粘合剂,被应用于 9 名健康年轻参与者的背部皮肤。通过下一代测序对 16S 核糖体 RNA(rRNA)基因进行扩增子分析,分析 16S rRNA 基因的拷贝数、微生物组成以及 alpha 和 beta 多样性指数,并比较三种胶片敷料之间的差异。
具有丙烯酸酯粘合剂的敷料产生的 16S rRNA 基因拷贝数最高,其次是具有氨酯粘合剂的敷料。硅酮粘合剂敷料产生的 16S rRNA 基因拷贝数显著较低。三种胶片敷料的皮肤微生物群的微生物组成相似,但在硅酮粘合剂敷料中发现了假单胞菌属物种的相对丰度和 alpha 多样性指数的显著差异。硅酮粘合剂敷料与丙烯酸酯敷料之间的 Bray-Curtis 不相似性显著高于丙烯酸酯敷料与氨酯敷料之间的 Bray-Curtis 不相似性。三种胶片敷料均未观察到与胶带剥离相关的不良反应。
我们建议使用具有丙烯酸酯或氨酯粘合剂的敷料进行基于扩增子的皮肤微生物组学研究。丙烯酸酯粘合剂在获得皮肤微生物群方面具有优势,而当应用于脆弱的皮肤时,应选择氨酯粘合剂。硅酮粘合剂敷料的粘性太弱,无法用于收集皮肤微生物群。