Mengis Tamara, Zajac Natalia, Bernhard Laura, Heggli Irina, Herger Nick, Devan Jan, Marcus Roy, Brunner Florian, Laux Christoph, Farshad Mazda, Distler Oliver, Dudli Stefan
Center of Experimental Rheumatology, Department of Rheumatology University Hospital, University of Zurich Zurich Switzerland.
Department of Physical Medicine and Rheumatology, Balgrist University Hospital University of Zurich Zurich Switzerland.
JOR Spine. 2024 Apr 4;7(2):e1330. doi: 10.1002/jsp2.1330. eCollection 2024 Jun.
The emerging field of the disc microbiome challenges traditional views of disc sterility, which opens new avenues for novel clinical insights. However, the lack of methodological consensus in disc microbiome studies introduces discrepancies. The aims of this study were to (1) compare the disc microbiome of non-Modic (nonMC), Modic type 1 change (MC1), and MC2 discs to findings from prior disc microbiome studies, and (2) investigate if discrepancies to prior studies can be explained with bioinformatic variations.
Sequencing of 16S rRNA in 70 discs (24 nonMC, 25 MC1, and 21 MC2) for microbiome profiling. The experimental setup included buffer contamination controls and was performed under aseptic conditions. Methodology and results were contrasted with previous disc microbiome studies. Critical bioinformatic steps that were different in our best-practice approach and previous disc microbiome studies (taxonomic lineage assignment, prevalence cut-off) were varied and their effect on results were compared.
There was limited overlap of results with a previous study on MC disc microbiome. No bacterial genera were shared using the same bioinformatic parameters. Taxonomic lineage assignment using "amplicon sequencing variants" was more sensitive and detected 48 genera compared to 22 with "operational taxonomic units" (previous study). Increasing filter cut-off from 4% to 50% (previous study) reduced genera from 48 to 4 genera. Despite these differences, both studies observed dysbiosis with an increased abundance of gram-negative bacteria in MC discs as well as a lower beta-diversity. was persistently detected in all groups independent of the bioinformatic approach, emphasizing its prevalence.
There is dysbiosis in MC discs. Bioinformatic parameters impact results yet cannot explain the different findings from this and a previous study. Therefore, discrepancies are likely caused by different sample preparations or true biologic differences. Harmonized protocols are required to advance understanding of the disc microbiome and its clinical implications.
椎间盘微生物组这一新兴领域对椎间盘无菌的传统观点提出了挑战,为新的临床见解开辟了新途径。然而,椎间盘微生物组研究中缺乏方法学共识导致了差异。本研究的目的是:(1)将非Modic(非MC)、Modic 1型改变(MC1)和MC2椎间盘的微生物组与先前椎间盘微生物组研究的结果进行比较;(2)研究先前研究中的差异是否可以用生物信息学差异来解释。
对70个椎间盘(24个非MC、25个MC1和21个MC2)进行16S rRNA测序以进行微生物组分析。实验设置包括缓冲液污染对照,并在无菌条件下进行。将方法和结果与先前的椎间盘微生物组研究进行对比。对我们的最佳实践方法和先前的椎间盘微生物组研究中不同的关键生物信息学步骤(分类谱系分配、流行率截止值)进行了变化,并比较了它们对结果的影响。
与先前关于MC椎间盘微生物组的研究结果重叠有限。使用相同的生物信息学参数时,没有共享的细菌属。使用“扩增子测序变体”进行分类谱系分配更敏感,检测到48个属,而使用“操作分类单元”(先前研究)检测到22个属。将流行率截止值从4%提高到50%(先前研究),属的数量从48个减少到4个。尽管存在这些差异,但两项研究均观察到MC椎间盘中革兰氏阴性菌丰度增加以及β-多样性降低的生态失调。在所有组中,无论采用何种生物信息学方法,均持续检测到,强调了其普遍性。
MC椎间盘中存在生态失调。生物信息学参数会影响结果,但无法解释本研究与先前研究的不同发现。因此,差异可能是由不同的样本制备或真正的生物学差异引起的。需要统一的方案来促进对椎间盘微生物组及其临床意义的理解。