Yeo Kenny, Wu Fangmeinuo, Li Runhao, Smith Eric, Wormald Peter-John, Valentine Rowan, Psaltis Alkis James, Vreugde Sarah, Fenix Kevin
Discipline of Surgery, Adelaide Medical School, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA 5000, Australia.
Department of Surgery-Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, The University of Adelaide and the Basil Hetzel Institute for Translational Health Research, Central Adelaide Local Health Network, Woodville South, SA 5011, Australia.
Pathogens. 2024 Sep 24;13(10):826. doi: 10.3390/pathogens13100826.
The oral microbiome, studied by sampling the saliva or by oral rinse, has been long thought to have diagnostic capacity for head and neck cancers (HNC). However, previous reports on the HNC oral microbiome provide inconsistent results. The aim of this study is to consolidate these datasets and determine the oral microbial composition between HNC patients to healthy and premalignant individuals. We analyzed 16 published head and neck cancer (HNC) short-read 16S rRNA sequencing datasets, specifically targeting the V3V4, V4 and V4V5 regions. These datasets included saliva and oral rinse samples from donors with HNC, as well as from healthy and premalignant donors. Differences in diversities and microbial abundance were determined. HNC saliva displayed lower alpha diversity than healthy donors. In contrast, the opposite trend was observed for oral rinse samples. Beta diversity scores were largely similar across different patient types. Similar oral phyla were detected for all samples, but proportions were largely dependent on sample type (i.e., saliva or oral rinse) and primer set utilized for 16S rRNA sequencing. , and were elevated in healthy saliva, while was elevated in HNC saliva. Oral rinse and saliva displayed similar enrichment for , while , , and showed conflicting results. The sparse partial least squares discriminant analysis model performed effectively in discriminating HNC from healthy or premalignant patients using V3V4 saliva (AUC = 0.888) and V3V4 oral rinse (AUC = 0.928), while poor discriminative capacity was observed for V4 saliva (AUC = 0.688). In conclusion, our meta-analysis highlighted the limitations of 16S rRNA sequencing, particularly due to variations across study batches, primer sets (i.e., V3V4, V4), and sample types. Hence, caution should be exercised when interpreting 16S rRNA sequencing results across studies, especially when different primer sets and sample types are used.
通过对唾液进行采样或口腔冲洗来研究的口腔微生物群,长期以来一直被认为对头颈部癌症(HNC)具有诊断能力。然而,先前关于HNC口腔微生物群的报告结果并不一致。本研究的目的是整合这些数据集,并确定HNC患者与健康个体和癌前个体之间的口腔微生物组成。我们分析了16个已发表的头颈部癌(HNC)短读长16S rRNA测序数据集,特别针对V3V4、V4和V4V5区域。这些数据集包括来自HNC供体以及健康和癌前供体的唾液和口腔冲洗样本。确定了多样性和微生物丰度的差异。HNC唾液的α多样性低于健康供体。相比之下,口腔冲洗样本则呈现相反的趋势。不同患者类型之间的β多样性得分大致相似。所有样本中检测到的口腔菌门相似,但比例在很大程度上取决于样本类型(即唾液或口腔冲洗)以及用于16S rRNA测序的引物组。健康唾液中 、 和 升高,而HNC唾液中 升高。口腔冲洗液和唾液对 的富集相似,而 、 和 则呈现相互矛盾的结果。稀疏偏最小二乘判别分析模型在使用V3V4唾液(AUC = 0.888)和V3V4口腔冲洗液(AUC = 0.928)区分HNC与健康或癌前患者方面表现有效,而V4唾液的判别能力较差(AUC = 0.688)。总之,我们的荟萃分析突出了16S rRNA测序的局限性,特别是由于不同研究批次、引物组(即V3V4、V4)和样本类型之间的差异。因此,在解释不同研究中的16S rRNA测序结果时应谨慎,尤其是当使用不同的引物组和样本类型时。