Patrick S. Ortiz, Ankan Choudhury, Christopher M. Kearney
{"title":"Validation of gavage sampling as tool for longitudinal sampling of microbiota of the mouse gastric lumen","authors":"Patrick S. Ortiz, Ankan Choudhury, Christopher M. Kearney","doi":"10.1016/j.mimet.2024.106939","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Fecal samples are commonly used for longitudinal studies of the gut lumen microbiome to track the course of response to infection or drug treatment, but no comparable method has been evaluated for longitudinal analysis of the gastric lumen microbiome in mice. Herein, a buffer flush of the stomach with a flexible gavage needle was used to collect gastric contents at one or several time points without harming the mouse. These samples were compared to samples collected by sacrifice and dissection of the mouse stomach. Microbiota from these samples were sequenced and evaluated in two ways: the composition of samples as measured by beta diversity and the richness of samples as measured by alpha diversity. Additionally, the effect of multiple sampling every two days on these metrics were studied. DNA was extracted from each of these samples and Illumina 16S rRNA gene sequencing was performed.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>First, taxonomic richness of gavage and dissection samples was compared. A greater number of taxa was detected in gavage samples than in dissection samples. Second, taxonomic richness was analyzed over time. No significant difference in taxonomic richness was observed with repeated gavage flushes. Third, a comparison was made of the taxonomic composition of samples collected by gavage versus dissection followed by a comparison of samples collected over multiple samplings. Nonmetric multidimensional scaling analysis revealed no clear differences between collection by gavage flushing or dissection. Using weighted Unifrac and Aitchison taxonomic distances between gavage and dissection samples were not significantly different from distances between gavage samples themselves, and no significant difference was found in the taxonomic composition of mice which were sampled repeatedly. Finally, relative abundances of specific identified taxa were compared, and eleven taxa were found to differ in frequency between collection methods. Using the more stringent Analysis of Composition of Microbiomes (ANCOM), seven was found to differ. Similarly, no significant differences were uncovered using these analyses over multiple samples by gastric flush.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>In summary, the consistency of the microbiota collected by gastric flushing recommends its use for microbiome analysis of gastric fluid similar to the use of fecal sampling to study the gut lumen microbiome.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":16409,"journal":{"name":"Journal of microbiological methods","volume":"221 ","pages":"Article 106939"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of microbiological methods","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167701224000514","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"BIOCHEMICAL RESEARCH METHODS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background
Fecal samples are commonly used for longitudinal studies of the gut lumen microbiome to track the course of response to infection or drug treatment, but no comparable method has been evaluated for longitudinal analysis of the gastric lumen microbiome in mice. Herein, a buffer flush of the stomach with a flexible gavage needle was used to collect gastric contents at one or several time points without harming the mouse. These samples were compared to samples collected by sacrifice and dissection of the mouse stomach. Microbiota from these samples were sequenced and evaluated in two ways: the composition of samples as measured by beta diversity and the richness of samples as measured by alpha diversity. Additionally, the effect of multiple sampling every two days on these metrics were studied. DNA was extracted from each of these samples and Illumina 16S rRNA gene sequencing was performed.
Results
First, taxonomic richness of gavage and dissection samples was compared. A greater number of taxa was detected in gavage samples than in dissection samples. Second, taxonomic richness was analyzed over time. No significant difference in taxonomic richness was observed with repeated gavage flushes. Third, a comparison was made of the taxonomic composition of samples collected by gavage versus dissection followed by a comparison of samples collected over multiple samplings. Nonmetric multidimensional scaling analysis revealed no clear differences between collection by gavage flushing or dissection. Using weighted Unifrac and Aitchison taxonomic distances between gavage and dissection samples were not significantly different from distances between gavage samples themselves, and no significant difference was found in the taxonomic composition of mice which were sampled repeatedly. Finally, relative abundances of specific identified taxa were compared, and eleven taxa were found to differ in frequency between collection methods. Using the more stringent Analysis of Composition of Microbiomes (ANCOM), seven was found to differ. Similarly, no significant differences were uncovered using these analyses over multiple samples by gastric flush.
Conclusion
In summary, the consistency of the microbiota collected by gastric flushing recommends its use for microbiome analysis of gastric fluid similar to the use of fecal sampling to study the gut lumen microbiome.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Microbiological Methods publishes scholarly and original articles, notes and review articles. These articles must include novel and/or state-of-the-art methods, or significant improvements to existing methods. Novel and innovative applications of current methods that are validated and useful will also be published. JMM strives for scholarship, innovation and excellence. This demands scientific rigour, the best available methods and technologies, correctly replicated experiments/tests, the inclusion of proper controls, calibrations, and the correct statistical analysis. The presentation of the data must support the interpretation of the method/approach.
All aspects of microbiology are covered, except virology. These include agricultural microbiology, applied and environmental microbiology, bioassays, bioinformatics, biotechnology, biochemical microbiology, clinical microbiology, diagnostics, food monitoring and quality control microbiology, microbial genetics and genomics, geomicrobiology, microbiome methods regardless of habitat, high through-put sequencing methods and analysis, microbial pathogenesis and host responses, metabolomics, metagenomics, metaproteomics, microbial ecology and diversity, microbial physiology, microbial ultra-structure, microscopic and imaging methods, molecular microbiology, mycology, novel mathematical microbiology and modelling, parasitology, plant-microbe interactions, protein markers/profiles, proteomics, pyrosequencing, public health microbiology, radioisotopes applied to microbiology, robotics applied to microbiological methods,rumen microbiology, microbiological methods for space missions and extreme environments, sampling methods and samplers, soil and sediment microbiology, transcriptomics, veterinary microbiology, sero-diagnostics and typing/identification.