Stimulated and unstimulated saliva samples have significantly different bacterial profiles.
Epidemiological studies use saliva on a regular basis as a non-invasive and easy-to-take sample, which is assumed to be a microbial representative of the oral cavity ecosystem. However, comparative studies between different kinds of saliva samples normally used in microbial studies are scarce. The a...
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
2018-01-01
|
| Series: | PLoS ONE |
| Online Access: | http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC5983451?pdf=render |
| _version_ | 1819260875838586880 |
|---|---|
| author | Sonia Gomar-Vercher Aurea Simón-Soro José María Montiel-Company José Manuel Almerich-Silla Alex Mira |
| author_facet | Sonia Gomar-Vercher Aurea Simón-Soro José María Montiel-Company José Manuel Almerich-Silla Alex Mira |
| author_sort | Sonia Gomar-Vercher |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Epidemiological studies use saliva on a regular basis as a non-invasive and easy-to-take sample, which is assumed to be a microbial representative of the oral cavity ecosystem. However, comparative studies between different kinds of saliva samples normally used in microbial studies are scarce. The aim of the current study was to compare oral microbiota composition between two different saliva samples collected simultaneously: non-stimulated saliva with paper points and stimulated saliva collected after chewing paraffin gum. DNA was extracted from saliva samples of ten individuals, then analyzed by 16S rRNA pyrosequencing to describe bacterial diversity. The results demonstrate significant differences between the microbiota of these two kinds of saliva. Stimulated saliva was found to contain an estimated number of species over three times higher than unstimulated saliva. In addition, bacterial composition at the class and genus level was radically different between both types of samples. When compared to other oral niches, both types of saliva showed some similarity to tongue and buccal mucosa, but they do not correlate at all with the bacterial composition described in supra- or sub-gingival dental plaque, questioning their use in etiological and epidemiological studies of oral diseases of microbial origin. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-23T19:32:52Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-d47d0894ab4745079e7d462c5ea43bc9 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1932-6203 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-23T19:32:52Z |
| publishDate | 2018-01-01 |
| publisher | Public Library of Science (PLoS) |
| record_format | Article |
| series | PLoS ONE |
| spelling | doaj.art-d47d0894ab4745079e7d462c5ea43bc92022-12-21T17:33:52ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032018-01-01136e019802110.1371/journal.pone.0198021Stimulated and unstimulated saliva samples have significantly different bacterial profiles.Sonia Gomar-VercherAurea Simón-SoroJosé María Montiel-CompanyJosé Manuel Almerich-SillaAlex MiraEpidemiological studies use saliva on a regular basis as a non-invasive and easy-to-take sample, which is assumed to be a microbial representative of the oral cavity ecosystem. However, comparative studies between different kinds of saliva samples normally used in microbial studies are scarce. The aim of the current study was to compare oral microbiota composition between two different saliva samples collected simultaneously: non-stimulated saliva with paper points and stimulated saliva collected after chewing paraffin gum. DNA was extracted from saliva samples of ten individuals, then analyzed by 16S rRNA pyrosequencing to describe bacterial diversity. The results demonstrate significant differences between the microbiota of these two kinds of saliva. Stimulated saliva was found to contain an estimated number of species over three times higher than unstimulated saliva. In addition, bacterial composition at the class and genus level was radically different between both types of samples. When compared to other oral niches, both types of saliva showed some similarity to tongue and buccal mucosa, but they do not correlate at all with the bacterial composition described in supra- or sub-gingival dental plaque, questioning their use in etiological and epidemiological studies of oral diseases of microbial origin.http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC5983451?pdf=render |
| spellingShingle | Sonia Gomar-Vercher Aurea Simón-Soro José María Montiel-Company José Manuel Almerich-Silla Alex Mira Stimulated and unstimulated saliva samples have significantly different bacterial profiles. PLoS ONE |
| title | Stimulated and unstimulated saliva samples have significantly different bacterial profiles. |
| title_full | Stimulated and unstimulated saliva samples have significantly different bacterial profiles. |
| title_fullStr | Stimulated and unstimulated saliva samples have significantly different bacterial profiles. |
| title_full_unstemmed | Stimulated and unstimulated saliva samples have significantly different bacterial profiles. |
| title_short | Stimulated and unstimulated saliva samples have significantly different bacterial profiles. |
| title_sort | stimulated and unstimulated saliva samples have significantly different bacterial profiles |
| url | http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC5983451?pdf=render |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT soniagomarvercher stimulatedandunstimulatedsalivasampleshavesignificantlydifferentbacterialprofiles AT aureasimonsoro stimulatedandunstimulatedsalivasampleshavesignificantlydifferentbacterialprofiles AT josemariamontielcompany stimulatedandunstimulatedsalivasampleshavesignificantlydifferentbacterialprofiles AT josemanuelalmerichsilla stimulatedandunstimulatedsalivasampleshavesignificantlydifferentbacterialprofiles AT alexmira stimulatedandunstimulatedsalivasampleshavesignificantlydifferentbacterialprofiles |