Asthma-associated differences in microbial composition of induced sputum - 30/01/13

Abstract |
Background |
It is increasingly evident that microbial colonization of the respiratory tract might have a role in the pathogenesis of asthma.
Objective |
We sought to characterize and compare the microbiome of induced sputum in asthmatic and nonasthmatic adults.
Methods |
Induced sputum samples were obtained from 10 nonasthmatic subjects and 10 patients with mild active asthma (8/10 were not using inhaled corticosteroids). Total DNA was extracted from sputum supernatants and amplified by using primers specific for the V6 hypervariable region of bacterial 16s rRNA. Samples were barcoded, and equimolar concentrations of 20 samples were pooled and sequenced with the 454 GS FLX sequencer. Sequences were assigned to bacterial taxa by comparing them with 16s rRNA sequences in the Ribosomal Database Project.
Results |
All sputum samples contained 5 major bacterial phyla: Firmicutes, Proteobacteria, Actinobacteria, Fusobacterium, and Bacteroidetes, with the first 3 phyla accounting for more than 90% of the total sequences. Proteobacteria were present in higher proportions in asthmatic patients (37% vs 15%, P < .001). In contrast, Firmicutes (47% vs 63%, P = .17) and Actinobacteria (10% vs 14%, P = .36) were found more frequently in samples from nonasthmatic subjects, although this was not statistically significant. Hierarchical clustering produced 2 significant clusters: one contained primarily asthmatic samples and the second contained primarily nonasthmatic samples. In addition, samples from asthmatic patients had greater bacterial diversity compared with samples from nonasthmatic subjects.
Conclusion |
Patients with mild asthma have an altered microbial composition in the respiratory tract that is similar to that observed in patients with more severe asthma.
Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.Key words : Asthma, microbiome, Proteobacteria, metagenomics, sputum
Abbreviation used : OTU
Plan
| Supported by Southwest Environmental Health Sciences (SWEHSC) training grant ES007901 (to P.R.M.). Part of this study was supported by National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute grants HL 56177 and HL 14136 (to F.D.M. and A.L.W.) and SWEHSC grant ES006694 (to D.B.). |
|
| Disclosure of potential conflict of interest: D. A. Stern has been supported by one or more grants from and/or has one or more grants pending with the National Institutes of Health (NIH). A. L. Wright has been supported by one or more grants from and/or has one or more grants pending with NIH, has received one or more payments for lecturing from or is on the speakers’ bureau for the Association of American Medical Colleges and the University of Vermont, and has received one or more payments for the development of educational presentations for Association of American Medical Colleges. F. D. Martinez has been supported by one or more grants from CRS (HL56177), has consultancy arrangements with MedImmune, has received one or more grants from or has one or more grants pending with the NIH, has received one or more payments for lecturing from or is on the speakers’ bureau for Abbott and Merck, and has received one or more payments for travel/accommodations/meeting expenses from Abbott and Merck. The rest of the authors declare that they have no relevant conflicts of interest. |
Vol 131 - N° 2
P. 346 - février 2013 Retour au numéroBienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.
Déjà abonné à cette revue ?
