-
Scientific Reports Feb 2021Copepods are the dominant members of the zooplankton community and the most abundant form of life. It is imperative to obtain insights into the copepod-associated... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Copepods are the dominant members of the zooplankton community and the most abundant form of life. It is imperative to obtain insights into the copepod-associated bacteriobiomes (CAB) in order to identify specific bacterial taxa associated within a copepod, and to understand how they vary between different copepods. Analysing the potential genes within the CAB may reveal their intrinsic role in biogeochemical cycles. For this, machine-learning models and PICRUSt2 analysis were deployed to analyse 16S rDNA gene sequences (approximately 16 million reads) of CAB belonging to five different copepod genera viz., Acartia spp., Calanus spp., Centropages sp., Pleuromamma spp., and Temora spp.. Overall, we predict 50 sub-OTUs (s-OTUs) (gradient boosting classifiers) to be important in five copepod genera. Among these, 15 s-OTUs were predicted to be important in Calanus spp. and 20 s-OTUs as important in Pleuromamma spp.. Four bacterial s-OTUs Acinetobacter johnsonii, Phaeobacter, Vibrio shilonii and Piscirickettsiaceae were identified as important s-OTUs in Calanus spp., and the s-OTUs Marinobacter, Alteromonas, Desulfovibrio, Limnobacter, Sphingomonas, Methyloversatilis, Enhydrobacter and Coriobacteriaceae were predicted as important s-OTUs in Pleuromamma spp., for the first time. Our meta-analysis revealed that the CAB of Pleuromamma spp. had a high proportion of potential genes responsible for methanogenesis and nitrogen fixation, whereas the CAB of Temora spp. had a high proportion of potential genes involved in assimilatory sulphate reduction, and cyanocobalamin synthesis. The CAB of Pleuromamma spp. and Temora spp. have potential genes accountable for iron transport.
Topics: Animals; Bacteria; Copepoda; Microbiota
PubMed: 33558540
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-82482-z -
International Forum of Allergy &... Apr 2020The association between sinonasal microbiome and clinical outcomes of patients with chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is unclear. We performed a systematic review of prior...
BACKGROUND
The association between sinonasal microbiome and clinical outcomes of patients with chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is unclear. We performed a systematic review of prior studies evaluating the CRS microbiome in relation to clinical outcomes.
METHODS
Computerized searches of PubMed/Medline, Cochrane, and EMBASE were updated through October 2019 revealing a total of 9 studies including 244 CRS patients. A systematic review of the literature was performed, including data extraction focusing on sample region, sequencing platforms, predominant organisms, and outcomes measures.
RESULTS
Nine criterion-meeting studies included 244 CRS patients, with varied results. Eight studies used 16s-ribosomal RNA (16s-rRNA) gene sequencing to assess the sinonasal microbiome and 1 used 16s-rRNA PhyloChip analysis. Seven studies used Sino-Nasal Outcome Test scores, 1 applied another CRS symptom metric, and 1 used need for additional procedures/antibiotics as the primary clinical outcome. Three studies suggest that baseline abundance of phylum Actinobacteria (specifically genus Corynebacterium) was predictive of better surgical outcome. One study found C. tuberculostearicum was positively correlated with symptom severity. Another study revealed genus Escherichia was overrepresented in CRS and had positive correlation with increased symptom scores. In addition, 1 study identified Acinetobacter johnsonii to be associated with improvement in symptom scores while supporting Pseudomonas aeruginosa as having a negative impact on quality of life.
CONCLUSION
Microbiome data are varied in their association with clinical outcomes of CRS patients. Further research is required to identify if predominance of certain microbes within the microbiome is predictive of CRS patients' outcomes.
Topics: Acinetobacter; Chronic Disease; Humans; Microbiota; Quality of Life; Rhinitis
PubMed: 32052920
DOI: 10.1002/alr.22524