Microbial differences between dental plaque and historic dental calculus are related to oral biofilm maturation stage.
Bacteria
/ classification
Bacterial Physiological Phenomena
Bacterial Proteins
/ genetics
Biofilms
/ growth & development
Bone and Bones
/ microbiology
DNA, Ancient
/ analysis
DNA, Bacterial
/ genetics
Dental Calculus
/ history
Dental Plaque
/ microbiology
Female
History, Ancient
Humans
Male
Metagenomics
Microbiota
/ physiology
Periodontal Diseases
/ microbiology
Proteomics
Tooth
/ microbiology
Ancient dental calculus
Metagenomics
Metaproteomics
Oral microbiome
Periodontal disease
Journal
Microbiome
ISSN: 2049-2618
Titre abrégé: Microbiome
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101615147
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 07 2019
06 07 2019
Historique:
received:
04
02
2019
accepted:
24
06
2019
entrez:
8
7
2019
pubmed:
8
7
2019
medline:
8
5
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Dental calculus, calcified oral plaque biofilm, contains microbial and host biomolecules that can be used to study historic microbiome communities and host responses. Dental calculus does not typically accumulate as much today as historically, and clinical oral microbiome research studies focus primarily on living dental plaque biofilm. However, plaque and calculus reflect different conditions of the oral biofilm, and the differences in microbial characteristics between the sample types have not yet been systematically explored. Here, we compare the microbial profiles of modern dental plaque, modern dental calculus, and historic dental calculus to establish expected differences between these substrates. Metagenomic data was generated from modern and historic calculus samples, and dental plaque metagenomic data was downloaded from the Human Microbiome Project. Microbial composition and functional profile were assessed. Metaproteomic data was obtained from a subset of historic calculus samples. Comparisons between microbial, protein, and metabolomic profiles revealed distinct taxonomic and metabolic functional profiles between plaque, modern calculus, and historic calculus, but not between calculus collected from healthy teeth and periodontal disease-affected teeth. Species co-exclusion was related to biofilm environment. Proteomic profiling revealed that healthy tooth samples contain low levels of bacterial virulence proteins and a robust innate immune response. Correlations between proteomic and metabolomic profiles suggest co-preservation of bacterial lipid membranes and membrane-associated proteins. Overall, we find that there are systematic microbial differences between plaque and calculus related to biofilm physiology, and recognizing these differences is important for accurate data interpretation in studies comparing dental plaque and calculus.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Dental calculus, calcified oral plaque biofilm, contains microbial and host biomolecules that can be used to study historic microbiome communities and host responses. Dental calculus does not typically accumulate as much today as historically, and clinical oral microbiome research studies focus primarily on living dental plaque biofilm. However, plaque and calculus reflect different conditions of the oral biofilm, and the differences in microbial characteristics between the sample types have not yet been systematically explored. Here, we compare the microbial profiles of modern dental plaque, modern dental calculus, and historic dental calculus to establish expected differences between these substrates.
RESULTS
Metagenomic data was generated from modern and historic calculus samples, and dental plaque metagenomic data was downloaded from the Human Microbiome Project. Microbial composition and functional profile were assessed. Metaproteomic data was obtained from a subset of historic calculus samples. Comparisons between microbial, protein, and metabolomic profiles revealed distinct taxonomic and metabolic functional profiles between plaque, modern calculus, and historic calculus, but not between calculus collected from healthy teeth and periodontal disease-affected teeth. Species co-exclusion was related to biofilm environment. Proteomic profiling revealed that healthy tooth samples contain low levels of bacterial virulence proteins and a robust innate immune response. Correlations between proteomic and metabolomic profiles suggest co-preservation of bacterial lipid membranes and membrane-associated proteins.
CONCLUSIONS
Overall, we find that there are systematic microbial differences between plaque and calculus related to biofilm physiology, and recognizing these differences is important for accurate data interpretation in studies comparing dental plaque and calculus.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31279340
doi: 10.1186/s40168-019-0717-3
pii: 10.1186/s40168-019-0717-3
pmc: PMC6612086
doi:
Substances chimiques
Bacterial Proteins
0
DNA, Ancient
0
DNA, Bacterial
0
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Historical Article
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
102Références
PLoS One. 2012;7(10):e47722
pubmed: 23091642
J Periodontal Res. 2000 Aug;35(4):232-41
pubmed: 10983884
Cold Spring Harb Protoc. 2010 Jun;2010(6):pdb.prot5448
pubmed: 20516186
Nature. 2017 Apr 20;544(7650):357-361
pubmed: 28273061
J Clin Periodontol. 2003 Nov;30(11):990-5
pubmed: 14761122
Oral Microbiol Immunol. 2007 Jun;22(3):152-61
pubmed: 17488440
J Periodontol. 1998 Oct;69(10):1111-8
pubmed: 9802709
Metabolomics. 2017;13(11):134
pubmed: 29046620
Microbes Infect. 2015 Jul;17(7):517-30
pubmed: 25841800
Am J Phys Anthropol. 1969 Mar;30(2):297-301
pubmed: 5772048
Science. 2016 Jun 3;352(6290):1228-31
pubmed: 27257259
Nucleic Acids Res. 2005 Oct 07;33(17):5691-702
pubmed: 16214803
Nat Methods. 2012 Jun 10;9(8):811-4
pubmed: 22688413
Proc Biol Sci. 2018 Jul 18;285(1883):
pubmed: 30051838
Bioinformatics. 2009 Jul 15;25(14):1754-60
pubmed: 19451168
Cell Host Microbe. 2017 Feb 8;21(2):254-267
pubmed: 28111203
Pharmacol Res. 2013 Mar;69(1):137-43
pubmed: 23201354
Bioinformatics. 2010 Mar 15;26(6):715-21
pubmed: 20130030
mBio. 2018 Mar 13;9(2):
pubmed: 29535201
Clin Exp Dent Res. 2017 Jul 03;3(3):115-120
pubmed: 29744188
Nat Biotechnol. 2012 Oct;30(10):918-20
pubmed: 23051804
BMC Res Notes. 2016 Feb 12;9:88
pubmed: 26868221
J Oral Microbiol. 2014 Oct 24;6:25443
pubmed: 25626770
Genome Biol. 2016 Mar 31;17:60
pubmed: 27036623
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2015 Jan 19;370(1660):20130376
pubmed: 25487328
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018 Nov 27;115(48):E11248-E11255
pubmed: 30397125
J Clin Periodontol. 1998 Feb;25(2):134-44
pubmed: 9495612
PLoS Comput Biol. 2016 Jun 21;12(6):e1004957
pubmed: 27327495
Science. 2012 Oct 12;338(6104):222-6
pubmed: 22936568
PeerJ. 2016 Sep 14;4:e2433
pubmed: 27672500
mBio. 2014 Apr 01;5(2):e01012-14
pubmed: 24692635
Sci Rep. 2016 Dec 19;6:38993
pubmed: 27991530
Bioinformatics. 2014 Nov 1;30(21):3123-4
pubmed: 25061070
Periodontol 2000. 2017 Oct;75(1):52-115
pubmed: 28758303
J Periodontol. 2003 Jan;74(1):111-8
pubmed: 12593605
mSystems. 2018 Jul 17;3(4):
pubmed: 30035235
J Periodontol. 2003 Sep;74(9):1329-35
pubmed: 14584866
PLoS Comput Biol. 2017 Nov 3;13(11):e1005752
pubmed: 29099853
Nat Genet. 2013 Apr;45(4):450-5, 455e1
pubmed: 23416520
Am J Phys Anthropol. 1985 Sep;68(1):15-28
pubmed: 4061599
Bioinformatics. 2013 Jul 01;29(13):1682-4
pubmed: 23613487
Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 2002 Sep;66(3):486-505, table of contents
pubmed: 12209001
J Oral Microbiol. 2014 Sep 05;6:
pubmed: 25317251
Lab Invest. 1976 Mar;34(3):235-49
pubmed: 765622
J Dent Res. 2012 Oct;91(10):927-33
pubmed: 22863892
Sci Rep. 2018 Jun 29;8(1):9822
pubmed: 29959351
JDR Clin Trans Res. 2018 Jan;3(1):57-64
pubmed: 29662960
Genome Med. 2015 Apr 27;7(1):27
pubmed: 25918553
PLoS Pathog. 2017 Jun 20;13(6):e1006457
pubmed: 28632755
Bioinformatics. 2018 Nov 1;34(21):3695-3701
pubmed: 29878050
Curr Biol. 2015 Jun 1;25(11):1515-9
pubmed: 26004765
J Dent Res. 2009 Sep;88(9):851-5
pubmed: 19767584
Nat Methods. 2015 Oct;12(10):902-3
pubmed: 26418763
PLoS One. 2010 Feb 24;5(2):e9321
pubmed: 20195365
Nat Commun. 2018 Nov 20;9(1):4744
pubmed: 30459334
Nat Methods. 2011 Jul 17;8(9):761-3
pubmed: 21765408
J Am Dent Assoc. 1995 May;126(5):573-80
pubmed: 7759682
Bioinformatics. 2011 Aug 1;27(15):2153-5
pubmed: 21659319
Nat Genet. 2014 Apr;46(4):336-44
pubmed: 24562188
PLoS One. 2017 Jul 5;12(7):e0180621
pubmed: 28678838
J Bacteriol. 2010 Oct;192(19):5002-17
pubmed: 20656903
Infect Immun. 2015 Dec;83(12):4582-93
pubmed: 26371120
Am J Phys Anthropol. 2002 Nov;119(3):231-9
pubmed: 12365035
PLoS One. 2014 Jul 16;9(7):e100808
pubmed: 25028938
Bioinformatics. 2009 Aug 15;25(16):2078-9
pubmed: 19505943
Sci Rep. 2014 Nov 27;4:7104
pubmed: 25429530
Periodontol 2000. 2005;38:72-122
pubmed: 15853938