Studying the urine microbiome in superficial bladder cancer: samples obtained by midstream voiding versus cystoscopy.
Cystoscopy
Microbiome
Urine
Journal
BMC urology
ISSN: 1471-2490
Titre abrégé: BMC Urol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968571
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
28 Jan 2020
28 Jan 2020
Historique:
received:
10
05
2019
accepted:
17
01
2020
entrez:
30
1
2020
pubmed:
30
1
2020
medline:
20
11
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Preliminary data suggest that the urinary microbiome may play a role in bladder cancer. Information regarding the most suitable method of collecting urine specimens is needed for the large population studies needed to address this. To compare microbiome metrics resulting from 16S ribosomal RNA gene sequencing between midstream, voided specimens and those obtained at cystoscopy. Adults, with a history of superficial urothelial cell carcinoma (non-muscle invasive bladder cancer) being followed with periodic surveillance cystoscopy had a urine sample collected by a mid-stream, voided technique and then from the bladder at cystoscopy. Urine samples underwent 16S ribosomal RNA gene sequencing on the Illumina MiSeq platform. 22 subjects (8 female, 14 male) were included. There was no significant difference in beta diversity (diversity between samples) in all samples between collection methods. However, analysis by sex revealed a difference between voided and cystoscopy samples from the same individual in males (p = 0.006, Adonis test) but not in females (p = 0.317, Adonis test). No differences were seen by collection method in any alpha diversity (diversity within a sample) measurement or differential abundance of taxa. Beta diversity of the urine microbiome did differ by collection method for males only. This suggests that the urinary microbiomes of the two collection methods are not equivalent to each other, at least in males, which is the sex that bladder cancer occurs most frequently in. Therefore, the same collection method within a given study should be used.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Preliminary data suggest that the urinary microbiome may play a role in bladder cancer. Information regarding the most suitable method of collecting urine specimens is needed for the large population studies needed to address this. To compare microbiome metrics resulting from 16S ribosomal RNA gene sequencing between midstream, voided specimens and those obtained at cystoscopy.
METHODS
METHODS
Adults, with a history of superficial urothelial cell carcinoma (non-muscle invasive bladder cancer) being followed with periodic surveillance cystoscopy had a urine sample collected by a mid-stream, voided technique and then from the bladder at cystoscopy. Urine samples underwent 16S ribosomal RNA gene sequencing on the Illumina MiSeq platform.
RESULTS
RESULTS
22 subjects (8 female, 14 male) were included. There was no significant difference in beta diversity (diversity between samples) in all samples between collection methods. However, analysis by sex revealed a difference between voided and cystoscopy samples from the same individual in males (p = 0.006, Adonis test) but not in females (p = 0.317, Adonis test). No differences were seen by collection method in any alpha diversity (diversity within a sample) measurement or differential abundance of taxa.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Beta diversity of the urine microbiome did differ by collection method for males only. This suggests that the urinary microbiomes of the two collection methods are not equivalent to each other, at least in males, which is the sex that bladder cancer occurs most frequently in. Therefore, the same collection method within a given study should be used.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31992287
doi: 10.1186/s12894-020-0576-z
pii: 10.1186/s12894-020-0576-z
pmc: PMC6986141
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
5Subventions
Organisme : NICHD NIH HHS
ID : K23 HD099240
Pays : United States
Organisme : National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
ID : K23HD099240
Références
Nat Rev Urol. 2014 Mar;11(3):153-62
pubmed: 24492433
Eur Urol Focus. 2018 Jan;4(1):128-138
pubmed: 28753805
J Transl Med. 2012 Aug 28;10:174
pubmed: 22929533
Am J Clin Exp Urol. 2014 Apr 15;2(1):57-61
pubmed: 25126590
Nat Rev Urol. 2016 Feb;13(2):77-90
pubmed: 26666363
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Jan;216(1):55.e1-55.e16
pubmed: 27498309
Nat Rev Cancer. 2013 Nov;13(11):800-12
pubmed: 24132111
J Clin Microbiol. 2012 Apr;50(4):1376-83
pubmed: 22278835
PLoS One. 2013 Apr 22;8(4):e61217
pubmed: 23630581
Clin Microbiol Rev. 1999 Jan;12(1):97-111
pubmed: 9880476
PLoS Biol. 2008 Nov 18;6(11):e280
pubmed: 19018661
Ann Transl Med. 2017 Jan;5(2):33
pubmed: 28217698
J Urol. 2016 Aug;196(2):579-87
pubmed: 26807926
mBio. 2014 Jul 08;5(4):e01283-14
pubmed: 25006228
Microbiome. 2017 Sep 5;5(1):114
pubmed: 28870234
PLoS One. 2010 Nov 24;5(11):e14116
pubmed: 21124791
Nat Methods. 2010 May;7(5):335-6
pubmed: 20383131
Clin Chem Lab Med. 2011 Dec 20;50(4):679-84
pubmed: 22505530
Urology. 2019 Apr;126:10-15
pubmed: 30615894
CA Cancer J Clin. 2014 Jan-Feb;64(1):9-29
pubmed: 24399786
Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2016 Jul 27;6:78
pubmed: 27512653