Amplicon-based skin microbiome profiles collected by tape stripping with different adhesive film dressings: a comparative study.
16S rRNA
Adhesive
Microbiome
Next generation sequencing
Skin
Tape-stripping
Journal
BMC microbiology
ISSN: 1471-2180
Titre abrégé: BMC Microbiol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100966981
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
18 02 2021
18 02 2021
Historique:
received:
25
08
2020
accepted:
09
02
2021
entrez:
19
2
2021
pubmed:
20
2
2021
medline:
25
2
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Medical film dressings have been used to obtain skin microbiota for skin microbiome studies, although their adhesive force may be so strong that the skin could be injured when applied to those who have fragile skin, such as older people. Several products with less adhesive force are available, although their applicability for skin microbiome studies remains unknown. This study aimed to test whether the dressings with less adhesive force could be used for amplicon-based skin microbiome studies. A set of three different film dressings, with acrylic, urethane, or silicone adhesive, was applied to the back skin of nine healthy young participants. The copy number of the 16S ribosomal RNA (rRNA) gene, microbial compositions, and alpha and beta diversity indices were analyzed by amplicon analysis of the 16S rRNA gene using next-generation sequencing and were compared among the three film dressings. The dressing with acrylic adhesive yielded the highest copy number of 16S rRNA genes, followed by that with urethane adhesive. The silicone-adhesive dressing yielded a significantly lower copy number of the 16S rRNA gene. The microbial composition of skin microbiota was similar among the three film dressings, although significant differences in the relative abundance of Pseudomonas species and alpha diversity indices were found in the silicone-adhesive dressing. The Bray-Curtis dissimilarity was significantly higher between the acrylic- and silicone-adhesive dressings than between the acrylic- and urethane-adhesive dressings. No adverse effects related to tape stripping were observed for any of the film dressings. We recommend dressings with acrylic or urethane adhesive for amplicon-based skin microbiome studies. An acrylic adhesive has an advantage in the yield of skin microbiota, and a urethane adhesive should be chosen when applied to fragile skin. The adhesive force of the dressing with silicone adhesive was too weak to be used for collecting skin microbiota.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Medical film dressings have been used to obtain skin microbiota for skin microbiome studies, although their adhesive force may be so strong that the skin could be injured when applied to those who have fragile skin, such as older people. Several products with less adhesive force are available, although their applicability for skin microbiome studies remains unknown. This study aimed to test whether the dressings with less adhesive force could be used for amplicon-based skin microbiome studies. A set of three different film dressings, with acrylic, urethane, or silicone adhesive, was applied to the back skin of nine healthy young participants. The copy number of the 16S ribosomal RNA (rRNA) gene, microbial compositions, and alpha and beta diversity indices were analyzed by amplicon analysis of the 16S rRNA gene using next-generation sequencing and were compared among the three film dressings.
RESULTS
The dressing with acrylic adhesive yielded the highest copy number of 16S rRNA genes, followed by that with urethane adhesive. The silicone-adhesive dressing yielded a significantly lower copy number of the 16S rRNA gene. The microbial composition of skin microbiota was similar among the three film dressings, although significant differences in the relative abundance of Pseudomonas species and alpha diversity indices were found in the silicone-adhesive dressing. The Bray-Curtis dissimilarity was significantly higher between the acrylic- and silicone-adhesive dressings than between the acrylic- and urethane-adhesive dressings. No adverse effects related to tape stripping were observed for any of the film dressings.
CONCLUSION
We recommend dressings with acrylic or urethane adhesive for amplicon-based skin microbiome studies. An acrylic adhesive has an advantage in the yield of skin microbiota, and a urethane adhesive should be chosen when applied to fragile skin. The adhesive force of the dressing with silicone adhesive was too weak to be used for collecting skin microbiota.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33602131
doi: 10.1186/s12866-021-02122-4
pii: 10.1186/s12866-021-02122-4
pmc: PMC7891171
doi:
Substances chimiques
Acrylates
0
Adhesives
0
DNA, Bacterial
0
RNA, Ribosomal, 16S
0
Silicones
0
Urethane
3IN71E75Z5
acrylic acid
J94PBK7X8S
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
54Subventions
Organisme : Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology
ID : 17H04428
Références
Genome Biol. 2012 Nov 15;13(11):R101
pubmed: 23153041
Nature. 2012 Jun 13;486(7402):207-14
pubmed: 22699609
Adv Skin Wound Care. 2017 Aug;30(8):372-381
pubmed: 28727593
Front Microbiol. 2016 Dec 20;7:2012
pubmed: 28066342
Nat Methods. 2016 Jul;13(7):581-3
pubmed: 27214047
Nature. 2012 Jun 13;486(7402):215-21
pubmed: 22699610
BMC Microbiol. 2017 Jan 21;17(1):23
pubmed: 28109256
Nat Microbiol. 2016 Jul 11;1(9):16106
pubmed: 27562258
PLoS One. 2015 Apr 14;10(4):e0123216
pubmed: 25876035
Clin Dermatol. 2019 Jul - Aug;37(4):336-345
pubmed: 31345321
Front Microbiol. 2018 Oct 02;9:2362
pubmed: 30333815
J Wound Care. 2001 Feb;10(2):7-10
pubmed: 12964220
J Invest Dermatol. 2017 Mar;137(3):561-568
pubmed: 28063650
Sci Rep. 2019 Nov 21;9(1):17287
pubmed: 31754146
Genome Res. 2008 Jul;18(7):1043-50
pubmed: 18502944
Nat Biotechnol. 2019 Aug;37(8):852-857
pubmed: 31341288
BMC Microbiol. 2015 Mar 21;15:66
pubmed: 25880246
Microbiol Immunol. 2016 Aug;60(8):521-6
pubmed: 27301664
PLoS One. 2012;7(3):e33865
pubmed: 22457796
Immunotherapy. 2013 Jan;5(1):23-5
pubmed: 23256795
Skin Pharmacol Physiol. 2011;24(6):305-11
pubmed: 21757977
J Clin Nurs. 2010 May;19(9-10):1236-42
pubmed: 20345829
Microbiome. 2018 Sep 10;6(1):155
pubmed: 30201048
Nucleic Acids Res. 2013 Jan;41(Database issue):D590-6
pubmed: 23193283
J Investig Dermatol Symp Proc. 2001 Dec;6(3):170-4
pubmed: 11924823
mSphere. 2019 May 22;4(3):
pubmed: 31118299
Arch Immunol Ther Exp (Warsz). 2018 Feb;66(1):45-54
pubmed: 28623375
Nat Rev Microbiol. 2011 Apr;9(4):244-53
pubmed: 21407241
Front Med (Lausanne). 2020 Apr 08;7:101
pubmed: 32322583
Microbiome. 2018 Sep 5;6(1):154
pubmed: 30185226
Dermatol Ther. 2004;17 Suppl 1:43-8
pubmed: 14728698
Microbiome. 2018 May 17;6(1):90
pubmed: 29773078
J Wound Care. 2003 Jul;12(7):260-2
pubmed: 12894697
Paediatr Nurs. 2009 Apr;21(3):38-43
pubmed: 19397129