Shaping the subway microbiome through probiotic-based sanitation during the COVID-19 emergency: a pre-post case-control study.
COVID-19
Disinfection
Probiotic sanitation
Subway microbiome
Journal
Microbiome
ISSN: 2049-2618
Titre abrégé: Microbiome
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101615147
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
30 03 2023
30 03 2023
Historique:
received:
18
10
2022
accepted:
07
03
2023
medline:
31
3
2023
entrez:
29
3
2023
pubmed:
30
3
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the extent to which the public transportation environment, such as in subways, may be important for the transmission of potential pathogenic microbes among humans, with the possibility of rapidly impacting large numbers of people. For these reasons, sanitation procedures, including massive use of chemical disinfection, were mandatorily introduced during the emergency and remain in place. However, most chemical disinfectants have temporary action and a high environmental impact, potentially enhancing antimicrobial resistance (AMR) of the treated microbes. By contrast, a biological and eco-sustainable probiotic-based sanitation (PBS) procedure was recently shown to stably shape the microbiome of treated environments, providing effective and long-term control of pathogens and AMR spread in addition to activity against SARS-CoV-2, the causative agent of COVID-19. Our study aims to assess the applicability and impact of PBS compared with chemical disinfectants based on their effects on the surface microbiome of a subway environment. The train microbiome was characterized by both culture-based and culture-independent molecular methods, including 16S rRNA NGS and real-time qPCR microarray, for profiling the train bacteriome and its resistome and to identify and quantify specific human pathogens. SARS-CoV-2 presence was also assessed in parallel using digital droplet PCR. The results showed a clear and significant decrease in bacterial and fungal pathogens (p < 0.001) as well as of SARS-CoV-2 presence (p < 0.01), in the PBS-treated train compared with the chemically disinfected control train. In addition, NGS profiling evidenced diverse clusters in the population of air vs. surface while demonstrating the specific action of PBS against pathogens rather than the entire train bacteriome. The data presented here provide the first direct assessment of the impact of different sanitation procedures on the subway microbiome, allowing a better understanding of its composition and dynamics and showing that a biological sanitation approach may be highly effective in counteracting pathogens and AMR spread in our increasingly urbanized and interconnected environment. Video Abstract.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the extent to which the public transportation environment, such as in subways, may be important for the transmission of potential pathogenic microbes among humans, with the possibility of rapidly impacting large numbers of people. For these reasons, sanitation procedures, including massive use of chemical disinfection, were mandatorily introduced during the emergency and remain in place. However, most chemical disinfectants have temporary action and a high environmental impact, potentially enhancing antimicrobial resistance (AMR) of the treated microbes. By contrast, a biological and eco-sustainable probiotic-based sanitation (PBS) procedure was recently shown to stably shape the microbiome of treated environments, providing effective and long-term control of pathogens and AMR spread in addition to activity against SARS-CoV-2, the causative agent of COVID-19. Our study aims to assess the applicability and impact of PBS compared with chemical disinfectants based on their effects on the surface microbiome of a subway environment.
RESULTS
The train microbiome was characterized by both culture-based and culture-independent molecular methods, including 16S rRNA NGS and real-time qPCR microarray, for profiling the train bacteriome and its resistome and to identify and quantify specific human pathogens. SARS-CoV-2 presence was also assessed in parallel using digital droplet PCR. The results showed a clear and significant decrease in bacterial and fungal pathogens (p < 0.001) as well as of SARS-CoV-2 presence (p < 0.01), in the PBS-treated train compared with the chemically disinfected control train. In addition, NGS profiling evidenced diverse clusters in the population of air vs. surface while demonstrating the specific action of PBS against pathogens rather than the entire train bacteriome.
CONCLUSIONS
The data presented here provide the first direct assessment of the impact of different sanitation procedures on the subway microbiome, allowing a better understanding of its composition and dynamics and showing that a biological sanitation approach may be highly effective in counteracting pathogens and AMR spread in our increasingly urbanized and interconnected environment. Video Abstract.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36991513
doi: 10.1186/s40168-023-01512-2
pii: 10.1186/s40168-023-01512-2
pmc: PMC10060134
doi:
Substances chimiques
RNA, Ribosomal, 16S
0
Disinfectants
0
Types de publication
Video-Audio Media
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
64Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Microbiome. 2016 Jun 03;4(1):24
pubmed: 27255532
Viruses. 2021 Nov 04;13(11):
pubmed: 34835033
mSystems. 2016 Jun 28;1(3):
pubmed: 27822528
Infect Drug Resist. 2022 Mar 30;15:1399-1410
pubmed: 35386291
Sci Transl Med. 2017 May 24;9(391):
pubmed: 28539477
Microb Biotechnol. 2017 Sep;10(5):1079-1083
pubmed: 28677216
PLoS One. 2018 Jul 12;13(7):e0199616
pubmed: 30001345
PLoS One. 2016 Feb 17;11(2):e0148857
pubmed: 26886448
Sci Rep. 2020 May 29;10(1):8798
pubmed: 32472074
Cell. 2021 Jun 24;184(13):3376-3393.e17
pubmed: 34043940
Antibiotics (Basel). 2018 Dec 14;7(4):
pubmed: 30558235
Int J Mol Sci. 2019 Mar 27;20(7):
pubmed: 30934725
Environ Sci Technol. 2017 Jul 18;51(14):7759-7774
pubmed: 28677960
Infect Drug Resist. 2019 Feb 27;12:501-510
pubmed: 30881055
Nature. 2012 Jun 13;486(7402):207-14
pubmed: 22699609
Cell Rep. 2018 Jul 31;24(5):1190-1202.e5
pubmed: 30067975
PLoS One. 2020 Aug 19;15(8):e0237272
pubmed: 32813719
BMC Microbiol. 2014 Mar 12;14:63
pubmed: 24621342
Environ Res. 2021 Feb;193:110559
pubmed: 33275925
Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2020 Sep;24(17):9202-9207
pubmed: 32965015
Environ Health Perspect. 2014 Jul;122(7):A182-7
pubmed: 24983914
BMC Microbiol. 2008 Apr 08;8:56
pubmed: 18397514
Cell Syst. 2015 Jul 29;1(1):72-87
pubmed: 26594662
J Hosp Infect. 2016 Oct;94(2):193-4
pubmed: 27436618
Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2022 Jul 06;12:882302
pubmed: 35873175
Microbiome. 2019 Dec 19;7(1):160
pubmed: 31856911
Curr Res Toxicol. 2021;2:159-168
pubmed: 33688633
Environ Int. 2016 Sep;94:369-379
pubmed: 27107973
Lancet Microbe. 2020 Aug;1(4):e146
pubmed: 33521712
Appl Environ Microbiol. 2012 Mar;78(6):1917-29
pubmed: 22247150
Nat Commun. 2019 Feb 27;10(1):968
pubmed: 30814504
Microb Biotechnol. 2019 Jul;12(4):742-751
pubmed: 31025530
Sci Adv. 2015 Apr 3;1(3):
pubmed: 26229982
Microbiome. 2021 Jun 8;9(1):132
pubmed: 34103074
Pathogens. 2021 May 17;10(5):
pubmed: 34067889
Front Microbiol. 2017 Jun 26;8:1154
pubmed: 28694797
Adv Exp Med Biol. 2019;1214:79-91
pubmed: 31321750
Microorganisms. 2019 Dec 16;7(12):
pubmed: 31888282
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2013 Jun 13;10(6):2412-26
pubmed: 23765189
Front Microbiol. 2021 Jun 23;12:687513
pubmed: 34248910
Microorganisms. 2022 Jan 20;10(2):
pubmed: 35208679