Refine
H-BRS Bibliography
- yes (2)
Departments, institutes and facilities
- Fachbereich Informatik (2) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (2)
Year of publication
- 2023 (2)
Language
- English (2)
Has Fulltext
- yes (2)
Keywords
Indoor spaces exhibit microbial compositions that are distinctly dissimilar from one another and from outdoor spaces. Unique in this regard, and a topic that has only recently come into focus, is the microbiome of hospitals. While the benefits of knowing exactly which microorganisms propagate how and where in hospitals are undoubtedly beneficial for preventing hospital-acquired infections, there are, to date, no standardized procedures on how to best study the hospital microbiome. Our study aimed to investigate the microbiome of hospital sanitary facilities, outlining the extent to which hospital microbiome analyses differ according to sample-preparation protocol. For this purpose, fifty samples were collected from two separate hospitals—from three wards and one hospital laboratory—using two different storage media from which DNA was extracted using two different extraction kits and sequenced with two different primer pairs (V1–V2 and V3–V4). There were no observable differences between the sample-preservation media, small differences in detected taxa between the DNA extraction kits (mainly concerning Propionibacteriaceae), and large differences in detected taxa between the two primer pairs V1–V2 and V3–V4. This analysis also showed that microbial occurrences and compositions can vary greatly from toilets to sinks to showers and across wards and hospitals. In surgical wards, patient toilets appeared to be characterized by lower species richness and diversity than staff toilets. Which sampling sites are the best for which assessments should be analyzed in more depth. The fact that the sample processing methods we investigated (apart from the choice of primers) seem to have changed the results only slightly suggests that comparing hospital microbiome studies is a realistic option. The observed differences in species richness and diversity between patient and staff toilets should be further investigated, as these, if confirmed, could be a result of excreted antimicrobials.
Microbiome analyses are essential for understanding microorganism composition and diversity, but interpretation is often challenging due to biological and technical variables. DNA extraction is a critical step that can significantly bias results, particularly in samples containing a high abundance of challenging-to-lyse microorganisms. Taking into consideration the distinctive microenvironments observed in different bodily locations, our study sought to assess the extent of bias introduced by suboptimal bead-beating during DNA extraction across diverse clinical sample types. The question was whether complex targeted extraction methods are always necessary for reliable taxonomic abundance estimation through amplicon sequencing or if simpler alternatives are effective for some sample types. Hence, for four different clinical sample types (stool, cervical swab, skin swab, and hospital surface swab samples), we compared the results achieved from extracting targeted manual protocols routinely used in our research lab for each sample type with automated protocols specifically not designed for that purpose. Unsurprisingly, we found that for the stool samples, manual extraction protocols with vigorous bead-beating were necessary in order to avoid erroneous taxa proportions on all investigated taxonomic levels and, in particular, false under- or overrepresentation of important genera such as Blautia, Faecalibacterium, and Parabacteroides. However, interestingly, we found that the skin and cervical swab samples had similar results with all tested protocols. Our results suggest that the level of practical automation largely depends on the expected microenvironment, with skin and cervical swabs being much easier to process than stool samples. Prudent consideration is necessary when extending the conclusions of this study to applications beyond rough estimations of taxonomic abundance.