» Articles » PMID: 24529162

Comparison of Brush and Biopsy Sampling Methods of the Ileal Pouch for Assessment of Mucosa-associated Microbiota of Human Subjects

Abstract

Background: Mucosal biopsy is the most common sampling technique used to assess microbial communities associated with the intestinal mucosa. Biopsies disrupt the epithelium and can be associated with complications such as bleeding. Biopsies sample a limited area of the mucosa, which can lead to potential sampling bias. In contrast to the mucosal biopsy, the mucosal brush technique is less invasive and provides greater mucosal coverage, and if it can provide equivalent microbial community data, it would be preferable to mucosal biopsies.

Results: We compared microbial samples collected from the intestinal mucosa using either a cytology brush or mucosal biopsy forceps. We collected paired samples from patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) who had previously undergone colectomy and ileal pouch anal anastomosis (IPAA), and profiled the microbial communities of the samples by sequencing V4-V6 or V4-V5 16S rRNA-encoding gene amplicons. Comparisons of 177 taxa in 16 brush-biopsy sample pairs had a mean R2 of 0.94. We found no taxa that varied significantly between the brush and biopsy samples after adjusting for multiple comparisons (false discovery rate ≤0.05). We also tested the reproducibility of DNA amplification and sequencing in 25 replicate pairs and found negligible variation (mean R2 = 0.99). A qPCR analysis of the two methods showed that the relative yields of bacterial DNA to human DNA were several-fold higher in the brush samples than in the biopsies.

Conclusions: Mucosal brushing is preferred to mucosal biopsy for sampling the epithelial-associated microbiota. Although both techniques provide similar assessments of the microbial community composition, the brush sampling method has relatively more bacterial to host DNA, covers a larger surface area, and is less traumatic to the epithelium than the mucosal biopsy.

Citing Articles

Mucosal washes are useful for sampling intestinal mucus-associated microbiota despite low biomass.

Martinez-Medina J, Ghazisaeedi F, Kramer C, Ziegler J, McParland V, Monch P Gut Microbes. 2025; 17(1):2464296.

PMID: 39980334 PMC: 11849919. DOI: 10.1080/19490976.2025.2464296.


Endoscopic brush sampling identifies mucosa associated microbiota in colorectal adenomas.

Liu J, Xiang K, He H, Chen W Heliyon. 2024; 10(20):e38901.

PMID: 39640827 PMC: 11620161. DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e38901.


Capsule robots for the monitoring, diagnosis, and treatment of intestinal diseases.

Wei X, Xi P, Chen M, Wen Y, Wu H, Wang L Mater Today Bio. 2024; 29:101294.

PMID: 39483392 PMC: 11525164. DOI: 10.1016/j.mtbio.2024.101294.


Bile acid fitness determinants of a isolate from a human pouchitis patient.

Fiebig A, Schnizlein M, Pena-Rivera S, Trigodet F, Dubey A, Hennessy M mBio. 2023; 15(1):e0283023.

PMID: 38063424 PMC: 10790697. DOI: 10.1128/mbio.02830-23.


Characteristics of Gastric Mucosa-Associated Microbiota in Patients with Early Gastric Cancer After Successful Helicobacter pylori Eradication.

Nakano T, Dohi O, Takagi T, Naito Y, Fukui H, Miyazaki H Dig Dis Sci. 2023; 68(12):4398-4406.

PMID: 37875607 DOI: 10.1007/s10620-023-08154-2.


References
1.
Huse S, Mark Welch D, Voorhis A, Shipunova A, Morrison H, Eren A . VAMPS: a website for visualization and analysis of microbial population structures. BMC Bioinformatics. 2014; 15:41. PMC: 3922339. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2105-15-41. View

2.
Leone V, Chang E, Devkota S . Diet, microbes, and host genetics: the perfect storm in inflammatory bowel diseases. J Gastroenterol. 2013; 48(3):315-21. PMC: 3698420. DOI: 10.1007/s00535-013-0777-2. View

3.
Haas B, Gevers D, Earl A, Feldgarden M, Ward D, Giannoukos G . Chimeric 16S rRNA sequence formation and detection in Sanger and 454-pyrosequenced PCR amplicons. Genome Res. 2011; 21(3):494-504. PMC: 3044863. DOI: 10.1101/gr.112730.110. View

4.
Atkinson M, Chervonsky A . Does the gut microbiota have a role in type 1 diabetes? Early evidence from humans and animal models of the disease. Diabetologia. 2012; 55(11):2868-77. PMC: 3496388. DOI: 10.1007/s00125-012-2672-4. View

5.
Nadkarni M, Martin F, Jacques N, Hunter N . Determination of bacterial load by real-time PCR using a broad-range (universal) probe and primers set. Microbiology (Reading). 2002; 148(Pt 1):257-266. DOI: 10.1099/00221287-148-1-257. View