Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2018 Apr 11;13(4):e0194729.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0194729. eCollection 2018.

Comparison of the oral microbiome in mouthwash and whole saliva samples

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Comparison of the oral microbiome in mouthwash and whole saliva samples

Xiaozhou Fan et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

Population-based epidemiologic studies can provide important insight regarding the role of the microbiome in human health and disease. Buccal cells samples using commercial mouthwash have been obtained in large prospective cohorts for the purpose of studying human genomic DNA. We aimed to better understand if these mouthwash samples are also a valid resource for the study of the oral microbiome. We collected one saliva sample and one Scope mouthwash sample from 10 healthy subjects. Bacterial 16S rRNA genes from both types of samples were amplified, sequenced, and assigned to bacterial taxa. We comprehensively compared these paired samples for bacterial community composition and individual taxonomic abundance. We found that mouthwash samples yielded similar amount of bacterial DNA as saliva samples (p from Student's t-test for paired samples = 0.92). Additionally, the paired samples had similar within sample diversity (p from = 0.33 for richness, and p = 0.51 for Shannon index), and clustered as pairs for diversity when analyzed by unsupervised hierarchical cluster analysis. No significant difference was found in the paired samples with respect to the taxonomic abundance of major bacterial phyla, Bacteroidetes, Firmicutes, Proteobacteria, Fusobacteria, and Actinobacteria (FDR adjusted q values from Wilcoxin signed-rank test = 0.15, 0.15, 0.87, 1.00 and 0.15, respectively), and all identified genera, including genus Streptococcus (q = 0.21), Prevotella (q = 0.25), Neisseria (q = 0.37), Veillonella (q = 0.73), Fusobacterium (q = 0.19), and Porphyromonas (q = 0.60). These results show that mouthwash samples perform similarly to saliva samples for analysis of the oral microbiome. Mouthwash samples collected originally for analysis of human DNA are also a resource suitable for human microbiome research.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. Alpha-diversity of oral bacterial communities in the paired mouthwash-saliva samples.
Bar plots of number of observed OTUs (a) and Shannon Index (b) in paired mouthwash-saliva samples in 10 subjects. These indices were calculated for 500 iterations of rarefied OTU table with minimum sequencing depth of 38,400 among all study subjects, with the average over the iterations taken for each participant. No differences were found between mouthwash and saliva samples in α-diversity (p from paired t-test = 0.33 for richness, and 0.51 for Shannon index).
Fig 2
Fig 2. Beta-diversity of oral bacterial communities in the paired mouthwash-saliva samples.
Hierarchical cluster analysis using JSD distance. AU (approximately unbiased) p-values, the unbiased bootstrap probability, ranged from 0.97 to 1.00 for all paired samples in hierarchical cluster analysis with number of 1,000 bootstrap replications. Cluster with AU ≥ 0.95 are considered to be strongly supported by data. S01-S10 indicate study subject 1 to 10. “M” indicates mouthwash sample and “S” indicates salivary sample.
Fig 3
Fig 3. Correlation of the centered Log-Ratio (clr) transformed count of major bacteria phyla and genera in the paired mouthwash-saliva samples.
Correlation of clr-transformed counts in mouthwash and saliva samples of major bacterial phyla (Panel A) and genera (Panel B). The x-axis represents the transformed counts in mouthwash samples, and the y-axis represents transformed counts in saliva samples. The straight line is the line of equality. All FDR adjusted q values from Wilcoxon signed-rank test for the comparison of the taxonomic abundance in paired samples were >0.05.

Similar articles

  • The Oral Microbiome in the Elderly With Dental Caries and Health.
    Jiang Q, Liu J, Chen L, Gan N, Yang D. Jiang Q, et al. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2019 Jan 4;8:442. doi: 10.3389/fcimb.2018.00442. eCollection 2018. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2019. PMID: 30662876 Free PMC article.
  • Evaluation of Buccal Cell Samples for Studies of Oral Microbiota.
    Yu G, Phillips S, Gail MH, Goedert JJ, Humphrys M, Ravel J, Ren Y, Caporaso NE. Yu G, et al. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2017 Feb;26(2):249-253. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-16-0538. Epub 2016 Oct 21. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2017. PMID: 27770008
  • Comparison of Oral Collection Methods for Studies of Microbiota.
    Vogtmann E, Chen J, Kibriya MG, Amir A, Shi J, Chen Y, Islam T, Eunes M, Ahmed A, Naher J, Rahman A, Barmon B, Knight R, Chia N, Ahsan H, Abnet CC, Sinha R. Vogtmann E, et al. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2019 Jan;28(1):137-143. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-18-0312. Epub 2018 Sep 27. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2019. PMID: 30262598 Free PMC article.
  • The oral microbiome and human health.
    Yamashita Y, Takeshita T. Yamashita Y, et al. J Oral Sci. 2017;59(2):201-206. doi: 10.2334/josnusd.16-0856. J Oral Sci. 2017. PMID: 28637979 Review.
  • Effects of chlorhexidine mouthwash on the oral microbiome.
    Brookes ZLS, Belfield LA, Ashworth A, Casas-Agustench P, Raja M, Pollard AJ, Bescos R. Brookes ZLS, et al. J Dent. 2021 Oct;113:103768. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2021.103768. Epub 2021 Aug 18. J Dent. 2021. PMID: 34418463 Review.

Cited by

References

    1. Yamashita Y, Takeshita T. The oral microbiome and human health. J Oral Sci. 2017;59(2):201–6. doi: 10.2334/josnusd.16-0856 . - DOI - PubMed
    1. Ohlrich EJ, Cullinan MP, Leichter JW. Diabetes, periodontitis, and the subgingival microbiota. J Oral Microbiol. 2010;2 doi: 10.3402/jom.v2i0.5818 . - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Koren O, Spor A, Felin J, Fak F, Stombaugh J, Tremaroli V, et al. Human oral, gut, and plaque microbiota in patients with atherosclerosis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011;108 Suppl 1:4592–8. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1011383107 . - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ahn J, Chen CY, Hayes RB. Oral microbiome and oral and gastrointestinal cancer risk. Cancer causes & control: CCC. 2012;23(3):399–404. doi: 10.1007/s10552-011-9892-7 . - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Fan X, Alekseyenko AV, Wu J, Peters BA, Jacobs EJ, Gapstur SM, et al. Human oral microbiome and prospective risk for pancreatic cancer: a population-based nested case-control study. Gut. 2018;67(1):120–7. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2016-312580 . - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources