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
. 2023 Jan 28;23(1):31.
doi: 10.1186/s12866-023-02775-3.

Significantly different results in the ocular surface microbiome detected by tear paper and conjunctival swab

Zhangling Chen  1   2 , Zhaoyu Xiang  3 , Lipu Cui  3 , Xinran Qin  3 , Shuli Chen  3 , Huiyi Jin  4 , Haidong Zou  5   6   7   8   9   10
Affiliations

Significantly different results in the ocular surface microbiome detected by tear paper and conjunctival swab

Zhangling Chen et al. BMC Microbiol. .

Abstract

Background: Great variation has been observed in the composition of the normal microbiota of the ocular surface, and therefore, in addition to differences in detection techniques, the method of collecting ocular surface specimens has a significant impact on the test results.The goal of this study is to ascertain whether the eye surface microbial communities detected by two different sampling methods are consistent and hence explore the feasibility of using tear test paper instead of conjunctival swabs to collect eye surface samples for microbial investigation.

Materials and methods: From July 15, 2021, to July 30, 2021, nonirritating tear test strips and conjunctival swabs of both eyes were used in 158 elderly people (> 60 years old) (79 diabetic and 79 nondiabetic adults) in Xinjing Community for high-throughput sequencing of the V3-V4 region of the 16S rRNA gene. The composition of the microbial communities in tear test paper and conjunctival swab samples was analyzed.

Results: There was no statistically significant difference in Alpha diversity of ocular surface microorganisms represented by tear strip and conjunctival swab in diabetic group (P > 0.05), but there was statistically significant difference in Alpha diversity of ocular surface microorganisms detected by tear strip and conjunctival swab in nondiabetic group (P < 0.05). There were statistically significant differences in Beta diversity of ocular surface microorganisms detected by two sampling methods between diabetic group and nondiabetic group (P < 0.05). There were statistically significant differences in ocular surface microorganisms detected by tear strip method between diabetic group and nondiabetic group (P < 0.05), but there was no statistically significant difference in conjunctival swab method (P > 0.05).

Conclusions: Tear test paper and conjunctival swabs detect different compositions of microbes through two different techniques of eye surface microbe sampling. Tear test paper cannot completely replace conjunctival swab specimens for the study of microbes related to eye surface diseases.

Keywords: 16S rRNA; Conjunctiva; Microbes; Ocular surface; Tears.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

All authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
A The number of ASVs/OTUs in the four study groups; B Rarefaction Curve; C Species accumulation curves; D The number of taxa in four groups; E The relative abundance of four groups at phyla level (top 10); F The relative abundance of four groups at genus level (Top 20)
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
A Alpha diversity index analysis of the four study groups; B Analysis of differences between the four groups; C PCoA analysis; D NMDS analysis
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Species with significant differences between the two groups(P < 0.05): A LEfSe analysis in DM-T and DM-S group; B LEfSe analysis in NDM-T and NDM-S group; C LEfSe analysis in DM group and NDM group with tear test paper; D LEfSe analysis in DM group and NDM group with conjunctival swabs
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Kugadas A, Gadjeva M. Impact of microbiome on ocular health. Ocul Surf. 2016;14(3):342–349. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Eder M, Farina N, Sanabria RR, et al. Normal ocular flora in newborns delivered in two hospital centers in Argentina and Paraguay. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2005;243(11):1098–1107. - PubMed
    1. Cavuoto KM, Mendez R, Miller D, et al. Effect of clinical parameters on the ocular surface microbiome in children and adults. Clin Ophthalmol. 2018;12:1189–1197. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Liu Q, Chen C, Shen E, et al. Detection, annotation and visualization of alternative splicing from RNA-Seq data with SplicingViewer. Genomics. 2012;99(3):178–82. - PubMed
    1. Petrillo F, Pignataro D, Lavano MA, et al. Current evidence on the ocular surface microbiota and related diseases. Microorganisms. 2020;8(7):1033. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

Substances