Comparative portrayal of ocular surface microbe with and without dry eye

被引:0
作者
ZhenHao Li
Yufang Gong
ShuZe Chen
SiQi Li
Yu Zhang
HuiMin Zhong
ZhouCheng Wang
YiFan Chen
QiXin Deng
YuTing Jiang
LiYing Li
Min Fu
GuoGuo Yi
机构
[1] Southern Medical University,Department of Ophthalmology, Zhujiang Hospital
[2] Hunan University of Medicine,School of Nursing
[3] Southern Medical University,Department of Ophthalmology, Shenzhen Hospital
来源
Journal of Microbiology | 2019年 / 57卷
关键词
dry eye; meibomian gland dysfunction; ocular surface bacteria; 16S rRNA gene sequencing;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
rRNA gene high-throughput sequencing was performed in the conjunctival swab samples to investigate the composition of the OS bacterial community in DE (n=35) and NDE (n=54) and compared the composition of MGD (n=25) and NMGD (n=10) among DE subjects. Deep sequencing of OS 16S rDNA from DE (n=35) and NDE (n=54) demonstrated great a difference in alpha and beta diversity between the OS bacterial flora (P < 0.05). The similar OS microbial structures were shown at the phylum and genus levels by bioinformatics analysis between them, and in LEfSe (linear discriminant analysis effect size) analysis, Bacteroidia and Bacteroidetes were enriched in DE, while Pseudomonas was plentiful in NDE (linear discriminant analysis [LDA] > 4.0). Among the DE group, there was no significant difference in α and β diversity between MGD and NMGD (P > 0.05). Surprisingly, Bacilli was the dominant microbe in MGD, and Bacteroidetes was the superior bacteria in NMGD among DE subjects (LDA > 4.0). Different diversity of OS bacteria composition between DE and NDE and the altered diversity of OS bacteria may play an important role in DE. Moreover, the lower dominance of OS bacteria in DE may be associated with the occurrence and development of DE. Although there was no significant difference in alpha and beta analysis, the OS dominant microbe between MGD and NMGD among DE was different.
引用
收藏
页码:1025 / 1032
页数:7
相关论文
共 218 条
[1]  
Ahn JM(2014)Prevalence of and risk factors associated with dry eye: The Korea national health and nutrition examination survey 2010–2011 Am. J. Ophthalmol. 158 1205-1214
[2]  
Lee SH(2003)Isolation of conjunctival mucin and differential interaction with Exp. Eye Res. 77 699-710
[3]  
Rim THT(2002) strains of varied pathogenic potential Br. J. Ophthalmol. 86 1412-1416
[4]  
Park RJ(2003)Commensal ocular bacteria degrade mucins Clin. Exp. Ophthalmol. 31 229-232
[5]  
Yang HS(2017)Prevalence and associations of dry eye syndrome in an older population: The Blue mountains Eye Study Ocul. Surf. 15 276-283
[6]  
Kim TI(2016)TFOS DEWS II definition and classification report Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 57 5116-5126
[7]  
Yoon KC(1986)Paucibacterial microbiome and resident DNA virome of the healthy conjunctiva CLAO J. 12 234-246
[8]  
Seo KY(2011)The dry eye: its mechanisms and therapy, with evidence that contact lens is a cause Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 52 2050-2064
[9]  
Aristoteli LP(2003)The international workshop on meibomian gland dysfunction: report of the subcommittee on management and treatment of meibomian gland dysfunction Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 44 5116-5124
[10]  
Bojarski B(2003)Differences in clinical parameters and tear film of tolerant and intolerant contact lens wearers Arch. Ophthalmol. 121 173-180