Rectal swabs as a viable alternative to faecal sampling for the analysis of gut microbiota functionality and composition
File(s)s41598-022-27131-9.pdf (1.31 MB)
Published version
Author(s)
Radhakrishnan, Shiva T
Gallagher, Kate I
Mullish, Benjamin H
Serrano Contreras, Jose I
Alexander, James L
Type
Journal Article
Abstract
Faecal or biopsy samples are frequently used to analyse the gut microbiota, but issues remain with the provision and collection of such samples. Rectal swabs are widely-utilised in clinical practice and previous data demonstrate their potential role in microbiota analyses; however, studies to date have been heterogenous, and there are a particular lack of data concerning the utility of swabs for the analysis of the microbiota’s functionality and metabolome. We compared paired stool and rectal swab samples from healthy individuals to investigate whether rectal swabs are a reliable proxy for faecal sampling. There were no significant differences in key alpha and beta diversity measures between swab and faecal samples, and inter-subject variability was preserved. Additionally, no significant differences were demonstrated in abundance of major annotated phyla. Inferred gut functionality using Tax4Fun2 showed excellent correlation between the two sampling techniques (Pearson’s coefficient r = 0.9217, P < 0.0001). Proton nuclear magnetic resonance (1H NMR) spectroscopy enabled the detection of 20 metabolites, with overall excellent correlation identified between rectal swab and faecal samples for levels all metabolites collectively, although more variable degrees of association between swab and stool for levels of individual metabolites. These data support the utility of rectal swabs in both compositional and functional analyses of the gut microbiota.
Date Issued
2023-01-10
Date Acceptance
2022-12-26
Citation
Scientific Reports, 2023, 13, pp.1-9
ISSN
2045-2322
Publisher
Nature Publishing Group
Start Page
1
End Page
9
Journal / Book Title
Scientific Reports
Volume
13
Copyright Statement
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or
format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not
permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
© The Author(s) 2023
License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or
format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not
permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
© The Author(s) 2023
License URL
Identifier
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-27131-9
Publication Status
Published
Article Number
493
Date Publish Online
2023-01-10