4.6 Article

Pyrosequencing of Plaque Microflora In Twin Children with Discordant Caries Phenotypes

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 10, Issue 11, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0141310

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81170954, 81371130]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Despite recent successes in the control of dental caries, the mechanism of caries development remains unclear. To investigate the causes of dental decay, especially in early childhood caries, the supragingival microflora composition of 20 twins with discordant caries phenotypes were analyzed using high-throughput pyrosequencing. In addition, the parents completed a lifestyle questionnaire. A total of 228,789 sequencing reads revealed 10 phyla, 84 genera, and 155 species of microflora, the relative abundances of these strains varied dramatically among the children, Comparative analysis between groups revealed that Veillonella, Corynebacterium and Actinomyces were presumed to be caries-related genera, Fusobacterium, Kingella and Leptotrichia were presumed to be healthy-related genus, yet this six genera were not statistically significant (P>0.05). Moreover, a cluster analysis revealed that the microbial composition of samples in the same group was often dissimilar but that the microbial composition observed in twins was usually similar. Although the genetic and environmental factors that strongly influence the microbial composition of dental caries remains unknown, we speculate that genetic factors primarily influence the individual's susceptibility to dental caries and that environmental factors primarily regulate the microbial composition of the dental plaque and the progression to caries. By using improved twins models and increased sample sizes, our study can be extended to analyze the specific genetic and environmental factors that affect the development of caries.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available