4.8 Article

Abundance and diversity of resistomes differ between healthy human oral cavities and gut

期刊

NATURE COMMUNICATIONS
卷 11, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41467-020-14422-w

关键词

-

资金

  1. Centre for Host-Microbiome Interactions, King's College London
  2. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) [BB/M009513/1]
  3. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC)
  4. BBSRC
  5. UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) [EP/S001301/1]
  6. BBSRC [1754536] Funding Source: UKRI
  7. EPSRC [EP/S001301/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The global threat of antimicrobial resistance has driven the use of high-throughput sequencing techniques to monitor the profile of resistance genes, known as the resistome, in microbial populations. The human oral cavity contains a poorly explored reservoir of these genes. Here we analyse and compare the resistome profiles of 788 oral cavities worldwide with paired stool metagenomes. We find country and body site-specific differences in the prevalence of antimicrobial resistance genes, classes and mechanisms in oral and stool samples. Within individuals, the highest abundances of antimicrobial resistance genes are found in the oral cavity, but the oral cavity contains a lower diversity of resistance genes compared to the gut. Additionally, co-occurrence analysis shows contrasting ARG-species associations between saliva and stool samples. Maintenance and persistence of antimicrobial resistance is likely to vary across different body sites. Thus, we highlight the importance of characterising the resistome across body sites to uncover the antimicrobial resistance potential in the human body. Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) represents a global health threat. Here, the authors analyse the oral and gut resistomes from metagenomes of diverse populations and find that the oral resistome harbours higher abundance but lower diversity of antimicrobial resistance genes than the gut resistome.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据