Cutaneous surgical wounds have distinct microbiomes from intact skin
====================================================================

* Sameer Gupta
* Alexandra J. Poret
* David Hashemi
* Amarachi Eseonu
* Sherry H. Yu
* Jonathan D’Gama
* Victor A. Neel
* Tami D. Lieberman

## Abstract

Infections are relatively rare following cutaneous surgical procedures, despite the potential for wound exposure to pathogens both during surgery and throughout the healing process. Although gut commensals are believed to reduce the risk of intestinal infections, an analogous role for skin commensals has not been described. In fact, the microbiome of normally healing surgical skin wounds has not yet been profiled using culture-independent techniques. We characterized the wound microbiome in 53 patients who underwent skin cancer surgery and healed without signs or symptoms of infection. A week after surgery, several bacterial species displayed significant differences in relative abundance when compared to control, non-operated skin from the same patient. The most common bacteria found on intact skin, *Cutibacterium acnes*, was depleted in wounds 5-fold. *Staphylococcus aureus*, a frequent cause of postoperative skin infections, was enriched 6.4-fold in clinically non-infected wounds, suggesting active suppression of pathogenicity. Finally, members of the *Corynebacterium* genus were the dominant organism in postoperative wounds, making up 37% of the average wound microbiome. The enrichment of these bacteria in normally healing wounds suggests they might be capable of providing colonization resistance. Future studies focused on the biological and clinical significance of the wound microbiome may shed light on normal wound healing and potential therapeutic opportunities to mitigate infection risk.

**Importance** Commensal bacteria on skin may limit the ability of pathogenic bacteria to cause clinically-significant infections. The bacteria on healing acute wounds, which might provide such a protective effect, have not been described using culture-independent approaches in the absence of antibiotics. We compare the microbiome of wounds a week after skin cancer removal surgery with intact skin from the same patient. We find that the potentially pathogenic species *S. aureus* is common on these normally healing wounds, despite the absence of symptoms or signs of infection. We report that bacteria often considered as potential skin probiotics, including *S. epidermidis*, do not reach high abundance in wound microbiomes. In contrast, specific members of the *Cornyebacterium* genus, rarely associated with skin infections, were enriched in healing wounds relative to intact skin. Future work is needed to see if *Corynebacterium* species or derivatives thereof could be employed to lower the risk of wound infection.

## Main text

The structural integrity of skin presents a formidable barrier against invasion by pathogens encountered in the environment. Following the disruption of this barrier-- due to surgery, trauma, or other insults-- the innate and adaptive arms of the immune system protect against infection until the barrier is re-established (1). Commensal skin microbes may play an important role in this process and may even provide colonization resistance (2–5), the ability of resident microbiota to mitigate infection risk, akin to what has been described in the gut microbiome (6).

While the microbiome of chronic skin ulcers and burns has been extensively studied in humans (2, 7–9), few human studies have characterized the microbiome in uncomplicated, acute wounds (10, 11) These studies have reported population shifts associated with mechanism of injury and time since wounding (10, 11). However, the ability of these studies to identify microbes that might provide colonization resistance (i.e. those enriched on normally healing wounds) may have been by the limited to the administration of broad-spectrum antibiotics prior to sampling. To our knowledge, the flora that colonize normally healing, uninfected and non-antibiotic treated, cutaneous wounds has not been described using culture-independent approaches.

Here, we describe the microbiome in normally healing, acute skin wounds following skin cancer surgery. The wound microbiomes of 65 patients undergoing Mohs micrographic surgery and managed by either complete or partial second intention healing were profiled 6-8 days after surgery. For each surgical site, an anatomically-matched normal, intact skin site was sampled concurrently. The microbiome from each swab sample was profiled using 16S rRNA sequencing of the V1-V3 region, and a custom classifier enabled description of most skin bacteria at the species level (see Supplementary Methods) (12, 13). A total of 53 pairs of surgical samples and controls were included in the analysis after quality control (Supplementary Table 1).

Wounds and anatomically matched control microbiomes had distinct compositions (Figure 1A). When bacterial composition was visualized in two dimensions using principal-coordinate analysis, wound and control samples clustered separately regardless of anatomical location, cancer type, gender, closure type, or experimental batch (Supplementary Figure 2-6). Interestingly, wound microbiome compositions showed greater variance across patients than did controls, indicating that the microbiome of wounds can develop in diverse ways (Figure 1B).

![Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2022/09/26/2022.05.05.22274498/F1.medium.gif)

[Figure 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/09/26/2022.05.05.22274498/F1)

Figure 1. After surgery, the healthy wound microbiota is disrupted, characterized by a loss of *Cutibacterium*.
(a) Bray-Curtis PCoA and Unifrac community composition metrics for both contralateral control (in orange) and wound sites (in blue) after a week post-surgery are shown. Separation between wound and control sites is observed in both composition metrics regardless of sample batch. (b) Comparing the average Bray-Curtis or Unifrac dissimilarity within control samples (labeled C-C), within wound samples (labeled W-W), or between control and wound samples (labeled C-W) displays that microbiome samples from control skin are more similar to one another than wound-normal or wound-wound pairs, p-value: * = <10−6.

The most striking difference between wounds and control skin was a depletion of *Cutibacterium*, the most abundant genus in the normal skin microbiome, in wounds (Figure 2A; P <10−6, Wilcoxon signed-rank). This finding likely reflects the surgical removal of pilosebaceous units in the wound bed, the native niche for this genus (14).

![Figure 2.](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2022/09/26/2022.05.05.22274498/F2.medium.gif)

[Figure 2.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/09/26/2022.05.05.22274498/F2)

Figure 2. Specific *Corynebacterium* species are enriched in healthy healing skin wounds
(a) Bar graphs displaying the genus-level composition of all contralateral control and surgery samples sorted by descending *Cutibacterium* abundance visually depicts *Cutibacterium* depletion. By comparing matched control and wound samples, *Cutibacterium* depletion is significant (Wilcoxon rank sum, p < 10−6). (b) Plots displaying the composition of various genera and species after the removal of *Cutibacterium* and abundance renormalization are shown for all matched contralateral control and wound samples. Blue dots indicate control samples, while orange represent wounds. Batch one samples are additionally marked with circles, and batch two with triangles. Corynebacterium is significantly enriched after *Cutibacterium* normalization (p=.013, Wilcoxon rank sum), while the *Staphylococcus* genus shows no enrichment signal. By breaking apart the *Staphylococcus* genus, *S. aureus* is enriched (p=.002, Wilcoxon rank sum) while *S. epidermidis* and *S. capitis* are depleted (p=.004, p=10−6, Wilcoxon rank sum). (c) A phylogenetic tree created from the 16S rRNA gene of all Corynebacterium species observed in matched wound-control samples is shown. Blue bars indicate the average abundance observed in control samples and orange wound samples.

While we did not identify an enrichment of the genus *Staphylococcus* in surgical wounds compared to normal skin microbiomes, stratifying the analysis by staphylococcal species yielded several significant differences (Supplemental Table 1). *Staphylococcus epidermidis* and *Staphylococcus capitis* are depleted on wounds relative to normal skin, suggesting that they might not be ecologically successful on these wounds (P<.04, Wilcoxon signed-rank; Figure 2B). In contrast, *Staphylococcus aureus*, the bacteria most commonly associated with cutaneous wound infections (15), was enriched in surgical sites (P<.002; Figure 2B). *S. aureus* was found at ≥ 5% relative abundance in 30% of healing wounds samples, compared to only 11% of normal skin samples. As patients with clinical signs of infection were specifically excluded from this analysis, the high rate of *S. aureus* occupancy in clinically normal wound beds suggests the presence of mechanisms that prevent *S. aureus* pathogenicity.

Wounds were also enriched in *Corynebacterium* (P=0.001, Wilcoxon signed-rank), a genus primarily composed of species thought to be skin commensals. Since this enrichment could have emerged as an artifact of *Cutibacterium* depletion, we accounted for the compositional nature of the data by removing all *Cutibacterium* from our analyses and renormalizing bacterial ratios. After this correction, *Corynebacterium* remained significantly enriched in surgical wounds, indicating an expansion in the wound niche (Figure 2B, P = 0.013). The species most significantly enriched on wounds was *C. tuberculostearicum* (P <.002) (Figure 2C), a common, benign commensal (2). While this species has been occasionally been isolated in infections, most of these occurred in immunocompromised patients and there remains active debate whether the presence of *C. tuberculostearicum* in clinically infected wounds represents true cause of infection or a contaminant (16, 17). *C. accolens, C. amyloticum*, and *C*. jeikeium were also identified in some wounds (Supplementary Table 2).

The finding of *Corynebacterium* enrichment – in the absence of clinical signs of infection – raises the possibility that this genus might help to limit *S. aureus* pathogenicity. A prior study reported a negative correlation between *Corynebacterium* and *S. aureus* abundances in the nasal microbiome (18). Similarly, we find a strong negative correlation between these bacterial groups in wounds (r = −0.55, Pearson correlation; Supplementary Figure 7); the concordance between nasal and wound environments suggests that *Corynebacterium* can compete with *S. aureus* across niches. *Corynebacterium striatum* has been shown to suppress the *S. aureus agr* virulence pathway *in vitro* (19), providing a possible mechanism for this interaction. In addition, repeated introduction of *Corynebacterium* onto the nasal mucosa of *S. aureus* carriers helped eradicate *S. aureus* colonization in a small human trial (18).

A previous study of traumatic open fracture wounds found only minimal distinction between the microbiome at the wound center and adjacent skin and, in contrast to our findings, depletion of *Corynebacterium* on wounded skin (10). However patients in this previous study had a different wound type and were treated with broad-spectrum antibiotics prior to sampling, limiting a direct comparison to our work. In one study of chronic wounds, *Corynebacterium* was the only operational-taxonomic-unit associated with healing, providing additional support for *Corynebacterium’*s fitness on normally healing wounds (20). There are several limitations to the current study. Surgical sites were cleaned with 70% isopropyl alcohol, and some additionally with chlorhexidine, prior to surgery, while control sites were not exposed to anti-infectives. While it has been reported that alcohol and other topical antiseptic treatments temporarily shift the skin microbiome, the influence of these treatments diminishes within hours, and these treatments have been shown to decrease, rather than increase, the relative abundance of *Corynebacterium* (21). Additionally, wound microbiomes may be affected by the presence of cancer-associated microbes (22); however, studies of the cancer microbiome prior to surgery have not detected *Corynebacterium* enrichment (23). Lastly, our sample cohort consisted of primarily elderly patients with extensive sun damage, which may limit the applicability of our findings to other groups.

In conclusion, we observed distinct bacterial communities in acute wounds a week after surgery and anatomically-matched normal skin from the same patient. The prevalence of *S. aureus* in these clinically normal wounds was accompanied by the outgrowth of a variety of *Corynebacterium* species. Further work is needed to establish whether wound colonization by *Corynebacterium* or other bacteria plays a role in limiting infection, the specific mechanism underlying this behavior, and if clinicians can leverage this information to prevent of surgical site infections.

## Supporting information

Tables 1-2, Supplementary Methods, and Supplemental Figures 1-7 [[supplements/274498_file02.pdf]](pending:yes)

## Data Availability

Sequencing data is available under the BioProject number PRJNA809947. Code and data processing scripts can additionally be found at [https://github.com/ajporet/cutaneous\_wound\_microbiome](https://github.com/ajporet/cutaneous_wound_microbiome).

## DATA AVAILABILITY

Sequencing data is available under the BioProject number PRJNA809947. Code and data processing scripts can be found at [https://github.com/ajporet/cutaneous\_wound\_microbiome](https://github.com/ajporet/cutaneous_wound_microbiome).

## CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

VAN, TDL, and AJP have filed a provisional patent on the use of Corynebacterium species for prevention of wound infection.

## AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS STATEMENT

Conceptualization: VAN; Methodology: SG, SHY, VAN, and TDL; Investigation: SG, DH, AE, and VAN; Data Curation: SG and AJP; Formal Analysis: AJP and TDL; Writing: SG, AJP, VAN, and TDL; Supervision: VAN and TDL; Funding Acquisition: VAN.

## ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This research was supported by a Harvard Catalyst grant (to VAN).

## Footnotes

*   This work has been revised for minor revisions in data cleaning as well as manuscript brevity and reformatting.

*   Received May 5, 2022.
*   Revision received September 25, 2022.
*   Accepted September 26, 2022.


*   © 2022, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory

This pre-print is available under a Creative Commons License (Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International), CC BY-NC 4.0, as described at [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/)

## REFERENCES

1.  1.Raziyeva K, Kim Y, Zharkinbekov Z, Kassymbek K, Jimi S, Saparov A. 2021. Immunology of Acute and Chronic Wound Healing. Biomolecules 11:700.
    
    

2.  2.Byrd AL, Belkaid Y, Segre JA. 2018. The human skin microbiome. Nat Rev Microbiol 16:143–155.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/nrmicro.2017.157&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=29332945&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F09%2F26%2F2022.05.05.22274498.atom) 

3.  3.Grice EA, Segre JA. 2011. The skin microbiome. 4. Nat Rev Microbiol 9:244–253.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/nrmicro2537&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=21407241&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F09%2F26%2F2022.05.05.22274498.atom) 

4.  4.Cogen AL, Nizet V, Gallo RL. 2008. Skin microbiota: a source of disease or defence? Br J Dermatol 158:442–455.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/j.1365-2133.2008.08437.x&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=18275522&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F09%2F26%2F2022.05.05.22274498.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000253120700003&link_type=ISI) 

5.  5.Severn MM, Williams MR, Shahbandi A, Bunch ZL, Lyon LM, Nguyen A, Zaramela LS, Todd DA, Zengler K, Cech NB, Gallo RL, Horswill AR. 2022. The Ubiquitous Human Skin Commensal Staphylococcus hominis Protects against Opportunistic Pathogens. mBio 13:e00930–22.
    
    

6.  6.Khan I, Bai Y, Zha L, Ullah N, Ullah H, Shah SRH, Sun H, Zhang C. 2021. Mechanism of the Gut Microbiota Colonization Resistance and Enteric Pathogen Infection. Front Cell Infect Microbiol 11:716299.
    
    

7.  7.Loesche M, Gardner SE, Kalan L, Horwinski J, Zheng Q, Hodkinson BP, Tyldsley AS, Franciscus CL, Hillis SL, Mehta S, Margolis DJ, Grice EA. 2017. Temporal Stability in Chronic Wound Microbiota Is Associated With Poor Healing. J Invest Dermatol 137:237–244.
    
    

8.  8.Plichta JK, Gao X, Lin H, Dong Q, Toh E, Nelson DE, Gamelli RL, Grice EA, Radek KA. 2017. Cutaneous Burn Injury Promotes Shifts in the Bacterial Microbiome in Autologous Donor Skin: Implications for Skin Grafting Outcomes. Shock 48:441–448.
    
    

9.  9.Tomic-Canic M. 2020. The Anatomy of Cutaneous Wound Healing and Its Inhibition: From Mechanisms to Therapy. The FASEB Journal 34:1–1.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1096/fasebj.2020.34.s1.09466&link_type=DOI) 

10. 10.Bartow-McKenney C, Hannigan GD, Horwinski J, Hesketh P, Horan AD, Mehta S, Grice EA. 2018. The microbiota of traumatic, open fracture wounds is associated with mechanism of injury. Wound Repair Regen 26:127–135.
    
    

11. 11.Holder-Murray J, Yeh A, Rogers MB, Firek B, Mahler B, Medich D, Celebrezze J, Morowitz MJ. 2021. Time-Dependent Displacement of Commensal Skin Microbes by Pathogens at the Site of Colorectal Surgery. Clin Infect Dis 73:e2754–e2762.
    
    

12. 12.Kozlov AM, Zhang J, Yilmaz P, Glöckner FO, Stamatakis A. 2016. Phylogeny-aware identification and correction of taxonomically mislabeled sequences. Nucleic Acids Res 44:5022–5033.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/nar/gkw396&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=27166378&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F09%2F26%2F2022.05.05.22274498.atom) 

13. 13.Khadka VD, Key FM, Romo-González C, Martínez-Gayosso A, Campos-Cabrera BL, Gerónimo-Gallegos A, Lynn TC, Durán-McKinster C, Coria-Jiménez R, Lieberman TD, García-Romero MT. 2021. The Skin Microbiome of Patients With Atopic Dermatitis Normalizes Gradually During Treatment. Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology 11.
    
    

14. 14.Acosta EM, Little KA, Bratton BP, Mao X, Payne A, Devenport D, Gitai Z. 2021. Bacterial DNA on the skin surface overrepresents the viable skin microbiome.
    
    

15. 15.Raff AB, Kroshinsky D. 2016. Cellulitis: A Review. JAMA 316:325–337.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1001/jama.2016.8825&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=27434444&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F09%2F26%2F2022.05.05.22274498.atom) 

16. 16.Hinic V, Lang C, Weisser M, Straub C, Frei R, Goldenberger D. 2012. Corynebacterium tuberculostearicum: a potentially misidentified and multiresistant Corynebacterium species isolated from clinical specimens. J Clin Microbiol 50:2561–2567.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiamNtIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjk6IjUwLzgvMjU2MSI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDIyLzA5LzI2LzIwMjIuMDUuMDUuMjIyNzQ0OTguYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 

17. 17.Kalt F, Schulthess B, Sidler F, Herren S, Fucentese SF, Zingg PO, Berli M, Zinkernagel AS, Zbinden R, Achermann Y. 2018. Corynebacterium Species Rarely Cause Orthopedic Infections. J Clin Microbiol 56:e01200–18.
    
    

18. 18.Uehara Y, Nakama H, Agematsu K, Uchida M, Kawakami Y, Abdul Fattah AS, Maruchi N. 2000. Bacterial interference among nasal inhabitants: eradication of Staphylococcus aureus from nasal cavities by artificial implantation of Corynebacterium sp. J Hosp Infect 44:127–133.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1053/jhin.1999.0680&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10662563&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F09%2F26%2F2022.05.05.22274498.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000085539200007&link_type=ISI) 

19. 19.Ramsey MM, Freire MO, Gabrilska RA, Rumbaugh KP, Lemon KP. 2016. Staphylococcus aureus Shifts toward Commensalism in Response to Corynebacterium Species. Front Microbiol 7:1230.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.3389/fmicb.2016.01230&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2022%2F09%2F26%2F2022.05.05.22274498.atom) 

20. 20.Verbanic S, Deacon JM, Chen IA. 2022. The Chronic Wound Phageome: Phage Diversity and Associations with Wounds and Healing Outcomes. Microbiol Spectr 10:e0277721.
    
    

21. 21.SanMiguel AJ, Meisel JS, Horwinski J, Zheng Q, Bradley CW, Grice EA. 2018. Antiseptic Agents Elicit Short-Term, Personalized, and Body Site-Specific Shifts in Resident Skin Bacterial Communities. J Invest Dermatol 138:2234–2243.
    
    

22. 22.Voigt AY, Emiola A, Johnson JS, Fleming ES, Nguyen H, Zhou W, Tsai KY, Fink C, Oh J. 2022. Skin Microbiome Variation with Cancer Progression in Human Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma. Journal of Investigative Dermatology [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jid.2022.03.017](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jid.2022.03.017).
    
    

23. 23.Krueger A, Zaugg J, Lachner N, Bialasiewicz S, Lin LL, Gabizon S, Sobarun P, Morrison M, Soyer HP, Hugenholtz P, Frazer IH. 2022. Changes in the skin microbiome associated with squamous cell carcinoma in transplant recipients. 1. ISME COMMUN 2:1–10.