PT - JOURNAL ARTICLE AU - Nazema Y. Siddiqui AU - Li Ma AU - Linda Brubaker AU - Jialiang Mao AU - Carter Hoffman AU - Lisa Karstens TI - Updating urinary microbiome analyses to enhance biologic interpretation AID - 10.1101/2021.09.30.21264391 DP - 2021 Jan 01 TA - medRxiv PG - 2021.09.30.21264391 4099 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/10/01/2021.09.30.21264391.short 4100 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/10/01/2021.09.30.21264391.full AB - Objective An approach for assessing the urinary microbiome is 16S rRNA gene sequencing, where a segment of the bacterial genome is amplified and sequenced. Methods used to analyze these data are rapidly evolving, although the research implications are not known. This re-analysis of an existing dataset aimed to determine the impact of updated bioinformatic and statistical techniques.Methods A prior Pelvic Floor Disorders Network (PFDN) study compared the urinary microbiome in 123 women with mixed urinary incontinence (MUI) and 84 controls. We used the PFDN’s unprocessed sequencing data of V1-V3 and V4-V6 16S variable regions, processed operational taxonomic unit (OTU) tables, and de-identified clinical data. We processed sequencing data with an updated bioinformatic pipeline, which used DADA2 to generate amplicon sequence variant (ASV) tables. Taxa from ASV tables were compared to OTU tables generated from the original processing; taxa from different variable regions (e.g., V1-V3 versus V4-V6) after updated processing were also compared. After updated processing, data were analyzed with multiple filtering thresholds. Several techniques were tested to cluster samples into microbial communities. Multivariable regression was used to test for associations between microbial communities and MUI, while controlling for potentially confounding variables.Results Of taxa identified through updated bioinformatic processing, only 40% were identified originally, though taxa identified through both methods represented >99% of sequencing data in terms of relative abundance. When different 16S rRNA gene regions were sequenced from the same samples, there were differences noted in recovered taxa. When the original clustering methods were applied to reprocessed sequencing data, we confirmed differences in microbial communities associated with MUI. However, when samples were clustered with a different methodology, microbial communities were no longer associated with MUI.Conclusions Updated bioinformatic processing techniques recover many different taxa compared to prior techniques, though most of these differences exist in low abundance taxa that occupy a small proportion of the overall microbiome. Detection of high abundance taxa are not significantly impacted by bioinformatic strategy. However, there are different biases for less abundant taxa; these differences as well as downstream clustering methodology and filtering thresholds may affect interpretation of overall results.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementNIA R03AG060082Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Duke University Institutional Review Board approval (Pro #00102155)All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesUnprocessed sequencing files are publicly shared on the Sequence Read Archive (SRA), Bioproject ID 703967, Accession #: PRJNA703967 De-identified cinical data are housed at: https://dash.nichd.nih.gov/ under the HMS-ESTEEM study. https://dash.nichd.nih.gov/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bioproject/PRJNA703967/