Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39071165›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology2024

The salivary microbiome as a diagnostic biomarker of periodontitis: a 16S multi-batch study before and after the removal of batch effects.

Alba Regueira-Iglesias, Berta Suárez-Rodríguez, Triana Blanco-Pintos, Marta Relvas, Manuela Alonso-Sampedro, Carlos Balsa-Castro, Inmaculada Tomás

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. [The Role of Salivary Microbiota in Oral and Systemic Disease Development and Diagnosis].Sichuan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Sichuan University. Medical science edition · 2026
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Alba Regueira-IglesiasOral Sciences Research Group, Special Needs Unit, Department of Surgery and Medical-Surgical Specialties, School of Medicine and Dentistry, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria de Santiago (IDIS), Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain.
Berta Suárez-RodríguezOral Sciences Research Group, Special Needs Unit, Department of Surgery and Medical-Surgical Specialties, School of Medicine and Dentistry, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria de Santiago (IDIS), Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain.
Triana Blanco-PintosOral Sciences Research Group, Special Needs Unit, Department of Surgery and Medical-Surgical Specialties, School of Medicine and Dentistry, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria de Santiago (IDIS), Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain.
Marta RelvasInstituto Universitário de Ciências da Saúde, Cooperativa de Ensino Superior Politécnico e Universitário (IUCS-CESPU), Unidade de Investigação em Patologia e Reabilitação Oral (UNIPRO), Gandra, Portugal.
Manuela Alonso-SampedroDepartment of Internal Medicine and Clinical Epidemiology, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria de Santiago (IDIS), Complejo Hospitalario Universitario, Santiago de Compostela, Spain.
Carlos Balsa-CastroOral Sciences Research Group, Special Needs Unit, Department of Surgery and Medical-Surgical Specialties, School of Medicine and Dentistry, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria de Santiago (IDIS), Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain.
Inmaculada TomásOral Sciences Research Group, Special Needs Unit, Department of Surgery and Medical-Surgical Specialties, School of Medicine and Dentistry, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria de Santiago (IDIS), Universidade de Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Microbiome-based clinical applications that improve diagnosis related to oral health are of great interest to precision dentistry. Predictive studies on the salivary microbiome are scarce and of low methodological quality (low sample sizes, lack of biological heterogeneity, and absence of a validation process). None of them evaluates the impact of confounding factors as batch effects (BEs). This is the first 16S multi-batch study to analyze the salivary microbiome at the amplicon sequence variant (ASV) level in terms of differential abundance and machine learning models. This is done in periodontally healthy and periodontitis patients before and after removing BEs. Methods: Saliva was collected from 124 patients (50 healthy, 74 periodontitis) in our setting. Sequencing of the V3-V4 16S rRNA gene region was performed in Illumina MiSeq. In parallel, searches were conducted on four databases to identify previous Illumina V3-V4 sequencing studies on the salivary microbiome. Investigations that met predefined criteria were included in the analysis, and the own and external sequences were processed using the same bioinformatics protocol. The statistical analysis was performed in the R-Bioconductor environment. Results: The elimination of BEs reduced the number of ASVs with differential abundance between the groups by approximately one-third (Before=265; After=190). Before removing BEs, the model constructed using all study samples (796) comprised 16 ASVs (0.16%) and had an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.944, sensitivity of 90.73%, and specificity of 87.16%. The model built using two-thirds of the specimens (training=531) comprised 35 ASVs (0.36%) and had an AUC of 0.955, sensitivity of 86.54%, and specificity of 90.06% after being validated in the remaining one-third (test=265). After removing BEs, the models required more ASVs (all samples=200-2.03%; training=100-1.01%) to obtain slightly lower AUC (all=0.935; test=0.947), lower sensitivity (all=81.79%; test=78.85%), and similar specificity (all=91.51%; test=90.68%). Conclusions: The removal of BEs controls false positive ASVs in the differential abundance analysis. However, their elimination implies a significantly larger number of predictor taxa to achieve optimal performance, creating less robust classifiers. As all the provided models can accurately discriminate health from periodontitis, implying good/excellent sensitivities/specificities, the salivary microbiome demonstrates potential clinical applicability as a precision diagnostic tool for periodontitis.

Indexed as

BiomarkersMicrobiotaPeriodontitisRNA, Ribosomal, 16SSalivaAdultBacteriaComputational BiologyDNA, BacterialFemaleHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansMachine LearningMaleMiddle AgedSequence Analysis, DNABiomarkersDNA, BacterialRNA, Ribosomal, 16S16S rRNA genebatch effectsdifferential abundancemicrobiomenext-generation sequencingperiodontal diseasespredictive modelingsaliva

Identifiers

PMID39071165
PMCPMC11272481

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.