It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Considerable variation exists in the methodology of urinary microbiota studies published so far including the cornerstone of any biomedical analysis: sample collection. The aim of this study was to compare the urinary microbiota of first-catch voided urine (FCU), mid-stream voided urine (MSU) and aseptically catheterised urine in men and define the most suitable urine sampling method. Forty-nine men (mean age 71.3 years) undergoing endoscopic urological procedures were enrolled in the study. Each of them contributed three samples: first-catch urine (FCU), mid-stream urine (MSU) and a catheterised urine sample. The samples were subjected to next-generation sequencing (NGS, n = 35) and expanded quantitative urine culture (EQUC, n = 31). Using NGS, Bacteroidetes, Firmicutes, and Proteobacteria were the most abundant phyla in our population. The most abundant genera (in order of relative abundance) included: Prevotella, Veillonella, Streptococcus, Porphyromonas, Campylobacter, Pseudomonas, Staphylococcus, Ezakiella, Escherichia and Dialister. Eighty-two of 105 samples were dominated by a single genus. FCU, MSU and catheterised urine samples differed significantly in three of five alpha-diversity measures (ANOVA, p < 0.05): estimated number of operational taxonomic units, Chao1 and abundance-based coverage estimators. Beta-diversity comparisons using the PIME method (Prevalence Interval for Microbiome Evaluation) resulted in clustering of urine samples according to the mode of sampling. EQUC detected cultivable bacteria in 30/31 (97%) FCU and 27/31 (87%) MSU samples. Only 4/31 (13%) of catheterised urine samples showed bacterial growth. Urine samples obtained by transurethral catheterisation under aseptic conditions seem to differ from spontaneously voided urine samples. Whether the added value of a more exact reflection of the bladder microbiota free from urethral contamination outweighs the invasiveness of urethral catheterisation remains to be determined.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 Thomayer University Hospital, Department of Urology, 3rd Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic (GRID:grid.448223.b) (ISNI:0000 0004 0608 6888)
2 Czech Academy of Sciences, Laboratory of Environmental Microbiology, Institute of Microbiology, Prague, Czech Republic (GRID:grid.418095.1) (ISNI:0000 0001 1015 3316)
3 Thomayer University Hospital, Department of Clinical Microbiology, Prague, Czech Republic (GRID:grid.448223.b) (ISNI:0000 0004 0608 6888)




