We compared the collection techniques of fecal specimens for DNA extraction and fecal microbiome analysis by utilizing the glove from a standard-of-care digital rectal exam (DRE) and the rectal swab from a pre-prostat...We compared the collection techniques of fecal specimens for DNA extraction and fecal microbiome analysis by utilizing the glove from a standard-of-care digital rectal exam (DRE) and the rectal swab from a pre-prostate biopsy bacterial rectal culture collected in clinical care settings. DNA yield from the swab technique compared to the glove technique yielded similar amounts of DNA (18.1 vs. 13.1 ng/μL, p = 0.06), slightly favoring the swab technique. However, utilizing DNA yield cutoffs of 15 ng/μL (37% vs. 29%, p = 0.18) and 30 ng/μL (15% and 9%, p = 0.16), we identified no differences in yield between the swab versus glove technique, respectively. Absorbance values for overall DNA quality were significantly different in favor of the glove technique (mean 1.6 vs. 2.0, p < 0.001). Using an absorbance value of 1.5 as an indication of DNA quality, only 26% (19/91) met the cutoff value using the swab group compared to 47.3% (53/112) if the glove technique was used (p < 0.001). Similar results occurred for the RNA quality with an absorbance value cutoff of 2.0 (2.2% vs. 30.4%, p < 0.001). To increase sampling feasibility and improve population sampling, gloves used from a DRE may be utilized as a consistent and efficient fecal DNA collection technique for fecal microbiome analysis. DNA yield and quality from the glove technique are comparable to—if not better than—rectal swab collection.展开更多
文摘We compared the collection techniques of fecal specimens for DNA extraction and fecal microbiome analysis by utilizing the glove from a standard-of-care digital rectal exam (DRE) and the rectal swab from a pre-prostate biopsy bacterial rectal culture collected in clinical care settings. DNA yield from the swab technique compared to the glove technique yielded similar amounts of DNA (18.1 vs. 13.1 ng/μL, p = 0.06), slightly favoring the swab technique. However, utilizing DNA yield cutoffs of 15 ng/μL (37% vs. 29%, p = 0.18) and 30 ng/μL (15% and 9%, p = 0.16), we identified no differences in yield between the swab versus glove technique, respectively. Absorbance values for overall DNA quality were significantly different in favor of the glove technique (mean 1.6 vs. 2.0, p < 0.001). Using an absorbance value of 1.5 as an indication of DNA quality, only 26% (19/91) met the cutoff value using the swab group compared to 47.3% (53/112) if the glove technique was used (p < 0.001). Similar results occurred for the RNA quality with an absorbance value cutoff of 2.0 (2.2% vs. 30.4%, p < 0.001). To increase sampling feasibility and improve population sampling, gloves used from a DRE may be utilized as a consistent and efficient fecal DNA collection technique for fecal microbiome analysis. DNA yield and quality from the glove technique are comparable to—if not better than—rectal swab collection.
文摘目的:总结1例由急性呼吸窘迫综合征并发抗生素相关性腹泻病人发生重度失禁性皮炎的循证实践。方法:根据病人的实际问题和PICO原则,提出焦点问题,检索the Cochrane Library、JBI、CINAHL、PubMed、MedLine、Ovid、Wiley、Sicence Direct、Up To Date、Web of Science、中国知网、万方数据库、中国生物医学文献数据库,确定重度失禁性皮炎的最佳循证护理实践方案。结果:最终纳入4篇Meta分析和1篇系统综述进行证据汇总,选用造口袋联合负压引流收集大便,能有效防治病人失禁相关性皮炎,改善病人的生活质量。结论:应用基于循证的重度失禁相关性皮炎的护理方案,可有效促进病人转归,临床疗效显著。
