TY - JOUR
T1 - Preliminary Comparison of Endoscopic Brush and Net Catheters as the Sampling Tool to Analyze the Intestinal Mucus in the Rectum with Ulcerative Colitis Patients
AU - Nakamura, Masanao
AU - Maeda, Keiko
AU - Yamamoto, Kenta
AU - Yamamura, Takeshi
AU - Sawada, Tsunaki
AU - Ishikawa, Eri
AU - Kakushima, Naomi
AU - Furukawa, Kazuhiro
AU - Iida, Tadashi
AU - Mizutani, Yasuyuki
AU - Ishikawa, Takuya
AU - Ohno, Eizaburo
AU - Honda, Takashi
AU - Ishigami, Masatoshi
AU - Kawashima, Hiroki
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 S. Karger AG. All rights reserved.
PY - 2022/5/1
Y1 - 2022/5/1
N2 - Background: The pathophysiology of ulcerative colitis (UC) remains unclear, but early lesions on the colorectal mucosal surface may play an important role in its etiology. Intestinal mucus samples, including inner and outer layers, are collected by net or brush catheters, but the quality of the samples obtained by each method has not been fully investigated. Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the microbiome and protein content of intestinal mucus collected by net and brush catheters during colonoscopy. Methods: Intestinal mucus samples from the lower rectum of 4 patients with UC were collected using a net catheter, a brush catheter, and intestinal fluid suction. Microbiome and protein content were analyzed using 16S rRNA gene sequencing and mass spectrometry. Results: The patients demonstrated significant differences in microbiome alpha diversity (p < 0.05), but this difference was not observed between the sampling methods. Net catheter samples demonstrated higher total protein concentrations than brush catheter samples. The brush catheter group had more Lachnospira, a butyrate-producing bacterium, when compared to the net group. The brush catheter group also had more oral bacteria of Staphylococcus and Dialister in those with active phase when compared to the net group. Conclusions: Brush catheters are more likely to collect the intestinal mucus inner layer, whereas net catheters are more likely to collect larger samples that include the outer mucus layer, as well as the intestinal fluid. Two sampling methods with different types of collection of the mucosa may lead to different results among patients with mucosal vulnerabilities.
AB - Background: The pathophysiology of ulcerative colitis (UC) remains unclear, but early lesions on the colorectal mucosal surface may play an important role in its etiology. Intestinal mucus samples, including inner and outer layers, are collected by net or brush catheters, but the quality of the samples obtained by each method has not been fully investigated. Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the microbiome and protein content of intestinal mucus collected by net and brush catheters during colonoscopy. Methods: Intestinal mucus samples from the lower rectum of 4 patients with UC were collected using a net catheter, a brush catheter, and intestinal fluid suction. Microbiome and protein content were analyzed using 16S rRNA gene sequencing and mass spectrometry. Results: The patients demonstrated significant differences in microbiome alpha diversity (p < 0.05), but this difference was not observed between the sampling methods. Net catheter samples demonstrated higher total protein concentrations than brush catheter samples. The brush catheter group had more Lachnospira, a butyrate-producing bacterium, when compared to the net group. The brush catheter group also had more oral bacteria of Staphylococcus and Dialister in those with active phase when compared to the net group. Conclusions: Brush catheters are more likely to collect the intestinal mucus inner layer, whereas net catheters are more likely to collect larger samples that include the outer mucus layer, as well as the intestinal fluid. Two sampling methods with different types of collection of the mucosa may lead to different results among patients with mucosal vulnerabilities.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85126030538&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85126030538&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1159/000521929
DO - 10.1159/000521929
M3 - Article
C2 - 35184056
AN - SCOPUS:85126030538
SN - 0012-2823
VL - 103
SP - 232
EP - 243
JO - Digestion
JF - Digestion
IS - 3
ER -