Next Article in Journal
Reciprocal Relationships between Sleep Problems and Problematic Smartphone Use in Taiwan: Cross-Lagged Panel Study
Next Article in Special Issue
Analysis of Incident Reports of a Dental University Hospital
Previous Article in Journal
The Psychosocial Work Environment and Perceived Stress among Seniors with Physically Demanding Jobs: The SeniorWorkingLife Study
Previous Article in Special Issue
Salivary Pro-Inflammatory Markers and Smoking Status Influences the Treatment Effectiveness of Periodontal Disease Patients with Hypertension
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 18
Issue 14
10.3390/ijerph18147436
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Oral Bacterial Microbiomes in Association with Potential Prediabetes Using Different Criteria of Diagnosis

by
Kornwipa Rungrueang
1,
Suraphong Yuma
2,
Chanita Tantipoj
3,
Siribang-on Piboonniyom Khovidhunkit
3,
Pornpoj Fuangtharnthip
3,
Thitima Thuramonwong
4,
Muneedej Suwattipong
4 and
Sirirak Supa-amornkul
5,6,*
1
Residency Training Program, Department of Advanced General Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Mahidol University, Bangkok 10400, Thailand
2
Department of Physics, Faculty of Science, Mahidol University, Bangkok 10400, Thailand
3
Department of Advanced General Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Mahidol University, Bangkok 10400, Thailand
4
Dental Hospital, Faculty of Dentistry, Mahidol University, Bangkok 10400, Thailand
5
Mahidol International Dental School, Faculty of Dentistry, Mahidol University, Bangkok 10400, Thailand
6
Pornchai Matangkasombut Center for Microbial Genomic, Faculty of Science, Mahidol University, Bangkok 10400, Thailand
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18(14), 7436; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18147436
Submission received: 14 June 2021 / Revised: 8 July 2021 / Accepted: 8 July 2021 / Published: 12 July 2021
(This article belongs to the Collection Relationships between Oral Health Management and Systemic Health)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study aimed to find a potential biomarker that can be used to diagnose prediabetic condition by comparing the salivary bacterial microbiomes between Thai dental patients with normoglycemia (NG) and those with potential prediabetes (PPG) conditions. Thirty-three subjects were randomly recruited. Demographic data were collected along with oral examination and unstimulated salivary collections. The salivary bacterial microbiomes were identified by high-throughput sequencing on the V3–V4 region of the bacterial 16S rRNA gene. Microbiomes in this study were composed of 12 phyla, 19 classes, 29 orders, 56 families, 81 genera, and 184 species. To check the validity of the selection criterion for prediabetes, we adopted two separate criteria to divide samples into PPG and NG groups using glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) or fasting plasma glucose (FPG) levels. Using the HbA1c level resulted in the significant reduction of Alloprevotella, Neisseria, Rothia, and Streptococcus abundances in PPG compared with those in NG (p-value < 0.05). On the other hand, the abundance of Absconditabacteriales was significantly reduced whereas Leptotrichia, Stomatobaculum, and Ruminococcaceae increased in the PPG group when the samples were classified by the FPG level (p-value < 0.05). It is implied that the group classifying criterion should be carefully concerned when investigating relative abundances between groups. However, regardless of the criteria, Rothia is significantly dominant in the NG groups, suggesting that Rothia might be a potential prediabetic biomarker. Due to the small sample size of this study, further investigation with a larger sample size is necessary to ensure that Rothia can be a potential biomarker for prediabetes in Thai people.

1. Introduction

The prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is increasing globally [1,2]. In 2019, the prevalence of diabetes mellitus (DM) in adults aged 20–79 years old was 9.3% or 463 million people worldwide. It is predicted to rise to 10.2% or 578 million in 2030 [1]. Impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) and impaired fasting glucose (IFG) conditions signify a risk of future development of T2DM [3,4]. The incidence of T2DM progression five years after diagnosis of IGT and IFG was estimated to be 26% and 50%, respectively [3]. T2DM has complications and co-morbidities along with neuropathy, nephropathy, retinopathy, micro-macrovascular, and periodontal diseases [1,5,6]. Early hyperglycemia detection is a key to control and prevent T2DM [7].
The Liverpool declaration: promoting oral health in the 21st century stated that countries should provide supports to prevent and reduce oral and general diseases [8]. The statement emphasized the role of dentists in oral health promotion but also in general health promotion. Dental checkup or treatment provides an opportunity for dentists to meet their patients more regularly than the annual physical examination that is usually once a year. Tantipoj et al. (2018) reported that around 80 % of dental patients in Thailand are willing to have diabetes screening from saliva/oral fluid collection [9]. The prevalence of undiagnosed hyperglycemia in Thai dental patients was 33.8%, suggesting a high percentage of undiagnosed hyperglycemia in the Thai population [10].
The hyperglycemic diagnosis is currently based on fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and HbA1c levels [1]. These two methods have different pros and cons. For example, the HbA1c level can determine the chronic hyperglycemia, but FPG cannot. However, HbA1c strongly depends on ethnography, leading to different and complicated diagnosis criteria [11]. Using FPG requires fasting prior to the assessment. In addition, both levels are determined from a blood sample, which is invasive and unpleasant for some patients. An alternative approach for primary diagnosis of hyperglycemia is desirable.
The glucose level in saliva and gingival crevicular fluid is found to be associated with hyperglycemic conditions [12,13,14]. Many studies reported that the salivary pH in adults and adolescents with diabetes is lower than in those with healthy condition [15,16,17]. Both glucose level and pH of saliva affect the oral bacterial community. The high level of saliva glucose could be a supplementary source of nutrition for certain bacterial species [18]. Acidification of saliva could interfere with bacterial reproduction, leading to an increase of Firmicute and decrease of Bacteroidetes, for instance [19]. Salivary acidification could also alter the oral microbiomes that develop dental caries, such as Bifidobacterium dentium, Bifidobacterium longum, and S. mutans [20]. Investigating the bacterial microbiome in saliva can be an alternative, noninvasive approach in diagnosing prediabetes and diabetes in the early state.
Recently, high-throughput sequencing of 16S rRNA genes methods have been developed to study the oral microbiome profile. This technique provides insight into the bacterial diversity and community structure of healthy people and those with diseases [21,22,23]. Using 16s rRNA sequencing, many studies reported a clear change in bacterial diversity in subgingival plaque, supra gingival plaque, and saliva of patients with T2DM [24,25,26]. In other words, obese individuals with T2DM showed a lower level of Bifidobactera than that of healthy participants [27], while Leptotrichia, Staphylococcus, Catonella, and Bulleidia are the genera whose abundances increased in the diabetes group [28]. To date, the studies of bacteria association have focused on the extreme cases of the disease condition, i.e., healthy or already having T2DM. The bacteria mentioned above might not be used as a biomarker to screen the prediabetes condition. Early diagnosis of diabetes with a noninvasive approach may provide a great chance to reduce the severity of the disease. It is thus important to examine the condition at the earliest state of potential prediabetes. Although many studies have already reported the association of relative abundances and the glycemic level in various countries [28,29], different demographics, genetics, and foods may affect the bacterial diversity.
In this work, we study the diversity of the saliva bacterial microbiome in Thai dental patients using 16S rRNA amplification sequencing. We compare the resulting bacterial diversity found in healthy patients with that of patients who are potentially in the prediabetic state in an attempt to find a plausible biomarker that can be used to screen or diagnose diabetes in its early state.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Human Subjects

This study was conducted from May to December 2018 under the approval of the ethics committees of the Faculty of Dentistry/Faculty of Pharmacy, Mahidol University Bangkok, Thailand under the process number of MU-DT/PY-IRB 2017/047.2308. The primary criteria were that participants must be older than 32 years old, provide written informed consent, and be willing to comply with study procedures. It is found that the T2DM occurrence significantly increases at ages around 30–35 years old [30]. Thirty-four adult participants from the primary and emergency unit at the Faculty of Dentistry, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand voluntarily participated in this study. We excluded participants who had one or more of the following conditions: diabetes, conditions that cause secondary diabetes (i.e., pancreatic cancer, Cushing’s syndrome, and acromegaly), pregnant, on steroid drugs or taking glucose-lowering medication or on chemotherapy, some systemic diseases (renal failure, hepatitis, immunodeficiency, severe anemia, and polycythemia), and taking antibiotic prophylaxis within 3 months and smoking within 5 years. Eventually, we had 33 participants who satisfied the selection criteria. The glycemic condition of all participants, including HbA1c and FPG, was examined by using hospital-based laboratory methods at the Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University. The participants were classified into two groups, normoglycemia group (NG) and potential prediabetes group (PPG), by using the levels of either HbA1c or FPG independently. The participants were identified as a PPG if they had either the HbA1C level of 5.7–6.4% (PPGHbA1c) or the FPG level of 100–125 mg/dL (PPGFPG). The remaining participants were classified as normoglycemia; i.e., those with HbA1C less than 5.7% (NGHbA1c) or those with FPG less than 100 mg/dL (NGFPG) [31].

2.2. Data Collection

Participants needed to complete all three parts of the research procedure, consisting of demographic data collection and physical examination, oral examination, and saliva collection.

2.2.1. Demographic Data and Physical Examination

The demographic data of the participants were collected by using a standardized questionnaire. This contained questions on age, gender, marital status, sugar consumption, frequency of sugar consumption, and family history of DM. Body weight and height of the participants were recorded in order to determine the body mass index (BMI), which was calculated as a weight in kilograms divided by the square of height in the unit of squared meters. Overweight was normally defined with BMI higher than 23 kg/m2 [32]. Systolic and diastolic blood pressures (SBP and DBP) were also recorded. Hypertension was defined as SBP and DBP higher than 140 mmHg and 90 mmHg, respectively [33].

2.2.2. Oral Examination

The number of dental caries teeth (D), missing teeth (M), and filling teeth (F) were recorded and used to determine the decayed, missing, and filling teeth (DMFT) index. pH of saliva was determined by using pH indicator strips (Merck). Periodontal examination was performed following the process described by Tantipoj et al. (2017) [10]. Periodontal status was categorized into three levels: severe, moderate, and mild/no periodontitis, based on the criteria from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) [34].

2.2.3. Saliva Collection

The participants were instructed not to intake any food or beverage for at least 1 h prior to the oral examination and saliva collection. Then, they were asked to pool the saliva in the mouth for 4 min and perform passive drool into the 50 mL conical sterile polypropylene tube containing 2 mL of RNA later® (Qiagen, Valencia, CA, USA). The saliva tube was then immediately stored at −35 °C until used.

2.3. DNA Extraction and 16s rDNA Sequencing

One milliliter of the saliva sample was thawed at room temperature and homogenized by vortex. QIAamp® DNA Minikit (Qiagen, Valencia, CA, USA) was employed for DNA extraction. Extracted DNA samples were sent to Vishuo Biomedical in Singapore to perform 16S rDNA sequencing by Illumina Miseq. In short, a MetaVx™ Library Preparation kit (Genewiz, South Plainfield, NJ, USA) was used in library preparation. A V3–V4 region of rDNA was selected as a target. The amplicons were generated using forward primers containing the sequence 5′-CCTACGGRRBGCASCAGKVRVGAAT-3′ and reverse primers containing the sequence 5′-GGACTACNVGGGTWTCTAATCC-3′. DNA libraries were multiplexed and loaded on Illumina MiSeq according to the manufacturer’s instructions (Illumina, San Diego, CA, USA). Sequencing was performed using a 2 × 300 base pair. Raw 16s rRNA sequencing data are available with bioproject accession number PRJNA736207.

2.4. Sequencing Data Analysis

The sequencing analysis was performed with QIIME2 (version 2020.11) mainly based on protocols published by Estaki et al. (2020) [35]. Raw sequencing reads were processed using Cutadapt (version 1.9.1) to remove the primer sequences. The low-quality sequences were removed using the denoising method via the QIIME2 DADA2 (q2-dada2) plugin, which was found to be better than the traditional clustering method [35]. Taxonomy affiliations from phylum to genus levels were assigned to the remaining high-quality sequences by using the q2-feature-classifier plugin. The Naïve Bayes classifier was trained on the 16S rRNA reference sequences obtained from the SILVA release 132 rRNA database at 99% sequence similarity (https://www.arb-silva.de/ accessed on 20 November 2020) [36]. Alpha and beta diversity indices were determined by QIIME2. The potential biomarker of bacteria genera of each glycemic level was determined by linear discriminant analysis effect size (LefSe) and the genus with linear discriminate analysis (LDA). A score more than 2 was considered significantly different between group [37].

2.5. Statistical Analyses

Descriptive statistics were applied to examine the distributions of sociodemographic, medical history, clinical, and oral characteristics. Specifically, Fisher’s exact test was used to analyze the association of dichotomous and multiple categorial variables. The differences of continuous variables among the participants in NG and PPG groups, including the relative abundance of salivary microbiome, were examined by either the independent t-test or the Mann–Whitney U test depending on whether the distributions of those variables are normal or not. The statistical analyses were conducted by SPSS (SPSS statistical software, version 18.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA).

3. Results

3.1. Demographic and Oral Characteristics

As mentioned in Section 2.1, the final number of participants who satisfied all selection criteria was 33. Using the HbA1c level, we could classify 11 participants as PPGHbA1c, while the remaining 22 volunteers were classified as NGHbA1c. In contrast, only six participants were classified as PPGFPG when applying the FPG level. It is noteworthy that the participants who were classified as PPGFPG were not always PPGHbA1c and vice versa. Two volunteers in PPGFPG were from NGHbA1c, whereas seven PPGHbA1c participants were classified as NGFPG. The demographic and physical characteristics of all participants are summarized in Table 1. The statistical comparison between NG and PPG samples was examined using the Fishers’ exact test. Regardless of the method used to classify the PPG sample, no significant difference of demographic and physical characteristics has been found between NG and PPG groups.
Oral characteristics of participants in NG and PPG groups were investigated and are listed in Table 2. The mean DMFT indices of both PPG groups (PPGHbA1c and PPGFPG) seem to be higher than those of the NG groups, but they are actually not statistically different. Likewise, the distributions of saliva pH and periodontal status of the PPG sample are not significantly different from those of the NG group.

3.2. Global Sequencing Data

We acquired a set of 9,752,494 raw reads after sequencing the 16S rRNA V3–V4 hypervariable region from 33 DNA samples used in the study. The number of sequences per sample ranged from 202,498 to 390,570 reads with an average of 286,838 sequences per sample. After joining the paired-end sequences for each sample, the sequences underwent quality and size filtering. The final number of total sequences was 4,482,746. The number of sequences per sample ranged from 94,082 to 185,137 with an average of 131,845 sequences per sample. The average sequence length was 348 bps, with maximum length of 438 bps and the shortest length of 249 bps.

3.3. Bacterial Abundance and Distribution

Alpha diversity indices were determined to investigate the diversity differences, if existing, between NG and PPG groups. Chao1 index was used to examine the species abundances, while Shannon’s and Simpson’s indices were used to evaluate diversity of oral microbiota in each group of samples (Figure 1). As seen in the left and middle panels of Figure 1, the PPGFPG sample had the oral microbial abundance and diversity higher than those of the NGFPG group. The independent t-test results show that the mean values of the abundance and diversity of the PPGFPG are statistically different from those of NGFPG with p = 0.001 (Chao1 index) and p = 0.03 (Shannon’s index), respectively. Using Kolmogorov–Smirnov (KS) test, we can reject the null hypothesis that the distributions of the Chao1 and Shannon’s indices of PPGFPG are drawn from the same distribution as compared to those of the NGFPG group at significance level of 0.005 and 0.009, respectively. In contrast, no significant difference of both abundance and diversity was found in case of using the HbA1c level to divide the PPG and NG groups. Mean and standard deviation of Chao1, Simpson’s, and Shannon’s indices are listed in Table S1.
The principal component analysis (PCoA) was performed based on unweighted and weighted UniFrac distance matrices to evaluate the beta diversity between the PPG and NG groups. In unweighted PCoA analysis (top panels of Figure 2), the first principal coordinate (PC1) explained 18.45% of the total microbiome variations, while the second and third coordinates (PC2 and PC3) explained 11.58% and 9.10%, respectively. In weighted PCoA analysis (bottom panels of Figure 2), PC1, PC2, and PC3 explained 28.10%, 17.00%, and 13.52% of the total variations, respectively. No correlation or well-separated cluster is seen in all cases regardless of the criteria we used to classify the PPG and NG groups (Figure 2). It is suggested that the structures of bacterial community in PPG and NG groups were similar.

3.4. Bacterial Community Structure

The bacterial distribution was characterized in terms of the relative taxonomic abundances. We found a total of 12 phyla, 19 classes, 29 orders, 56 families, 81 genera, and 184 species in the salivary samples. Ninety-nine percent of bacteria in all samples were from seven phyla. Firmicutes and Fusobacteria are the largest abundances of phyla in all samples, occupying roughly 80% of the total abundance (Figure 3a). The other five phyla with less abundance are Bacteroidetes, Epsilonbacteraeota, Proteobacteria, Patescibacteria, and Actinobacteria. In PPGHbA1c and NGHbA1c, Firmicutes was found at 70.68% ± 12.35% and 70.59% ± 11.05%, respectively. In PPGFPG and NGFPG groups, Firmicutes was found at 66.21% ± 10.48% and 71.60% ± 11.43%, respectively. We did not find any difference among the relative abundances at the phylum level between PPG and NG groups regardless of the group classifying criteria. Mean and standard deviation of all detected phyla are summarized in Table S2.
At the genus level, we found 81 genera of bacteria in total. In case of using the HbA1c level as a criterion, we found 56 common genera in PPGHbA1c and NGHbA1c groups, while 5 and 22 genera were identified only in PPGHbA1c and NGHbA1c, respectively. In case of FPG, 48 genera were found in common, whereas 4 and 29 genera were found only in the PPGFPG and NGFPG, respectively. The numbers of overlapping and unique genera found in all samples are illustrated in Figure S1. As seen in Figure 3b, the majority (80%) of bacteria were classified into 15 genera, of which average relative abundances and standard deviation are summarized in Table S3. The genus with the highest relative abundance in both PPG and NG groups was Oribacterium (PPGHbA1c = 21.31% ± 16.56%, NGHbA1c = 21.75% ± 17.34%, PPGFPG = 13.73% ± 17.23%, and NGFPG = 23.35% ± 16.5%). From the top 15 genera, Rothia, Neisseria, and Streptococcus in PPGHbA1c were significantly lower than those in NGHbA1c with p-values of p = 0.006, p = 0.036, and p = 0.001, respectively. In case of using the FPG level, PPGFPG has lower abundances of Ruminococcaceae (p = 0.007) and Leptotrichia (p = 0.043) than NGFPG does. Meanwhile, Stomatobaculum was found to show higher abundance in PPGFPG as compared with NGFPG (p = 0.034). Moreover, we also found two additional genera that are not in the top 15 genera but show significant differences in their relative abundances. Alloprevotella found in PPGHbA1c has lower abundance than in NGHbA1c (p = 0.043), whereas the relative abundance of Absconditabacteriales is found to be higher in PPGFPG than in NGFPG (p = 0.030).

3.5. Differential Microbiota Compositions

We examined possible biomarkers in the potential prediabetes sample using LEfSe analysis. The LEfSe results are illustrated by cladograms in Figure 4. Names of bacterial taxa appearing in the figure are those with significantly different abundances between prediabetes and normoglycemia groups. The Rothia genus in Actinobacteria phylum was enriched in both NGHbA1c and NGFPG groups as compared to their respective PPGs. Another genus with higher abundance in NGHbA1c is Streptococcus in Firmicutes phylum (Figure 4a). On the other hand, Campylobacter in Epsilonbacteraeota phylum was more abundant in PPGHbA1c than in NGHbA1c. Compared with NGFPG, PPGFPG has more abundance in five genera, such as genus Atopobium in Actinobacteria and Flexilinea in Chloroflexi phylum (Figure 4b).

4. Discussion

We investigated the oral microbiome of patients with normal glycemic level and those who have a chance to develop hyperglycemia in the future. The ultimate goal of this study is to find a potential biomarker that we can use to diagnose the patients with high risk prior to the T2DM condition. The participants are divided into normoglycemia (NG) and potential prediabetes (PPG) groups based on their glucose level, determined by either HbA1c or FPG level. Regardless of the criteria used to divide the sample, the species richness of the PPG group was higher than that of NG. This increasing trend in microbial diversity is consistent with that found in T2DM patients [38,39,40]. In contrast, Saeb et al. (2019) found the opposite trend when comparing the impaired glucose tolerance and diabetes group with the normoglycemic group [29]. Chao1 and Shannon’s diversity indices of oral microbiome in PPGFPG were higher than those in NGFPG, which is well in agreement with other studies of T2DM patients [40,41,42]. It is found that the oral microbiomes are potentially influenced by various factors such as oral health and host characteristics [43,44]. In this study, we found no significant difference of demographic, physical, and oral characteristics between the PPG and NG groups (Table 1 and Table 2). It is suggested that the differential abundances between PPG and NG groups found in this study are rarely due to demographics and characteristics of patients.
Firmicutes was the most abundant phylum found in both PPG and NG groups, which is similar to other studies [28,45]. It is indicated that Firmicute is the most abundant phylum in saliva and oral cavity microbiome [46]. Chen et al. (2020) found higher ratio of Firmicutes to Bacteroidetes (F/B ratio) in T2DM compared with healthy control [40]. The same trend of F/B ratio is found in our study as well, where the F/B ratio of PPGHbA1c and NGHbA1c was 22.55 and 16.83, respectively.
Oribacterium is a strictly anaerobic bacteria that can be used as a biomarker for saliva microbiome [46]. It was the most abundant genus in our samples. However, Streptococcus was the most abundant genus in the study in China [28], and Prevoltella was most abundant in patients in Saudi Arabia [29]. It is suggested that oral microbiome dysbiosis does not only depend on health condition, but also on host genetics, geography, diet, age, and habitat. Streptococcus, which is potentially associated with diabetes [28,40,42], was found within the top ten most abundant genera in our sample (Table S3). In fact, we even found higher abundance of Streptococcus in NGHbA1c compared with that in PPGHbA1c. The result is consistent with Tantipoj et al. (2020) [47], who investigated the prevalence of Streptococcus in Thailand and found that Streptococcus abundance in normoglycemic group was marginally higher than that in hyperglycemic group. In contrast, Kampoo et al. (2014) showed that saliva Streptococcus was more abundant in diabetic patients as compared with the healthy participants from the southern part of Thailand [26]. Although all studies were carried out in Thailand, different methods have may affected the Streptococcus abundances. It is still skeptical to conclude whether or not Streptococcus might be a good biomarker for prediabetes.
In the previous section, we found the differences in the relative abundances of some bacterial genera between PPG and NG groups. These differences changed when we used different criteria in classifying PPG and NG groups. For example, Prevotella was found more in NGHbA1c, while its abundance was lower in NGFPG compared to the respective PPG groups (Table S3). Only Rothia showed the consistent trend of relative abundances between PPG and NG classified by both HbA1c and FPG criteria. Therefore, Rothia might be a potential prediabetic biomarker. As most of the resulting relative abundances between PPG and NG strongly depend on the group classifying criteria, we further investigated the samples by using both HbA1c and FPG levels as the criteria simultaneously to confirm if Rothia is really a potential prediabetic biomarker or not. Figure 5 shows the distributions of samples in the HbA1c–FPG space. The samples that were classified as PPG by using both criteria are located in the top right corner of the figure, while in the bottom left corner are those classified as NG. We found that 27.3 percent of participants were classified into different groups when using a different criterion (the top left and the bottom right corners of Figure 5). All of the participants younger than 50 years old were consistently classified into the same groups regardless of using HbA1c or FPG criteria. Guo et al. (2014) found that using only HbA1c to classify prediabetes increased the misdiagnosis rate in older population, while using both HbA1c and FPG can reduce the misdiagnosis rate [48]. This point needs to be considered when comparing the oral microbiome composition among different studies that may use different classifiers to separate prediabetes individuals from the normoglycemic group.
We performed LefSe analysis of newly classified PPG and NG groups using both HbA1c and FPG levels (Figure 6). Unfortunately, only four participants were classified as PPG, whereas the rest were in normoglycemic group. Rothia still dominated in the NG group. Rothia is known as a nitrate-reducing oral bacterium, which plays an important role in balancing the oral cavity condition, such as producing alkali molecules to prevent acidity condition [49]. Caries-associated genera and periodontitis-associated genera were reported to reduce their growth under a nitrate condition [49]. Lundberg et al. (2018) also found antidiabetic effects after consuming dietary nitrate [50]. The nitrate reductase enzymes in the oral bacteria such as Rothia can metabolize nitrate into nitrite, which is further reduced into bioactive nitrogen oxides (NO) in blood and muscles [50]. NO synthesis is found to be an important mechanism to regulate the cardiovascular conditions and metabolisms, including an increase in the insulin secretion and glucose uptake of muscle [50]. As a result, a decrease in Rothia abundance can probably be a potential sign of having prediabetic condition.
As seen in Figure 6, Campylobacter was predicted to be another potential biomarker. We found higher abundance of Campylobacter in PPG samples compared with the NG group. Campylobater rectus shows a positive association with increasing blood glucose level [42]. Some species of Campylobacter were found more frequently in patients with periodontal disease compared with healthy control [51]. Periodontitis and diabetes condition can influence the severity of each other [6]. The increase of glucose level in PPG samples might thus promote growth of periodontitis-associated bacteria.
The limitation of this study is mainly the small sample size. The number of participants in each group after being classified into NG and PPG are not equally distributed. Although we have found potential biomarkers to diagnose the prediabetic condition, the larger sample size is still desirable to confirm the association.

5. Conclusions

We found that demographics and physical characteristics of the participants in the potential prediabetes group (PPG) and those in the normoglycemia group are similar regardless of the criterion (HbA1c or FPG). Meanwhile, the oral microbial abundance and diversity of PPGFPG is statistically higher than those of NGFPG. The principal component analysis (PCoA) showed no correlation or well-separated cluster between both groups. According to LEfSe analysis, we found that using different criterion resulted in different bacterial abundances in groups. This should be considered when comparing the oral microbiomes among different studies. Rothia and Campylobacter are found to be the potential prediabetes-associated genera for elderly population in Thailand. Unfortunately, the sample size in this study was too small to declare a conclusive biomarker. Instead, Rothia and Campylobacter can be used as a guideline to select the potential prediabetic biomarker in future. Further studies with larger sample that can represent the entire Thai population are desirable.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/ijerph18147436/s1, Figure S1: Vann diagram of genera number in each study group; Table S1: Mean and standard deviation (SD) of each alpha diversity index in HbA1c and FPG groups, Table S2: Relative abundance of bacterial phyla in each glycemic classification group, Table S3: Relative abundance of bacterial genera in each glycemic classification group.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.S.-a. and C.T.; methodology, S.S.-a. and C.T.; software, S.Y.; validation, K.R., C.T., S.Y., and S.S.-a.; formal analysis, K.R., S.Y.; investigation, K.R.; sample collection, K.R., T.T., and M.S.; writing—original draft preparation, K.R.; writing—review and editing, S.S.-a., S.-o.P.K., P.F., and C.T.; visualization, S.S.-a. and S.Y.; project administration, S.S.-a.; funding acquisition, S.S.-a. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Faculty of Dentistry, Mahidol University, grant number DTRS-GG-2018-11.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Review Board (or Ethics Committee) of the Faculty of Dentistry/Faculty of Pharmacy, Mahidol University (MU-DT/PY-IRB 2017/047.2308).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

We thank Prasit Palittapongarnpim, who allowed us to use the high-performance computer server at CENMIG for data analysis.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Karuranga, S.; Malanda, B.; Saeedi, P.; Salpea, P. IDF DIABETES ATLAS, 9th ed.; International Diabetes Federation: Brussels, Belgium, 2019; Available online: https://www.diabetesatlas.org/en/resources/ (accessed on 24 April 2021).
  2. Ogurtsova, K.; da Rocha Fernandes, J.D.; Huang, Y.; Linnenkamp, U.; Guariguata, L.; Cho, N.H.; Cavan, D.; Shaw, J.E.; Makaroff, L.E. IDF Diabetes Atlas: Global estimates for the prevalence of diabetes for 2015 and 2040. Diabetes Res. Clin. Pract. 2017, 128, 40–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Richter, B.; Hemmingsen, B.; Metzendorf, M.I.; Takwoingi, Y. Development of type 2 diabetes mellitus in people with intermediate hyperglycaemia. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2018, 10, CD012661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Tabák, A.G.; Herder, C.; Rathmann, W.; Brunner, E.J.; Kivimäki, M. Prediabetes: A high-risk state for diabetes development. Lancet 2012, 379, 2279–2290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Southerland, J.H.; Taylor, G.W.; Offenbacher, S. Diabetes and periodontal infection: Making the connection. Clin. Diabetes 2005, 23, 171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Preshaw, P.M.; Alba, A.L.; Herrera, D.; Jepsen, S.; Konstantinidis, A.; Makrilakis, K.; Taylor, R. Periodontitis and diabetes: A two-way relationship. Diabetologia 2012, 55, 21–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  7. Diabetes Prevention Program Research Group. 10-year follow-up of diabetes incidence and weight loss in the diabetes prevention program outcomes study. Lancet 2009, 374, 1677–1686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. WHO. The Liverpool Declaration: Promoting Oral Health in the 21st Century: WHO. 2005. Available online: https://www.who.int/oral_health/events/liverpool_declaration/en/ (accessed on 25 April 2021).
  9. Tantipoj, C.; Hiransuthikul, N.; Supa-amornkul, S.; Lohsoonthorn, V.; Khovidhunkit, S.O. Patients’ attitude toward diabetes mellitus screening in Thai dental clinics. J. Health Res. 2018, 32, 2–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Tantipoj, C.; Sakoolnamarka, S.S.; Supa-amornkul, S.; Lohsoonthorn, V.; Deerochanawong, C.; Khovidhunkit, S.P.; Hiransuthikul, N. Screening for type 2 diabetes mellitus and prediabetes using point-of-care testing for HbA1c among Thai dental patients. Southeast Asian J. Trop. Med. Public Health 2017, 48, 455–465. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  11. Bonora, E.; Tuomilehto, J. The pros and cons of diagnosing diabetes with A1C. Diabetes Care 2011, 34 (Suppl. S2), S184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Ficara, A.J.; Levin, M.P.; Grower, M.; Kramer, G.D. A comparison of the glucose and protein content of gingival fluid from diabetics and nondiabetics. J. Periodontal Res. 1975, 10, 171–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Gupta, S.; Sandhu, S.V.; Bansal, H.; Sharma, D. Comparison of salivary and serum glucose levels in diabetic patients. J. Diabetes Sci. Technol. 2014, 9, 91–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Mascarenhas, P.; Fatela, B.; Barahona, I. Effect of diabetes mellitus type 2 on salivary glucose—A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e101706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Prathibha, K.M.; Johnson, P.; Ganesh, M.; Subhashini, A.S. Evaluation of salivary profile among adult type 2 diabetes mellitus patients in South India. J. Clin. Diagn. Res. 2013, 7, 1592–1595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Tremblay, M.; Brisson, D.; Gaudet, D. Association between salivary pH and metabolic syndrome in women: A cross-sectional study. BMC Oral Health 2012, 12, 40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  17. Gheena, S.; Chandrasekhar, T.; Ramani, P. Salivary characteristics of diabetic children. Braz. J. Oral Sci. 2011, 10, 93–97. [Google Scholar]
  18. Ohlrich, E.J.; Cullinan, M.P.; Leichter, J.W. Diabetes, periodontitis, and the subgingival microbiota. J. Oral Microbiol. 2010, 2, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  19. Goodson, J.M.; Hartman, M.L.; Shi, P.; Hasturk, H.; Yaskell, T.; Vargas, J.; Song, X.; Cugini, M.; Barake, R.; Alsmadi, O.; et al. The salivary microbiome is altered in the presence of a high salivary glucose concentration. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0170437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Nakajo, K.; Takahashi, N.; Beighton, D. Resistance to acidic environments of caries-associated bacteria: Bifidobacterium dentium and Bifidobacterium longum. Caries Res. 2010, 44, 431–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Lazarevic, V.; Whiteson, K.; François, P.; Schrenzel, J. The salivary microbiome, assessed by a high-throughput and culture-independent approach. J. Integr. OMICS 2011, 1, 28–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Bik, E.M.; Long, C.D.; Armitage, G.C.; Loomer, P.; Emerson, J.; Mongodin, E.F.; Nelson, K.E.; Gill, S.R.; Fraser-Liggett, C.M.; Relman, D.A. Bacterial diversity in the oral cavity of 10 healthy individuals. ISME J. 2010, 4, 962–974. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Ahn, J.; Yang, L.; Paster, B.J.; Ganly, I.; Morris, L.; Pei, Z.; Hayes, R.B. Oral Microbiome Profiles: 16S rRNA pyrosequencing and microarray assay comparison. PLoS ONE 2011, 6, e22788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Hintao, J.; Teanpaisan, R.; Chongsuvivatwong, V.; Ratarasan, C.; Dahlen, G. The microbiological profiles of saliva, supragingival and subgingival plaque and dental caries in adults with and without type 2 diabetes mellitus. Oral Microbiol. Immunol. 2007, 22, 175–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Zhou, M.; Rong, R.; Munro, D.; Zhu, C.; Gao, X.; Zhang, Q.; Dong, Q. Investigation of the effect of type 2 diabetes mellitus on subgingival plaque microbiota by high-throughput 16S rDNA pyrosequencing. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e61516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  26. Kampoo, K.; Teanpaisan, R.; Ledder, R.G.; McBain, A.J. Oral bacterial communities in individuals with type 2 diabetes who live in southern Thailand. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2014, 80, 662–671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  27. Shillitoe, E.; Weinstock, R.; Kim, T.; Simon, H.; Planer, J.; Noonan, S.; Cooney, R. The oral microflora in obesity and type-2 diabetes. J. Oral Microbiol. 2012, 4, 19013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  28. Wang, R.R.; Xu, Y.S.; Ji, M.M.; Zhang, L.; Li, D.; Lang, Q.; Zhang, L.; Ji, G.; Liu, B.C. Association of the oral microbiome with the progression of impaired fasting glucose in a Chinese elderly population. J. Oral Microbiol. 2019, 11, 1605789. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Saeb, A.T.; Al-Rubeaan, K.A.; Aldosary, K.; Raja, G.U.; Mani, B.; Abouelhoda, M.; Tayeb, H.T. Relative reduction of biological and phylogenetic diversity of the oral microbiota of diabetes and pre-diabetes patients. Microb. Pathog. 2019, 128, 215–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Chung, S.; Azar, M.J.; Bark, M.; Lauderdale, D.S.; Palaniappan, L.P. Reconsidering the age thresholds for type 2 diabetes screening in the U.S. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2014, 47, 375–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. American Diabetes Association. 2. Classification and Diagnosis of Diabetes: Standards of medical care in diabetes—2019. Diabetes Care 2019, 42 (Suppl. S1), S13. [Google Scholar]
  32. WHO/IASO/IOTF. The Asia-Pacific Persective: Redefining Obesity and Its Treatment; Heath Communication: Melbourne, Australia, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  33. Williams, B.; Mancia, G.; Spiering, W.; Agabiti Rosei, E.; Azizi, M.; Burnier, M.; Clement, D.L.; Coca, A.; De Simone, G.; Dominiczak, A.; et al. 2018 ESC/ESH Guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension: The task force for the management of arterial hypertension of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Society of Hypertension (ESH). Eur. Heart J. 2018, 39, 3021–3104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Page, R.C.; Eke, P.I. Case definitions for use in population-based surveillance of periodontitis. J. Periodontol. 2007, 78 (Suppl. S7), 1387–1399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  35. Estaki, M.; Jiang, L.; Bokulich, N.A.; McDonald, D.; González, A.; Kosciolek, T.; Martino, C.; Zhu, Q.; Birmingham, A.; Vázquez-Baeza, Y.; et al. QIIME 2 enables comprehensive end-to-end analysis of diverse microbiome data and comparative studies with publicly available data. Curr. Protoc. Bioinform. 2020, 70, e100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Yilmaz, P.; Parfrey, L.W.; Yarza, P.; Gerken, J.; Pruesse, E.; Quast, C.; Schweer, T.; Peplies, J.; Ludwig, W.; Glöckner, F.O. The SILVA and “All-species Living Tree Project (LTP)” taxonomic frameworks. Nucleic Acids Res. 2014, 42, D643–D648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  37. Segata, N.; Izard, J.; Waldron, L.; Gevers, D.; Miropolsky, L.; Garrett, W.S. Metagenomic biomarker discovery and explanation. Genome Biol. 2011, 12, R60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  38. Casarin, R.C.; Barbagallo, A.; Meulman, T.; Santos, V.R.; Sallum, E.A.; Nociti, F.H.; Duarte, P.M.; Casati, M.Z.; Gonçalves, R.B. Subgingival biodiversity in subjects with uncontrolled type-2 diabetes and chronic periodontitis. J. Periodontal Res. 2013, 48, 30–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Ogawa, T.; Honda-Ogawa, M.; Ikebe, K.; Notomi, Y.; Iwamoto, Y.; Shirobayashi, I.; Hata, S.; Kibi, M.; Masayasu, S.; Sasaki, S.; et al. Characterizations of oral microbiota in elderly nursing home residents with diabetes. J. Oral Sci. 2017, 59, 549–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Chen, B.; Wang, Z.; Wang, J.; Su, X.; Yang, J.; Zhang, Q.; Zhang, L. The oral microbiome profile and biomarker in Chinese type 2 diabetes mellitus patients. Endocrine 2020, 68, 564–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Sun, X.; Li, M.; Xia, L.; Fang, Z.; Yu, S.; Gao, J.; Feng, Q.; Yang, P. Alteration of salivary microbiome in periodontitis with or without type-2 diabetes mellitus and metformin treatment. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 15363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Wei, Y.S.; Hsiao, Y.C.; Su, G.W.; Chang, Y.R.; Lin, H.P.; Wang, Y.S.; Tsai, Y.T.; Liao, E.C.; Chen, H.Y.; Chou, H.C.; et al. Identification of hyperglycemia-associated microbiota alterations in saliva and gingival sulcus. Arch. Biochem. Biophys. 2020, 682, 108278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Willis, J.R.; Gabaldón, T. The human oral Microbiome in Health and Disease: From Sequences to Ecosystems. Microorganisms 2020, 8, 308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Gao, L.; Xu, T.; Huang, G.; Jiang, S.; Gu, Y.; Chen, F. Oral microbiomes: More and more importance in oral cavity and whole body. Protein Cell 2018, 9, 488–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Long, J.; Cai, Q.; Steinwandel, M.; Hargreaves, M.K.; Bordenstein, S.R.; Blot, W.J.; Zheng, W.; Shu, X.O. Association of oral microbiome with type 2 diabetes risk. J. Periodontal Res. 2017, 52, 636–643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Segata, N.; Haake, S.K.; Mannon, P.; Lemon, K.P.; Waldron, L.; Gevers, D.; Huttenhower, C.; Izard, J. Composition of the adult digestive tract bacterial microbiome based on seven mouth surfaces, tonsils, throat and stool samples. Genome Biol. 2012, 13, R42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  47. Tantipoj, C.; Panyayong, S.; Arayapisit, T.; Srimaneekarn, N.; Hiransuthikul, N.; Supa-amornkul, S. Prevalence and risk factors of high-level oral microbe among dental patients. Khon Kaen Univ. Dent. J. 2020, 23, 61–74. [Google Scholar]
  48. Guo, F.; Moellering, D.R.; Garvey, W.T. Use of HbA1c for diagnoses of diabetes and prediabetes: Comparison with diagnoses based on fasting and 2-hr glucose values and effects of gender, race, and age. Metab. Syndr. Relat. Disord. 2014, 12, 258–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Rosier, B.T.; Moya-Gonzalvez, E.M.; Corell-Escuin, P.; Mira, A. Isolation and characterization of nitrate-reducing bacteria as potential probiotics for oral and systemic health. Front. Microbiol. 2020, 11, 2261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Lundberg, J.O.; Carlström, M.; Weitzberg, E. Metabolic Effects of Dietary Nitrate in Health and Disease. Cell Metab. 2018, 28, 9–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  51. Macuch, P.J.; Tanner, A.C.R. Campylobacter Species in Health, Gingivitis, and Periodontitis. J. Dent. Res. 2000, 79, 785–792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Ijerph 18 07436 g001 550
Figure 1. Chao1 (a), Shannon’s (b), and Simpson’s (c) diversity indices of saliva microbiomes in each sample group. In each panel, the PPG and NG groups divided by Hb1Ac and FPG levels are shown separately. The boxplots with red and green colors indicate 25% and 75% of the indices in PPG and NG groups, respectively. The diamond symbols are the outliers of the boxplot. The asterisks in (a,b) panels indicate the categories in which KS test reports have a significant difference (p < 0.05).
Figure 1. Chao1 (a), Shannon’s (b), and Simpson’s (c) diversity indices of saliva microbiomes in each sample group. In each panel, the PPG and NG groups divided by Hb1Ac and FPG levels are shown separately. The boxplots with red and green colors indicate 25% and 75% of the indices in PPG and NG groups, respectively. The diamond symbols are the outliers of the boxplot. The asterisks in (a,b) panels indicate the categories in which KS test reports have a significant difference (p < 0.05).
Ijerph 18 07436 g001
Ijerph 18 07436 g002a 550Ijerph 18 07436 g002b 550
Figure 2. Principle coordinate analysis (PCoA) based on the unweighted (top panels) and weighted (bottom panels) UniFrac distance matrices. The red and green dots represent the PPG and NG groups, respectively. The colored symbols are shaded according to their positions on the 3D plot. The top panels (a,b) show the PCoA of unweighted UniFrac indices, while the bottom panels (c,d) show those of weighted UniFrac indices. The samples in the left panels (a,c) are PPGFPG and NGFPG groups, whereas those in the right panels (b,d) are based on the HbA1c level.
Figure 2. Principle coordinate analysis (PCoA) based on the unweighted (top panels) and weighted (bottom panels) UniFrac distance matrices. The red and green dots represent the PPG and NG groups, respectively. The colored symbols are shaded according to their positions on the 3D plot. The top panels (a,b) show the PCoA of unweighted UniFrac indices, while the bottom panels (c,d) show those of weighted UniFrac indices. The samples in the left panels (a,c) are PPGFPG and NGFPG groups, whereas those in the right panels (b,d) are based on the HbA1c level.
Ijerph 18 07436 g002aIjerph 18 07436 g002b
Ijerph 18 07436 g003 550
Figure 3. Bar plots of taxonomic profiles of patients in PPG and NG groups at the phylum level (a) and the genus level (b). Left to right bars in each panel shows the relative abundances of PPGHbA1c, NGHbA1c, PPGFPG, and NGFPG, respectively. Phyla and genera with the relative abundance below 1% are not directly shown in the figure, but included in others. H * and F * in parentheses of the right panel indicate the genus with significant difference (independent t-test with p < 0.05) between two groups (PPG and NG) in cases of using the HbA1c and FPG levels as criteria, respectively.
Figure 3. Bar plots of taxonomic profiles of patients in PPG and NG groups at the phylum level (a) and the genus level (b). Left to right bars in each panel shows the relative abundances of PPGHbA1c, NGHbA1c, PPGFPG, and NGFPG, respectively. Phyla and genera with the relative abundance below 1% are not directly shown in the figure, but included in others. H * and F * in parentheses of the right panel indicate the genus with significant difference (independent t-test with p < 0.05) between two groups (PPG and NG) in cases of using the HbA1c and FPG levels as criteria, respectively.
Ijerph 18 07436 g003
Ijerph 18 07436 g004 550
Figure 4. Cladograms from LEfSe analysis of saliva bacterial genera between PPGHbA1c and NGHbA1c (a) and between PPGFPG and NGFPG (b). The red and green labels show the genus of bacteria with significantly higher abundance in PPG and NG groups, respectively.
Figure 4. Cladograms from LEfSe analysis of saliva bacterial genera between PPGHbA1c and NGHbA1c (a) and between PPGFPG and NGFPG (b). The red and green labels show the genus of bacteria with significantly higher abundance in PPG and NG groups, respectively.
Ijerph 18 07436 g004
Ijerph 18 07436 g005 550
Figure 5. The distribution of blood sugar levels in studied population. The open and solid symbols represent male and female, respectively. Sizes of the symbols are related to ages of the participants. The vertical line at HbA1c of 5.7% indicates the HbA1c criterion used to divide PPGHbA1c and NGHbA1c groups. The horizontal line at FPG of 100 mg/dL is used to classify PPGFPG and NGFPG groups.
Figure 5. The distribution of blood sugar levels in studied population. The open and solid symbols represent male and female, respectively. Sizes of the symbols are related to ages of the participants. The vertical line at HbA1c of 5.7% indicates the HbA1c criterion used to divide PPGHbA1c and NGHbA1c groups. The horizontal line at FPG of 100 mg/dL is used to classify PPGFPG and NGFPG groups.
Ijerph 18 07436 g005
Ijerph 18 07436 g006 550
Figure 6. Cladogram from LEfSe analysis of saliva bacterial genera in PPG and NG groups classified by using both HbA1c and FPG levels. Green and red colors indicate the bacterial genera with higher abundance in PPG and NG, respectively.
Figure 6. Cladogram from LEfSe analysis of saliva bacterial genera in PPG and NG groups classified by using both HbA1c and FPG levels. Green and red colors indicate the bacterial genera with higher abundance in PPG and NG, respectively.
Ijerph 18 07436 g006
Table
Table 1. Demographic and physical characteristics of 33 participants divided into NG and PPG groups according to either HbA1c or FPG levels.
Table 1. Demographic and physical characteristics of 33 participants divided into NG and PPG groups according to either HbA1c or FPG levels.
FactorTotal n (%)HbA1cFPG
NGHbA1c (<5.7%) n (%)PPGHbA1c (5.7–6.4%) n (%)p-ValueNGFPG (<100) n (%)PPGFPG (100–125) n (%)p-Value
Age (year) 0.57 0.84
<506 (18.2)3 (13.6)3 (27.3) 5 (18.5)1 (16.7)
50–6012 (36.4)8 (36.4)4 (36.4) 9 (33.3)3 (50.0)
>6015 (45.5)11 (50.0)4 (36.4) 13 (48.2)2 (33.3)
Gender 0.28
Male4 (12.1)4 (18.2)0 (0.0) 4 (14.8)0 (0.0)1.00
Female29 (87.9)18 (81.8)11 (100.0) 23 (85.2)6 (100.0)
Marital status 0.81 0.86
Single13 (39.4)8 (36.4)5 (45.5) 10 (37.0)3 (50.0)
Married11 (33.3)7 (31.8)4 (36.4) 9 (33.3)2 (33.3)
Divorced9 (27.3)7 (31.8)2 (18.2) 8 (29.6)1 (16.7)
Sugar consumption 0.64 0.06
No6 (18.2)5 (22.7)1 (9.1) 3 (11.1)3 (50.0)
Yes27 (81.8)17 (77.3)10 (90.9) 24 (88.9)3 (50.0)
Frequency of Sugar consumption 1.00 1.00
<3 times/day24 (72.7)16 (72.7)8 (72.7) 20 (74.1)4 (66.7)
≥3 times/day9 (27.3)6 (27.3)3 (27.3) 7 (25.9)2 (33.3)
Family history of DM 0.71 1.00
No18 (54.6)11 (50.0)7 (63.6) 15 (55.6)3 (50.0)
Yes15 (45.5)11 (50.0)4 (36.4) 12 (44.4)3 (50.0)
Hypertension 0.37 1.00
No27 (81.8)19 (86.4)8 (72.7) 22 (81.5)5 (83.3)
Yes6 (18.2)3 (13.6)3 (27.3) 5 (18.5)1 (16.7)
Overweight 0.70 0.34
No10 (30.3)6 (27.3)4 (36.4) 7 (25.9)3 (50.0)
Yes23 (69.7)16 (72.7)7 (63.6) 20 (74.1)3 (50.0)
BMI (kg/m2) 0.67 1.00
Normal (<23)14 (42.4)12 (54.6)2 (18.2) 11 (40.7)3 (50.0)
Obese (≥23)19(57.6)10 (45.5)9 (81.8) 16 (59.3)3 (50.0)
Note: NG and PPG represent normoglycemia and potential prediabetes groups, respectively. FPG means the fasting plasma glucose level in the unit of mg/dL.
Table
Table 2. Oral characteristics of 33 participants divided into NG and PPG groups according to either HbA1c or FPG levels.
Table 2. Oral characteristics of 33 participants divided into NG and PPG groups according to either HbA1c or FPG levels.
FactorTotal n (%)HbA1cFPG
NGHbA1c (<5.7%) n (%)PPGHbA1c (5.7–6.4%) n (%)p-ValueNGFPG (<100) n (%)PPGFPG (100–125) n (%)p-Value
DMFT (mean)13.4512.0516.270.08 t12.8116.330.24 t
pH of Saliva 0.84 0.29
Acid (<7)23 (69.7)16 (72.7)7 (63.6) 17 (63.0)6 (100.0)
Neutral (=7)6 (18.2)4 (18.2)2 (18.2) 6 (22.2)0 (0.0)
Base (>7)4 (12.1)2 (9.1)2 (18.2) 4 (14.8)0 (0.0)
Periodontal status 0.38 0.83
No/mild17 (51.5)12 (54.6)5 (45.5) 13 (48.2)4 (66.7)
Moderate6 (18.2)5 (22.7)1 (9.1) 5 (18.5)1 (16.7)
Severe10 (30.3)5 (22.7)5 (45.5) 9 (33.3)1 (16.7)
Note: NG and PPG represent normoglycemia and potential prediabetes groups, respectively. FPG means the fasting plasma glucose level in the unit of mg/dL. t indicates the use of the independent t-test.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Rungrueang, K.; Yuma, S.; Tantipoj, C.; Khovidhunkit, S.-o.P.; Fuangtharnthip, P.; Thuramonwong, T.; Suwattipong, M.; Supa-amornkul, S. Oral Bacterial Microbiomes in Association with Potential Prediabetes Using Different Criteria of Diagnosis. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 7436. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18147436

AMA Style

Rungrueang K, Yuma S, Tantipoj C, Khovidhunkit S-oP, Fuangtharnthip P, Thuramonwong T, Suwattipong M, Supa-amornkul S. Oral Bacterial Microbiomes in Association with Potential Prediabetes Using Different Criteria of Diagnosis. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021; 18(14):7436. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18147436

Chicago/Turabian Style

Rungrueang, Kornwipa, Suraphong Yuma, Chanita Tantipoj, Siribang-on Piboonniyom Khovidhunkit, Pornpoj Fuangtharnthip, Thitima Thuramonwong, Muneedej Suwattipong, and Sirirak Supa-amornkul. 2021. "Oral Bacterial Microbiomes in Association with Potential Prediabetes Using Different Criteria of Diagnosis" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18, no. 14: 7436. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18147436

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop