Differences in the eyelid and buccal microbiome between open-angle glaucoma and uveitic glaucomaOriginal paper
Karen Pendergrass is a microbiome researcher specializing in microbiome-targeted interventions (MBTIs). She systematically analyzes scientific literature to identify microbial patterns, develop hypotheses, and validate interventions. As the founder of the Microbiome Signatures Database, she bridges microbiome research with clinical practice. In 2012, based on her own investigative research, she became the first documented case of FMT for Celiac Disease, four years before the first published case study.
Read MoreWhat was studied?
Microbiomes have immunoregulatory functions and may be involved in the pathophysiology of eye diseases. However, the effects of microbiomes on uveitic glaucoma (UG) and open-angle glaucoma (OAG) have not been sufficiently investigated. This study analysed differences in eyelid and buccal microbiomes between UG and OAG using metagenomic technology.
Who was studied?
Eyelid and buccal specimens were collected from 34 UG and 62 OAG patients. The taxonomic composition of the microbiome was determined via 16S rRNA gene sequencing, operational taxonomic unit analysis and diversity analysis. Differential gene expression analysis (DEG) and principal component analyses (PCoA) determined taxon differences between the microbiomes of the UG and OAG patients. Subgroup analysis according to age and baseline IOP was performed.
What were the most important findings?
There was no significant difference in alpha-diversity between the microbiomes of UG and OAG patients. Further, PCoA revealed no differences in eyelid microbiome between the UG and OAG groups, but significant differences were found in buccal microbiome between the groups, especially in a subgroup of OAG patients with normal IOP. DEG analysis of the eyelid microbiome revealed various taxa differences, including the enrichment of Rhodococcus in UG samples over OAG samples. Taxa such as Lactobacillus and Proteus were significantly depleted (q-value = 9.98e-6 and q-value = 1.38 × 10-4 , respectively) in the buccal microbiome of UG patients, whereas Enterococcus was enriched (q-value = 5.26e-5 ).
What are the greatest implications of this study?
This study showed that the buccal microbiome in UG differs from that in OAG; reduced Lactobacillus was observed in UG. These results suggest that apart than OAG, microbiome composition may be a factor in the pathogenesis of UG.