MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Role of Oral Microbiota Biofilms in Recurrent Tonsillitis and Sleep‐Disordered Breathing in Children

2022· article· en· W4225397017 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Thibault Allain, Emily DeMichele, Jennifer C. Stearns, Warren K. Yunker, André G. Buret

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicObstructive Sleep Apnea Research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSleep disordered breathingMedicineBreathingTonsillitisBiofilmMouth breathingObstructive sleep apneaInternal medicineBiologyAnesthesiaBacteriaGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aims & Hypothesis The palatine tonsils are aggregates of lymphoid tissue in the lateral oropharynx. In children, tonsillar enlargement can lead to upper airway obstruction and sleep‐disordered breathing (SDB). The reason for tonsillar enlargement in some children, and not others is unknown. We have investigated the role of the tonsillar microbiota in tonsillar enlargement. The role of bacterial biofilms in RT and SDB was investigated through comparisons of tonsil histopathology, mixed‐species biofilm's microbiota composition and biofilm phenotypes. We hypothesized that the SDB tonsillar phenotype has distinct biofilm forming bacterial communities driving tonsillar hyperplasia compared to recurrent tonsillitis. Methods Tonsils were acquired via tonsillectomy from children with RT or SDB. Tonsils were stained to assess florid reactive lymphoid hyperplasia (FRLH). In situ microbiota characterization was assessed by 16S rRNA gene sequencing and overall bacterial biomass was assessed by 16S qPCR. Tonsillar bacteria were extracted and grown in BHI media for in vitro assays. Oral microbiota biofilms were characterized using the Calgary Biofilm Device and “O’Toole” assay. Biofilm biomass was assessed by spectrophotometry using crystal violet staining. Bacterial adhesion/invasion assays were performed by infecting pharyngeal carcinoma cell lines Det‐562 with tonsil microbiota from RT and SDB groups. Immune profile of Det‐562 cells infected with RT and SDB microbiota (t=3 hours) was assessed by cytokine multiplex analysis. Results Histopathological analysis showed higher FRLH of the enlarged lymph node in the SDB group compared to RT group. Microbiota analysis has shown that the tonsil's microbiota composition and bacterial biomass did not significantly differ between tonsils that were taken out due to SDB and those taken out for recurrent tonsillitis. Calgary Biofilm Device biofilm assays indicated that the SDB multi‐species biofilms have higher biomass compared to RT biofilms. Microbiota from SDB group were more adhesive/invasive to Det‐562 cells compared to RT bacteria after 3 hours incubation. Cytokine profiling showed increased expression of granulocyte‐macrophage colony‐stimulating factor (GM‐CSF), pro‐inflammatory cytokines IL‐1β, IL‐2, IL‐12 and interferon gamma (IFNγ) in Det‐562 cells exposed to SDB microbiota compared to RT. Conclusions Our results indicate that SDB and RT tonsils have distinct histopathological signatures. In situ tonsillar microbiota composition and bacterial load did not differ between SDB and RT groups. In vitro assays showed that SDB tonsils exhibit increases in both multi‐species biofilm mass and bacterial adhesion/invasion to epithelial surfaces. These results also suggest that SDB bacterial biofilms lead to greater inflammation of the tonsils, confirmed by the elevated levels of FRLH and increased expression of pro‐inflammatory mediators. This study sheds light on the role pathobionts released from dysbiotic oral microbiota biofilms in the development of tonsillitis.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.252 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB Journal→Same topicObstructive Sleep Apnea Research→French-language works237,207→