Volume 34 Issue 4
Apr.  2021
Turn off MathJax
Article Contents

GUO Jian Guo, KONG Qi, LIU Ce, KANG Tai Sheng, QIN Chuan. Evaluating the Health Risks of Pneumonia from Airborne Bacterial Communities Using 16S rDNA Sequences of Pneumonia-related Pathogens[J]. Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2021, 34(4): 265-271. doi: 10.3967/bes2021.035
Citation: GUO Jian Guo, KONG Qi, LIU Ce, KANG Tai Sheng, QIN Chuan. Evaluating the Health Risks of Pneumonia from Airborne Bacterial Communities Using 16S rDNA Sequences of Pneumonia-related Pathogens[J]. Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2021, 34(4): 265-271. doi: 10.3967/bes2021.035

Evaluating the Health Risks of Pneumonia from Airborne Bacterial Communities Using 16S rDNA Sequences of Pneumonia-related Pathogens

doi: 10.3967/bes2021.035
Funds:  This study was supported by the CAMS Innovation Fund for Medical Science [CIFMS, 2018-I2M-1-001]; the National Key R&D Program of China [2017YFC0702800]; the National Natural Science Foundation of China [82070103]; and the Central Public-interest Scientific Institution Basal Research Fund [2016ZX310037]
More Information
  • Author Bio:

    GUO Jian Guo, male, born in 1983, PhD, majoring in health risk evaluation of bacterial community

  • Corresponding author: QIN Chuan, Professor, MD & PhD, Tel: 86-10-87778141, E-mail: qinchuan@pumc.edu.cn
  • Received Date: 2020-06-05
  • Accepted Date: 2020-10-19
  •   Objective  Airborne microbial communities include a significant number of uncultured and poorly characterized bacteria. No effective method currently exists to evaluate the health risks of such complex bacterial populations, particularly for pneumonia.  Methods  We developed a method to evaluate risks from airborne microorganisms, guided by the principle that closer evolutionary relationships reflect similar biological characteristics, and thus used 16S rDNA sequences of 10 common pneumonia-related bacterial pathogens. We calculated a risk of breath-related (Rbr) index of airborne bacterial communities and verified effectiveness with artificial flora and a clinical project.  Results  We suggested applying Rbr80 to evaluate the health risks of airborne bacterial communities that comprise 80% of dominant operational taxonomic units (OTUs). The feasibility of Rbr80 was confirmed by artificial flora and by pneumonia data from a hospital. A high Rbr80 value indicated a high risk of pneumonia from airborne bacterial communities.  Conclusion  Rbr80 is an effective index to evaluate the pneumonia-associated risk from airborne bacteria. Values of Rbr80 greater than 15.40 are considered high risk.
  • 加载中
  • [1] Lodha R, Kabra SK, Pandey RM. Antibiotics for community-acquired pneumonia in children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004874.pub4. [2013-6-4].
    [2] Ruuskanen O, Lahti E, Jennings LC, et al. Viral pneumonia. Lancet, 2011; 377, 1264−75.
    [3] Lozano R, Naghavi M, Foreman K, et al. Global and regional mortality from 235 causes of death for 20 age groups in 1990 and 2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet, 2012; 380, 2095−128.
    [4] Arancibia F, Bauer TT, Ewig S, et al. Community-acquired pneumonia due to gram-negative bacteria and Pseudomonas aeruginosa-Incidence, risk, and prognosis. Archives Int Med, 2002; 162, 1849−58.
    [5] Jones RN. Microbial etiologies of hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia. Clin Infect Dis, 2010; 51, S81−7.
    [6] Niederman MS, Mandell LA, Anzueto A, et al. Guidelines for the management of adults with community-acquired pneumonia. Diagnosis, assessment of severity, antimicrobial therapy, and prevention. Am J Respir Crit Care Med, 2001; 163, 1730−54.
    [7] Sopena N, Sabrià M, Neunos 2000 Study Group. Multicenter study of hospital-acquired pneumonia in non-ICU patients. Chest, 2005; 127, 213−9.
    [8] Thomas V, Herrera-Rimann K, Blanc DS, et al. Biodiversity of amoebae and amoeba-resisting bacteria in a hospital water network. Appl Environ Microbiol, 2006; 72, 2428−38.
    [9] Locey KJ, Lennon JT. Scaling laws predict global microbial diversity. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 2016; 113, 5970−5.
    [10] Bodor A, Bounedjoum N, Vincze GE, et al. Challenges of unculturable bacteria: environmental perspectives. Rev Environ Sci Bio/Technol, 2020; 19, 1−22.
    [11] Duquenne P. On the identification of culturable microorganisms for the assessment of biodiversity in bioaerosols. Ann Work Expo Health, 2018; 62, 139−46.
    [12] Jin Q, Yuan ZH, Xu JG, et al. Genome sequence of Shigella flexneri 2a: insights into pathogenicity through comparison with genomes of Escherichia coli K12 and O157. Nucleic Acids Res, 2002; 30, 4432−41. doi:  10.1093/nar/gkf566
    [13] Li SM, Wu ZZ, Liu GQ. Degradation kinetics of toilet paper fiber during wastewater treatment: effects of solid retention time and microbial community. Chemosphere, 2019; 225, 915−26. doi:  10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.03.097
    [14] Bolger AM, Lohse M, Usadel B. Trimmomatic: a flexible trimmer for Illumina sequence data. Bioinformatics, 2014; 30, 2114−20. doi:  10.1093/bioinformatics/btu170
    [15] Guo JG, Xiong Y, Kang TS, et al. Bacterial community analysis of floor dust and HEPA filters in air purifiers used in office rooms in ILAS, Beijing. Scientific Reports, 2020; 10, 6417. doi:  10.1038/s41598-020-63543-1
    [16] Edgar RC. UPARSE: highly accurate OTU sequences from microbial amplicon reads. Nat Methods, 2013; 10, 996−998. doi:  10.1038/nmeth.2604
    [17] Kimura M. Estimation of evolutionary distances between homologous nucleotide sequences. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 1981; 78, 454−8. doi:  10.1073/pnas.78.1.454
    [18] Tamura K, Nei M. Estimation of the number of nucleotide substitutions in the control region of mitochondrial DNA in humans and chimpanzees. Mol Biol Evol, 1993; 10, 512−26.
    [19] Tamura K, Peterson D, Peterson N, et al. MEGA5: molecular evolutionary genetics analysis using maximum likelihood, evolutionary distance, and maximum parsimony methods. Mol Biol Evol, 2011; 28, 2731−9. doi:  10.1093/molbev/msr121
    [20] Matsuoka K, Uemura Y, Kanai T, et al. Efficacy of Bifidobacterium breve fermented milk in maintaining remission of ulcerative colitis. Dig Dis Sci, 2018; 63, 1910−9. doi:  10.1007/s10620-018-4946-2
    [21] Ren JJ, Zhao Y, Huang S, et al. Immunomodulatory effect of Bifidobacterium breve on experimental allergic rhinitis in BALB/c mice. Exp Ther Med, 2018; 16, 3996−4004.
    [22] Al-Sheraji SH, Amin I, Azlan A, et al. Effects of Bifidobacterium longum BB536 on lipid profile and histopathological changes in hypercholesterolaemic rats. Benef Microbes, 2015; 6, 661−8. doi:  10.3920/BM2014.0032
    [23] Margulies M, Egholm M, Altman WE, et al. Genome sequencing in microfabricated high-density picolitre reactors. Nature, 2005; 437, 376−80. doi:  10.1038/nature03959
    [24] Guo JG, Xiong Y, Shi CH, et al. Characteristics of airborne bacterial communities in indoor and outdoor environments during continuous haze events in Beijing: implications for health care. Environ Int, 2020; 139, 105721. doi:  10.1016/j.envint.2020.105721
    [25] Borsa N, Di Pasquale M, Restrepo MI. Animal models of Pneumococcal pneumonia. Int J Mol Sci, 2019; 20, 4220. doi:  10.3390/ijms20174220
    [26] Anand N, Kollef MH. The alphabet soup of pneumonia: CAP, HAP, HCAP, NHAP, and VAP. Semin Respir Crit Care Med, 2009; 30, 3−9. doi:  10.1055/s-0028-1119803
    [27] Huffnagle GB, Dickson RP, Lukacs NW. The respiratory tract microbiome and lung inflammation: a two-way street. Mucosal Immunol, 2017; 10, 299−306. doi:  10.1038/mi.2016.108
    [28] Kim KH, Kabir E, Jahan SA. Airborne bioaerosols and their impact on human health. J Environ Sci, 2018; 67, 23−35. doi:  10.1016/j.jes.2017.08.027
    [29] Amann RI, Ludwig W, Schleifer KH. Phylogenetic identification and in situ detection of individual microbial cells without cultivation. Microbiol Rev, 1995; 59, 143−69. doi:  10.1128/MMBR.59.1.143-169.1995
    [30] Connon SA, Giovannoni SJ. High-throughput methods for culturing microorganisms in very-low-nutrient media yield diverse new marine isolates. Appl Environ Microbiol, 2002; 68, 3878−85. doi:  10.1128/AEM.68.8.3878-3885.2002
    [31] Eduarda W, Heederik D. Methods for quantitative assessment of airborne levels of noninfectious microorganisms in highly contaminated work environments. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J, 1998; 59, 113−27. doi:  10.1080/15428119891010370
    [32] D'Arcy N, Canales M, Spratt DA, et al. Healthy schools: standardisation of culturing methods for seeking airborne pathogens in bioaerosols emitted from human sources. Aerobiologia, 2012; 28, 413−22. doi:  10.1007/s10453-012-9251-5
    [33] Ortega N, Caro MR, Gallego MC, et al. Isolation of Chlamydia abortus from a laboratory worker diagnosed with atypical pneumonia. Ir Vet J, 2016; 69, 8.
    [34] Casas L, Tischer C, Wouters IM, et al. Endotoxin, extracellular polysaccharides, and β(1-3)-glucan concentrations in dust and their determinants in four European birth cohorts: results from the HITEA project. Indoor Air, 2013; 23, 208−18. doi:  10.1111/ina.12017
    [35] Sordillo JE, Alwis UK, Hoffman E, et al. Home characteristics as predictors of bacterial and fungal microbial biomarkers in house dust. Environ Health Perspect, 2011; 119, 189−95. doi:  10.1289/ehp.1002004
    [36] Johansson E, Vesper S, Levin L, et al. Streptomycetes in house dust: associations with housing characteristics and endotoxin. Indoor Air, 2011; 21, 300−10. doi:  10.1111/j.1600-0668.2010.00702.x
    [37] Frankel M, Bekö G, Timm M, et al. Seasonal variations of indoor microbial exposures and their relation to temperature, relative humidity, and air exchange rate. Appl Environ Microbiol, 2012; 78, 8289−97. doi:  10.1128/AEM.02069-12
  • 20221Supplementary Materials.pdf
  • 加载中
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Figures(4)  / Tables(6)

Article Metrics

Article views(656) PDF downloads(67) Cited by()

Proportional views
Related

Evaluating the Health Risks of Pneumonia from Airborne Bacterial Communities Using 16S rDNA Sequences of Pneumonia-related Pathogens

doi: 10.3967/bes2021.035
Funds:  This study was supported by the CAMS Innovation Fund for Medical Science [CIFMS, 2018-I2M-1-001]; the National Key R&D Program of China [2017YFC0702800]; the National Natural Science Foundation of China [82070103]; and the Central Public-interest Scientific Institution Basal Research Fund [2016ZX310037]
  • Author Bio:

  • Corresponding author: QIN Chuan, Professor, MD & PhD, Tel: 86-10-87778141, E-mail: qinchuan@pumc.edu.cn

Abstract:   Objective  Airborne microbial communities include a significant number of uncultured and poorly characterized bacteria. No effective method currently exists to evaluate the health risks of such complex bacterial populations, particularly for pneumonia.  Methods  We developed a method to evaluate risks from airborne microorganisms, guided by the principle that closer evolutionary relationships reflect similar biological characteristics, and thus used 16S rDNA sequences of 10 common pneumonia-related bacterial pathogens. We calculated a risk of breath-related (Rbr) index of airborne bacterial communities and verified effectiveness with artificial flora and a clinical project.  Results  We suggested applying Rbr80 to evaluate the health risks of airborne bacterial communities that comprise 80% of dominant operational taxonomic units (OTUs). The feasibility of Rbr80 was confirmed by artificial flora and by pneumonia data from a hospital. A high Rbr80 value indicated a high risk of pneumonia from airborne bacterial communities.  Conclusion  Rbr80 is an effective index to evaluate the pneumonia-associated risk from airborne bacteria. Values of Rbr80 greater than 15.40 are considered high risk.

GUO Jian Guo, KONG Qi, LIU Ce, KANG Tai Sheng, QIN Chuan. Evaluating the Health Risks of Pneumonia from Airborne Bacterial Communities Using 16S rDNA Sequences of Pneumonia-related Pathogens[J]. Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2021, 34(4): 265-271. doi: 10.3967/bes2021.035
Citation: GUO Jian Guo, KONG Qi, LIU Ce, KANG Tai Sheng, QIN Chuan. Evaluating the Health Risks of Pneumonia from Airborne Bacterial Communities Using 16S rDNA Sequences of Pneumonia-related Pathogens[J]. Biomedical and Environmental Sciences, 2021, 34(4): 265-271. doi: 10.3967/bes2021.035
    • Pneumonia affects approximately 7% of the world's population resulting in approximately 4 million deaths per year[1, 2]. The 2010 Global Burden of Disease Study reported that lower respiratory tract infections, including pneumonia, are the fourth most common cause of death globally, and they are the second most frequent reason for reduced years of life[3]. Bacteria are essential infectious agents that cause pneumonia[4, 5]. However, the etiology of the disease is identified in only approximately 50% of community-acquired pneumonia cases[6] and in only approximately 36% of nosocomial pneumonia cases[7]. This unidentified etiology may be associated with unidentified pneumonia-causing microbes that cannot be isolated by traditional culture methods used routinely in clinical diagnostic laboratories[8].

      The environment plays an essential role in the development and spread of pneumonia. Residents exchange microbes with air through breathing that allows large numbers of microbes to enter the respiratory tract. Indoor dust and outdoor particulate matter entrained in air and purification equipment inhabited by microorganisms in enclosed spaces may be a source of pneumonia-causing bacteria. The evaluation of the environmental risk of pneumonia is of great significance for the prevention of pneumonia and improving quality of life. The development of high-throughput sequencing has allowed the detection of an astonishing number of microorganisms. Perhaps as many as 90% of environmental microbes cannot be cultured[9, 10], and only a small fraction can be cultured with routine methods[10]. Several previous studies report that microbial concentrations measured in bioaerosols by cultivation represent only one in 1,000 microbes present[11]. In this study, 16S rDNA sequences of common pathogenic bacteria that cause pneumonia were used to evaluate risks by calculating evolutionary relationships between these pathogens and bacterial species in environmental samples. The validity of the method was verified with simulated microflora and using data on community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) registered in hospitals.

    • We aimed to evaluate the risks of pneumonia from airborne bacterial communities. Genomic sequences of closely related bacteria are very similar[12]. We used the evolutionary distances between known pneumonia-related pathogens and environment species to evaluate health risks. That is, the closer the evolutionary distance, the greater the health risk. An operational taxonomic unit (OTU) is a designation used to classify groups of closely related individuals. OTUs are the most commonly used units of diversity when analyzing small subunit 16S of prokaryotes or 18S rRNA for eukaryotes as marker sequences. OTUs are pragmatic proxies for 'species' in environmental research. The pathogenicity of unknown species increases sharply as the evolutionary distance between known pathogens and unknown species diminishes. Therefore, we used an exponential function. Next, we calculated the risk of each OTU in the sample compared with all pathogens selected. Finally, we calculated the risk of all OTUs in the samples combined with their relative abundance to yield an estimate of health risk of implied by samples using the G-Qin formula (Equation 1):

      $$ Rbr={\sum }_{{\rm{i}}=0}^{\rm{m}}\left[Am\times{\sum }_{i=0}^{n}{{log}_{2}(Dn+0.001)}^{-1}\right] $$ (1)

      where Rbr is the risk of bacterial pneumonia, Dn is the evolutionary distance between OTU sequences in samples and each pathogen, and Am is the relative abundance of each OTU.

    • We identified ten common pneumonia-related bacterial pathogens from three clinical trials of tigecycline for the treatment of community-acquired bacterial pneumonia[5]. These choices are representative of common pneumonia-causing bacteria. We obtained appropriate 16S rDNA sequences from NCBI (Table 1).

      Representative strainNCBI accession
      Streptococcus pneumoniae strain ATCC33400NR_115239.1
      Haemophilus influenzae strain 680NR_044682.2
      Chlamydia pneumoniae strain TW-183NR_026527.1
      Mycoplasma pneumoniae strain NBRC14401NR_113659.1
      Klebsiella pneumoniae strain ATCC13883NR_114506.1
      Legionella pneumophila subsp. Pascullei strain U8WNR_041742.1
      Haemophilus parainfluenzae ATCC 33392NR_118762.1
      Moraxella catarrhalis strain Ne 11NR_028669.1
      Escherichia coli strain NBRC 102203NR_114042.1
      Staphylococcus aureus strain S33 RNR_037007.2

      Table 1.  Representative species

    • We selected a student dormitory at approximately 10 m above the ground as a sampling location (116°26′35.86″E, 39°52′22.30″N). We collected airborne bacteria twice a day using natural sedimentation from five sites—three different rooms, one corridor, and one balcony—from November 23 to December 27, 2016 (35 days). The balcony was located outside of the rooms. We placed four 90 mm uncovered, disposable, sterile cell culture dishes at each site at a height of 1.5 m and retrieved them 12 h later. Samples were collected by wiping the inner surface of dishes with a sterile swab dipped in 100 µL of sterile normal saline. One swab used to wipe two dishes was considered a single sample. Two samples were thus collected from each site every time. The swabs were individually stored in sterile 2 mL tubes at −80 ℃. Cell culture dishes for the next 12 h sampling period were placed at the time of sample retrieval. We placed the dishes and collected samples at 0800 and 2,000 h. Masks and gloves were worn during the sampling process. We used one sample of each site at each sampling time in subsequent research. A total of 215 samples were used for next-generation sequencing (NGS) of 16S rDNA, including all 70 samples from the balcony from November 23 to December 27 and 145 samples from December 9 to 27 from the other sites. All the bacterial 16S rDNA sequences were deposited in the National Center for Biotechnology Information Sequence Read Archive (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sra) under accession number PRJNA503826.

      The sampling period was in winter, haze occurred frequently, and average temperature and relative humidity were 1 ℃ and 54% (Supplementary Table S1, available in www.besjournal.com). The average value of wind speed was 0.3–1.5 km/h indicating relative stable conditions (Supplementary Table S1). The average values of temperature and relative humidity indoors were 21.5 ℃ and 29.3%, respectively (data not shown).

      Month Day Pneumonia PM2.5
      (μg/m3)
      PM10
      (μg/m3)
      SO2
      (μg/m3)
      NO2
      (μg/m3)
      CO
      (μg/m3)
      O3
      (μg/m3)
      T (°C) Relative
      Huminity (%)
      Wind level
      11 23 9 21 39 8 42 0 24 −2 43 1
      11 24 10 111 147 21 80 2 10 −1 51 1
      11 25 11 207 254 24 104 3 5 1 65 1
      11 26 12 220 330 17 103 3 11 3 58 1
      11 27 11 26 45 9 46 1 28 2 35 2
      11 28 9 70 111 18 80 2 7 2 51 1
      11 29 7 109 158 25 82 3 3 2 70 1
      11 30 6 55 85 11 54 1 34 5 41 2
      12 1 5 53 77 13 60 1 23 4 41 1
      12 2 7 111 138 19 89 2 8 3 58 1
      12 3 9 292 350 22 127 4 6 3 74 1
      12 4 12 168 207 18 84 2 9 3 71 1
      12 5 17 25 50 8 45 1 28 1 34 2
      12 6 11 101 147 23 101 3 6 1 49 1
      12 7 13 158 197 23 102 3 7 3 62 1
      12 8 12 30 56 7 33 1 46 4 30 3
      12 9 11 34 56 10 52 1 19 −1 48 1
      12 10 8 73 100 17 71 2 11 −1 51 1
      12 11 5 198 231 42 111 3 5 2 63 1
      12 12 4 149 155 23 68 2 11 2 60 2
      12 13 7 16 25 6 41 0 32 −1 33 1
      12 14 5 40 65 14 55 1 20 −2 38 2
      12 15 5 33 62 10 48 1 28 1 40 1
      12 16 5 129 160 23 97 3 7 0 59 1
      12 17 7 227 259 30 106 3 6 0 72 1
      12 18 2 216 241 24 100 4 7 0 75 1
      12 19 4 272 307 18 116 5 7 1 74 1
      12 20 4 370 409 8 139 8 4 −1 91 1
      12 21 3 331 403 12 136 6 13 1 73 1
      12 22 2 14 25 4 25 0 45 1 33 2
      12 23 5 59 77 14 59 1 16 −1 47 1
      12 24 4 138 166 25 96 3 6 −1 58 1
      12 25 8 129 149 32 87 2 8 1 61 1
      12 26 7 16 24 8 42 0 32 −1 32 2
      12 27 10 82 101 11 51 1 23 −2 55 2
      Average 8 122 154 17 78 2 16 1 54 1

      Table S1.  Daily cases per disease between November 23 and December 27, 2016 in winter

    • Genomic DNA was extracted from each sample using a PowerSoil® DNA Isolation Kit (MO BIO Laboratories, Inc., Carlsbad, CA, USA) following the manufacturer's recommendations. Extracted DNA was diluted to a concentration of 1 ng/µL and stored at −20 ℃ until further processing. The V3-V4 variable region of the 16S rRNA genes was amplified (26 cycles) with universal primers (343F 5′-TACGGRAGGCAGCAG-3′, 798R 5′-AGGGTATCTAATCCT-3′)[13]. A negative control in the same amplification system used sterile deionized water as a template to monitor contamination. Amplicon quality was visualized by gel electrophoresis. Amplicons were then purified with AMPure XP beads, amplified for another round of PCR (seven cycles), and purified again with AMPure XP beads. Final amplicon concentration was quantified using a QubitTM dsDNA Assay Kit. Equal amounts of the purified amplicons were then pooled for subsequent sequencing using a MiSeq Sequencing System (Illumina, Inc., San Diego, CA, USA). The PE300 sequencing model was used and paired ends were applied. Raw sequencing data were obtained in the FASTQ format. Paired-end reads were pre-processed using the Trimmomatic software to detect and cut ambiguous bases (N)[14]. Low-quality sequences were filtered as previously described[15]. Clean reads were subjected to primer sequence removal and clustering to generate OTUs using UPARSE software with a 97% similarity cutoff[16].

    • We selected Beijing Chuiyangliu Hospital (1.6 km from the sampling sites), where patients experience no delay in registering to see a doctor, and actual disease occurrence is apparent. Data were collected from the fever clinic during the experiments to represent daily disease cases in the area. Records include information on sex, age, date of the hospital visit, and diagnosis (Supplementary Tables S1 and S2 available in www.besjournal.com). The hospital mainly serves the people in the surrounding area, and records show that patients live within 3 km of the hospital. Thus, we considered bacterial flora collected in our sampling to represent air quality within a 3 km radius. We screened cases from the infectious disease clinic between November 23 and December 27, 2016. Cases of viral infection were excluded. Remaining cases were classified as pneumonia, amygdalitis, pharyngitis, or bacterial infection. The daily pneumonia data were considered in the study (Supplementary Table S1).

      Item Characteristic Cases
      Gender Male 1,398
      Female 1,501
      Age < 18 146
      18–60 2,468
      > 60 285
      Diagnosis First visit 1,007
      Return visit 1,892

      Table S2.  Summarization of cases records collection from fever clinic between November 23 and December 27, 2016

    • We used the muscle function to align sequences and the dist.dna function to calculate the phylogenetic distance using model K81[17] in the ape package in the R environment. The correlation between Rbr and daily pneumonia cases used the cor.test function with the Pearson method. Mann-Whitney U tests were conducted for comparisons between groups, and P-values of < 0.05 were considered statistically significantly different. A phylogenetic tree of artificial flora was inferred using the maximum likelihood method based on the Tamura-Nei model[18]. Evolutionary analyses were conducted in MEGA5[19]. We have uploaded the R script for Rbr calculation to 'https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344189028_Methods_for_assessing_the_pneumonia-associated_risk_of_the_airborne_bacterial_community_using_16S_rDNA_sequences_of_pneumonia-related_pathogens?showFulltext=1&linkId=5f59e5e0299bf1d43cf92085'.

    • We artificially formed 50 bacterial communities of representative pathogens (Supplementary Table S3, available in www.besjournal.com). Ten conformed to a Gaussian distribution (A1–A10), 10 to a uniform distribution (A11–A20), 10 to an exponential distribution (A21–A30), 10 to a Poisson distribution (A31–A40), and 10 to a Binomial distribution (A41–A50) (Supplementary Table S3). Probiotics benefit human health[20-22]. Thus, we selected seven common probiotics to form additional artificial bacterial communities (Supplementary Table S4, available in www.besjournal.com). A total of 50 bacterial communities of the representative probiotics were formed, 10 for each distribution described above. These communities were numbers as above, but with 'B' designations (Supplementary Table S5, available in www.besjournal.com). Phylogenetic tree analysis of pathogens and probiotics showed no obvious aggregation of selected species (Figure 1A). This property excludes the possibility of similar phylogenetic distances in pathogen and probiotic groups. We then calculated Rbr for artificial pathogens and probiotic flora and compared values. Rbr was significantly less in probiotic than pathogen flora (P < 2.2 x 10−16) (Figure 1B). No report was found for selected probiotics as a causative agent for pneumonia was found, which is consistent with the Rbr result.

      Distributions Abundance of pathogen
      Simulated bacterial samples Streptococcus pneumoniae strain ATCC33400 Haemophilus influenzae strain 680 Chlamydia pneumoniae strain TW-183 Mycoplasma pneumoniae strain NBRC14401 Klebsiella pneumoniae strain ATCC13883 Legionella pneumophila subsp. Pascullei strain U8W Haemophilus parainfluenzae ATCC 33392 Moraxella catarrhalis strain Ne 11 Escherichia coli strain NBRC 102203 Staphylococcus aureus strain S33 R
      Gaussian distribution A1 0.096 0.121 0.128 0.103 0.104 0.092 0.098 0.070 0.102 0.086
      A2 0.105 0.092 0.086 0.094 0.091 0.120 0.103 0.107 0.074 0.128
      A3 0.100 0.080 0.103 0.114 0.070 0.130 0.094 0.119 0.099 0.091
      A4 0.067 0.083 0.105 0.124 0.066 0.136 0.136 0.082 0.116 0.084
      A5 0.104 0.126 0.125 0.088 0.098 0.085 0.113 0.073 0.050 0.137
      A6 0.135 0.085 0.107 0.093 0.120 0.103 0.097 0.060 0.113 0.087
      A7 0.068 0.090 0.091 0.114 0.072 0.083 0.122 0.119 0.116 0.125
      A8 0.102 0.087 0.109 0.119 0.145 0.060 0.103 0.111 0.097 0.067
      A9 0.112 0.082 0.107 0.115 0.122 0.067 0.118 0.082 0.072 0.123
      A10 0.118 0.091 0.111 0.079 0.093 0.094 0.091 0.110 0.125 0.087
      Uniform distribution A11 0.102 0.176 0.199 0.099 0.078 0.047 0.001 0.149 0.146 0.003
      A12 0.039 0.110 0.033 0.050 0.189 0.074 0.204 0.149 0.031 0.121
      A13 0.157 0.135 0.085 0.094 0.103 0.037 0.164 0.028 0.108 0.089
      A14 0.046 0.229 0.075 0.010 0.177 0.133 0.002 0.070 0.202 0.054
      A15 0.012 0.149 0.107 0.085 0.089 0.192 0.190 0.046 0.121 0.009
      A16 0.107 0.022 0.149 0.022 0.040 0.151 0.083 0.108 0.174 0.143
      A17 0.139 0.111 0.019 0.152 0.136 0.163 0.016 0.153 0.051 0.062
      A18 0.188 0.040 0.003 0.149 0.008 0.174 0.191 0.035 0.044 0.168
      A19 0.206 0.056 0.100 0.092 0.154 0.070 0.183 0.079 0.059 0.001
      A20 0.083 0.131 0.074 0.038 0.218 0.058 0.120 0.030 0.149 0.098
      Exponential distribution A21 0.125 0.134 0.141 0.071 0.027 0.041 0.002 0.400 0.032 0.027
      A22 0.054 0.219 0.003 0.004 0.001 0.030 0.033 0.479 0.143 0.035
      A23 0.220 0.080 0.007 0.211 0.209 0.025 0.014 0.124 0.103 0.008
      A24 0.079 0.053 0.052 0.043 0.134 0.015 0.029 0.014 0.344 0.238
      A25 0.336 0.006 0.074 0.054 0.018 0.049 0.125 0.287 0.038 0.013
      A26 0.156 0.012 0.184 0.039 0.020 0.069 0.190 0.175 0.036 0.119
      A27 0.102 0.177 0.001 0.003 0.085 0.086 0.060 0.099 0.155 0.234
      A28 0.089 0.081 0.186 0.210 0.057 0.014 0.040 0.144 0.093 0.084
      A29 0.040 0.012 0.022 0.039 0.249 0.013 0.216 0.100 0.078 0.231
      A30 0.015 0.113 0.081 0.107 0.144 0.125 0.014 0.131 0.177 0.094
      Poisson distribution A31 0.050 0.150 0.150 0.150 0.050 0.050 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100
      A32 0.000 0.160 0.240 0.160 0.120 0.040 0.080 0.080 0.000 0.120
      A33 0.143 0.000 0.190 0.048 0.143 0.143 0.143 0.048 0.048 0.095
      A34 0.000 0.125 0.125 0.063 0.313 0.063 0.125 0.125 0.000 0.063
      A35 0.250 0.107 0.036 0.143 0.107 0.071 0.107 0.071 0.036 0.071
      A36 0.083 0.125 0.042 0.083 0.083 0.083 0.167 0.167 0.125 0.042
      A37 0.048 0.190 0.190 0.095 0.143 0.095 0.000 0.048 0.095 0.095
      A38 0.222 0.111 0.000 0.000 0.056 0.056 0.167 0.167 0.167 0.056
      A39 0.077 0.077 0.231 0.077 0.077 0.154 0.077 0.000 0.000 0.231
      A40 0.200 0.000 0.133 0.067 0.133 0.067 0.333 0.000 0.000 0.067
      Binomial distribution A41 0.056 0.111 0.056 0.111 0.111 0.111 0.278 0.000 0.167 0.000
      A42 0.056 0.111 0.167 0.056 0.056 0.056 0.056 0.167 0.167 0.111
      A43 0.188 0.063 0.125 0.063 0.000 0.125 0.188 0.063 0.125 0.063
      A44 0.158 0.105 0.000 0.158 0.158 0.105 0.105 0.105 0.000 0.105
      A45 0.100 0.150 0.100 0.100 0.150 0.100 0.000 0.050 0.150 0.100
      A46 0.125 0.063 0.125 0.125 0.063 0.125 0.063 0.125 0.125 0.063
      A47 0.059 0.059 0.118 0.118 0.118 0.235 0.059 0.059 0.118 0.059
      A48 0.222 0.111 0.111 0.056 0.000 0.111 0.056 0.111 0.167 0.056
      A49 0.000 0.158 0.053 0.158 0.000 0.158 0.158 0.211 0.053 0.053
      A50 0.182 0.045 0.182 0.091 0.091 0.136 0.091 0.045 0.091 0.045

      Table S3.  The simulated pathogen flora conforms to five mathematical distributions

      Representative strain NCBI accession
      Lactobacillus rhamnosus strain JCM 1136 NR_043408.1
      Lactobacillus helveticus strain NBRC 15019 NR_113719.1
      Pediococcus acidilactici M58833.1
      Lactobacillus casei strain NCDO 161 NR_118976.1
      Lactobacillus plantarum strain JCM 1149 NR_115605.1
      Bifidobacterium longum strain KCTC 3128 NR_117506.1
      Bifidobacterium breve DSM 20213 NR_040783.1

      Table S4.  Representative species of probiotic

      Distributions Abundance of probiotic
      Simulated
      bacterial
      samples
      Lactobacillus
      rhamnosus strain
      JCM1136
      Lactobacillus
      helveticus strain
      NBRC15019
      Pediococcus
      acidilactici
      Lactobacillus
      casei strain
      NCDO161
      Lactobacillus
      plantarum
      strain JCM1149
      Bifidobacterium
      longum strain
      KCTC3128
      Bifidobacterium
      breve
      DSM20213
      Gaussian
      distribution
      B1 0.155 0.156 0.148 0.134 0.125 0.175 0.107
      B2 0.151 0.117 0.146 0.118 0.124 0.187 0.157
      B3 0.091 0.163 0.145 0.123 0.166 0.163 0.149
      B4 0.200 0.079 0.167 0.135 0.162 0.130 0.126
      B5 0.082 0.119 0.186 0.149 0.166 0.147 0.153
      B6 0.171 0.158 0.128 0.129 0.098 0.145 0.171
      B7 0.148 0.125 0.109 0.204 0.141 0.158 0.115
      B8 0.142 0.156 0.191 0.134 0.167 0.083 0.128
      B9 0.103 0.171 0.135 0.129 0.178 0.171 0.114
      B10 0.145 0.101 0.121 0.177 0.173 0.164 0.119
      Uniform
      distribution
      B11 0.018 0.059 0.072 0.116 0.496 0.009 0.231
      B12 0.249 0.004 0.084 0.117 0.153 0.251 0.141
      B13 0.238 0.199 0.066 0.163 0.020 0.249 0.066
      B14 0.274 0.164 0.081 0.260 0.021 0.008 0.191
      B15 0.256 0.137 0.152 0.063 0.216 0.162 0.015
      B16 0.234 0.072 0.149 0.093 0.031 0.243 0.178
      B17 0.208 0.031 0.164 0.149 0.232 0.142 0.074
      B18 0.207 0.187 0.094 0.107 0.170 0.056 0.180
      B19 0.215 0.109 0.239 0.019 0.212 0.127 0.080
      B20 0.150 0.077 0.158 0.222 0.138 0.155 0.101
      Exponential
      distribution
      B21 0.143 0.061 0.035 0.085 0.113 0.073 0.491
      B22 0.001 0.516 0.138 0.022 0.042 0.128 0.153
      B23 0.305 0.149 0.276 0.179 0.013 0.038 0.039
      B24 0.280 0.298 0.321 0.023 0.072 0.003 0.003
      B25 0.153 0.251 0.032 0.266 0.023 0.233 0.043
      B26 0.298 0.370 0.043 0.070 0.039 0.132 0.049
      B27 0.065 0.140 0.166 0.145 0.032 0.220 0.231
      B28 0.426 0.027 0.059 0.022 0.007 0.147 0.312
      B29 0.162 0.133 0.023 0.161 0.267 0.080 0.174
      B30 0.181 0.233 0.021 0.013 0.262 0.007 0.283
      Poisson
      distribution
      B31 0.133 0.267 0.200 0.133 0.067 0.067 0.133
      B32 0.077 0.231 0.231 0.077 0.154 0.154 0.077
      B33 0.125 0.313 0.125 0.125 0.063 0.125 0.125
      B34 0.059 0.294 0.235 0.176 0.176 0.059 0.000
      B35 0.000 0.200 0.067 0.200 0.267 0.133 0.133
      B36 0.000 0.091 0.182 0.273 0.091 0.182 0.182
      B37 0.000 0.000 0.250 0.250 0.333 0.000 0.167
      B38 0.100 0.200 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.300 0.100
      B39 0.091 0.182 0.000 0.182 0.182 0.182 0.182
      B40 0.143 0.286 0.143 0.000 0.190 0.095 0.143
      Binomial distribution B41 0.231 0.154 0.231 0.077 0.154 0.077 0.077
      B42 0.167 0.083 0.083 0.208 0.208 0.125 0.125
      B43 0.000 0.176 0.235 0.118 0.176 0.176 0.118
      B44 0.231 0.154 0.000 0.154 0.154 0.154 0.154
      B45 0.056 0.111 0.111 0.278 0.056 0.278 0.111
      B46 0.130 0.130 0.087 0.130 0.261 0.130 0.130
      B47 0.100 0.000 0.200 0.100 0.300 0.200 0.100
      B48 0.214 0.286 0.071 0.071 0.214 0.143 0.000
      B49 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.125 0.250 0.125
      B50 0.333 0.083 0.167 0.000 0.167 0.083 0.167

      Table S5.  The simulated probiotic flora conforms to five mathematical distributions

      Figure 1.  Phylogenetic analysis of artificial flora (A) and comparison of Rbr values in probiotic and pathogen groups (B). The Mann-Whitney U-test was performed.

    • Species richness of airborne bacteria was substantial. The advent of high-throughput nucleotide sequencing has greatly enhanced our understanding of the diversity of airborne microorganisms[23], yet we still could not identify all species in most cases. We collected 215 airborne microbe samples from indoor and outdoor environments by natural sedimentation. We analyzed the total abundance of OTUs greater than a threshold of relative abundance. A value of 0.8 for total abundance was located between the threshold 0.005 and 0.001 (Supplementary Figure S1, available in www.besjournal.com). We assumed that 80% of total abundance would include most dominant OTUs. Thus, 80% of OTUs were used to calculate Rbr indices.

      Figure S1.  Total abundance of bacterial OTUs greater than various thresholds of relative abundance in 215 airborne samples.

      We collected outdoor airborne samples between November 23, 2016, to December 27, 2016. Each sample was rarefied to 19,363 sequences and converted to relative abundance. We then calculated the Rbr of each sample using 80% of OTUs. Samples from the outdoor location could represent the bacterial community experienced by residents near the hospital, especially in the absence of a home air purifier[24]. Correlation analysis revealed that the Rbr80 of airborne bacteria significantly and positively correlated with daily cases of pneumonia (P < 0.05) (Figure 2A). Animal model experiments show a delay between exposure and development of acute pneumonia[25]. Additionally, pneumonia occurring within 48 h of hospital admission was likely CAP[26]. Thus, we used a delay for the onset of disease for the correlation analysis. We found that Rbr80 positively correlated with the number of daily pneumonia cases using delays of 1 and 2 days (Figure 2B and 2C). A significant correlation was not observed with a delay of 3 days (Figure 2D). These findings support the conclusion that Rbr80 predicted an onset of pneumonia within approximately 3 days.

      Figure 2.  Correlation analyses of Rbr80 and daily pneumonia cases after (A) 0, (B) 1, (C) 2, and (D) 3 days. Pearson correlation analysis was used.

      The etiology of a large portion of pneumonia cases is unclear[8]. Bacteria are important pathogens for airway inflammation, possibly leading to a cyclical disease[27]. Thus, we reasonably propose a causal relationship between airborne bacteria and pneumonia (Figure 2). Airborne bacterial communities may be essential contributors to human illness, and Rbr80 may be a useful index to evaluate health risks from airborne bacteria.

    • We analyzed the distribution of the daily pneumonia cases in the sampling period. The numbers of days with four cases/day, five cases/day, and seven cases/day reached five during the sampling period (Figure 3A). Twenty days with daily cases less than eight were observed. Therefore, we assigned days with daily cases less than eight as a background group and days with daily cases more than seven as the Risk group (Figure 3A). We compared the Rbr80 between these two groups and found the values of Rbr80 in the Risk group were significantly higher (P = 0.0015) (Figure 3B). Thus, we assumed index values of 14.44 and 15.40 could be considered thresholds for airborne samples. Airborne samples with Rbr80 less than 14.44 might be considered safe (background pneumonia incidence), and Rbr80 greater than 15.40 might be considered high risk. Values between these values are likely low risk (Figure 3C). The Rbr80 in 93.8% of samples (15/16) in the Risk group were greater than 14.44, indicating accurate prediction for most airborne bacterial communities.

      Figure 3.  The proposed threshold of Rbr80 to predict airborne bacterial risk related to pneumonia. (A) Distribution of the number of days with each value of daily pneumonia cases, (B) comparison of values of Rbr80 in Background and Risk groups, and (C) suggestion of Rbr80 value for evaluation. The Mann-Whitney U-test was used.

    • Numerous microorganisms exist in the air. They enter the body via respiration and might be beneficial, benign, or pathological. The identification of health risks posed by airborne microorganisms is typically based on concentrations of cultured microorganisms[28]. However, numerous microorganisms cannot be cultured using standard laboratory methods[29], limiting our understanding of microbial communities[30] and the ability to evaluate their risks to health. Evidence indicates that exposure to high levels of airborne, noninfectious microorganisms may cause respiratory symptoms and disease among workers, such as farmers and sawmill workers[31]. Numerous nonculturable microorganisms may also cause disease[32]. New evidence show previously described inoperative Chlamydia abortusis can induce pneumonia[33]. Thus, airborne bacterial community structure is also essential.

      The advent of high-throughput nucleotide sequencing has greatly enhanced our understanding of airborne microorganisms[23]. However, to our knowledge, no effective index exists for evaluating the health risks of airborne bacteria that considers the complexity of bacterial abundance and diversity. As indicated above, the use of the total number of culturable colonies determined in a contained (e.g., indoor) environment is not capable of evaluating the entire bacterial community. Thus, the Rbr index proves valuable for evaluating the health risk of airborne bacteria and is verified using clinical data. In our previous study, we confirmed that indoor airborne bacterial communities in homes without air purifiers closely tracked outdoor airborne bacterial communities[24]. We did not survey the presence of air purifiers in the patients' homes, but patients were from the same population with a high proportion of rooms without air purifiers with indoor airborne bacterial communities similar to outdoor communities, and fewer rooms with air purifiers where indoor communities might reflect outdoor communities only during day time. Thus, the patient data likely reflects exposure to outdoor airborne bacterial.

      People are exposed to various microbes in indoor environments affected by human occupancy, occupant behavior, and pets, as well as outdoor air[34-37]. New ecological niches accompany living habits and architectural pattern changes. Therefore, Rbr may be successfully applied to the evaluation of bacterial communities in such niches, such as air purifiers, ventilation devices, and medical equipment. The application of Rbr80 will facilitate the prevention of bacterial pneumonia.

    • The value of the Rbr is limited because fungi, archaea, and viruses are not considered. Furthermore, the calculation of Rbr considers only evolutionary distances among species; horizontal transfer of genes encoding drug resistance and virulence were also not considered. Additionally, studies of airborne bacterial communities should include information about bacterial diversity and the effects of microbial metabolites, toxins, and microbial debris. Thus, the calculation of Rbr could be optimized by future studies.

    • Rbr index to evaluate the risk of airborne bacteria was developed based on the principle that closer evolutionary relationships reflect similar biology, using 16S rDNA sequences of pneumonia-related pathogens. The feasibility of Rbr80 was verified by both artificial flora communities and a case study. We proposed 14.44 and 15.40 values of Rbr80 as thresholds of safe, low risk, and high risk for pneumonia produced by airborne bacteria.

    • The authors declare no competing interests.

Reference (37)
Supplements:
20221Supplementary Materials.pdf

Catalog

    /

    DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
    Return
    Return