Skip to main content
Download PDF

Tongue microbiome of smokeless tobacco users

BMC Microbiology volume 20, Article number: 201 (2020) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

The possibility that smokeless tobacco may contribute to oral carcinogenesis by influencing the oral microbiome has not been explored. This preliminary cross-sectional study sought to assess the effect of using shammah, a form of smokeless tobacco prevalent in Arabia, on the tongue microbiome. Tongue scarping samples were obtained from 29 shammah users (SU; 27.34 ± 6.9 years) and 23 shammah non-users (SNU; 27.7 ± 7.19 years) and analyzed with 16S rRNA gene sequencing (V1-V3). Species-level taxonomy assignment of the high-quality, merged reads was obtained using a previously described BLASTn-based algorithm. Downstream analyses were performed with QIIME, LEfSe, and R.

Results

A total of 178 species, belonging to 62 genera and 8 phyla were identified. Genera Streptococcus, Leptotrichia, Actinomyces, Veillonella, Haemophilus, Prevotella and Neisseria accounted for more than 60% of the average microbiome. There were no differences between the two groups in species richness and alpha-diversity, but PCoA showed significant separation (P = 0.015, ANOSIM). LEfSe analysis identified 22 species to be differentially abundant between the SU and SNU. However, only 7 species maintained a false discovery rate of ≤0.2 and could cluster the two groups separately: Rothia mucilaginosa, Streptococcus sp. oral taxon 66, Actinomyces meyeri, Streptococcus vestibularis Streptococcus sanguinis and a potentially novel Veillonella species in association with SU, and Oribacterium asaccharolyticum with SNU.

Conclusion

These preliminary results indicate that shammah use induces tongue microbiome changes including enrichment of several species with high acetaldehyde production potential, which warrants further investigation.

Background

Tobacco use is highly prevalent and remains a major global health threads worldwide, being responsible for killing 8 million people annually [1]. Based on how it is used, there are two major forms of tobacco: smoked, which is the most common form, and smokeless form which is used without burning [1]. Smokeless tobacco (ST) products are typically chewed, dipped, sucked or applied as a paste to the gingiva [2]. Both forms of tobacco are major risk factors of oral cancer, with pooled odds ratios of 3.6 and 7.9 for smoking and ST, respectively, according to one metaanalysis [3]. It is estimated that 90% of the global use burden of ST is in South Asia, where oral cancer ranks among the most common cancers (first or second in some countries like India) [4].

The carcinogenic effect of tobacco is ascribed to a wide range of carcinogens such as the tobacco-specific nitrosamine (e.g. N′-nitrosonornicotine), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, metals and metalloids, and aldehydes, in addition to many co-carcinogens and toxicants [5]. Basically, these carcinogens undergo metabolic activation to intermediates that react with DNA to form what is called DNA adducts. The latter in turn, when cellular repair mechanisms fail, can result in permanent mutations in oncogenes and tumor suppressor genes, leading to development of oral cancer [5]. In addition to genetic aberration, tobacco also contributes to oral carcinogenesis by inducing epigenetic alterations and immune dysfunctions [6].

One possible, yet unexplored, mechanism by which tobacco may further contribute to the development of oral cancer is through disruption of the oral microbiome. This is important in view of the increasing evidence indicating that compositional and functional disturbances in the oral microbiome (dysbiosis) may play a role in oral cancer [7, 8]. In fact, few recent studies have shown that current smokers have a significantly altered oral microbiome compared to non- or former smokers [9, 10], Furthermore, in a Syrian Golden hamster cheek pouch carcinogenesis model, 4-week application of ST was shown to significantly disrupted the oral microbiota [11]. How ST products affect the human oral microbiome, and whether that may play a role in their carcinogenicity has not been studied.

Shammah, also known as Arabian snuff, is a form of ST that is used in Yemen and Saudi Arabia, and is strongly associated with oral potentially malignant lesions and oral cancer [12, 13]. On the grounds that the tongue is densely populated by a diverse microbial community [14], while it is also the most commonly affected site by oral cancer, including that associated with shammah use [15], the objective of this study was to explore the potential effect of chronic use of shammah, as an example of ST product, on the tongue microbiome in comparison to the tongue microbiome of shammah non-users. As shamah habit is largely practiced by males, the study recruited males only.

Results

Characterization of the study sample

The characteristics of the study groups are presented in Table 1. Fifty-two males participated in this study: 29 SU and 23 SNU with a comparable mean age (27.34 ± 6.9 and 27.7 ± 7.19 years, respectively). Among the former, 17 reported using the black shammah type, while the rest reported using the white type. The mean duration of shammah use was 8.66 ± 7.11 years, with a mean frequency of use of 11.86 ± 4.43 times per a day. Seven subjects reported chewing qat (a plant with amphetamine-like effect that is habitually chewed) in addition to using shammah. There were 7 and 3 cigarette smokers among the SU and SNU groups, respectively. The DMFT scores did not differ between the two groups (5.41 ± 4.38 and 5.78 ± 4.11 for SU and SNU, respectively).

Table 1 Characteristics of the study groups described as mean ± SD or number (%) as appropriate
Full size table

Sequencing and data preprocessing statistics

A total of 3,088,631 raw reads were obtained (publically available from Sequence Read Archive; Project ID PRJNA605810) of which 90% could be successfully merged. Nearly 52% of the merged reads were filtered out during the highly stringent quality-filtration step, and additional 11% were identified as chimeric sequences and thus removed. About 80% of the high-quality, non-chimeric sequences were successfully classified to the species-level (mean of 14,957 ± 5335 reads per sample). The detailed sequencing and data preprocessing statistics are provided in Supplementary Dataset 1.

General microbiological profiles

A total of 178 species, including 24 potentially novel species, belonging to 62 genera and 8 phyla were identified in the samples. The detection frequency and per-sample relative abundances of each taxon are presented in Supplementary Datasets 2, 3 and 4. On average, 109 species (range 80–143) and 44 genera (range 32–55) were detected per subject. Fifty-three species and 26 genera were identified in more than 90% of the samples (i.e. can be defined as core taxa of the dorsum of the tongue). The average relative abundances of the phyla and top genera and species (those present at an average abundance of ≥2% in the control group) in each of the study groups are shown in Fig. 1. Firmicutes, Actinobacteria, Proteobacteria, Fusobacteria, and Bacteroidetes were, in order, the most abundant phyla accounting for at least 97% of the reads in each sample. The top 13 genera accounted for more than 80% of the average microbiome, with Streptococcus, Leptotrichia and Actinomyces alone comprising ~ 40%. The top 15 species constituted ~ 55% of the reads on average, with Neisseria flavescens/subflava, Haemophilus parainfluenzae, Rothia mucilaginosa, Veillonella parvula group, Streptococcus salivarius, Leptotrichia sp. oral taxon 417, Leptotrichia sp. oral taxon 215 and Actinomyces graevenitzii making ~ 37%.

Fig. 1
figure1

Microbiological profiles. DNA extracted from tongue scrapings was sequenced for the V1-V3 region of the 16S rRNA gene using paired-end chemistry. The generated reads were merged, quality-filtered and classified to the species level using a BLASTn-based algorithm. The stacked bars show the average relative abundances of all phyla, top genera and top species identified in the study groups

Full size image

Diversity and differentially abundant taxa

There were no statistically significant differences between the two study groups in species richness or alpha diversity indices as illustrated in Fig. 2. However, analysis of beta diversity by PCoA (based on Bray-Curtis distance matrix) showed significant (P = 0.015, Analysis of Similarities), but not complete, separation between the two groups (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2
figure2

Species richness and diversity. Taxonomic profiles were rarified and used to calculate observed richness, expected richness (Chao index), alpha diversity indices (Shannon’s and Simpson’s) and distance matrices employing standard QIIME scripts. Left: Box and whisker plots of species richness and aloha diversity in each group. Differences were not significant by Mann–Whitney U test. Right: clustering of samples with PCoA based on Bary-Curtis distance matrix. Significance of separation was assessed with ANOSIM. Plots were generated with R Package. Eclipses represent the 95% confidence interval around the centroid of each group

Full size image

LEfSe analysis identified 7 genera and 22 species to be differentially abundant between the two groups (Fig. 3). Most of them maintained the associations when the qat chewers were excluded (Supplementary Figure 1). However, after adjustment for multiple comparisons using the Benjamini-Hochberg method, only seven species had a false discovery rate (FDR) of less than 0.2, namely R. mucilaginosa, Streptococcus sp. oral taxon 66, Actinomyces meyeri, Streptococcus vestibularis Streptococcus sanguinis, a potentially novel Veillonella species and Oribacterium asaccharolyticum. Centroid-based hierarchal clustering of the samples by the relative abundance of these species resulted in separation between the shammah users and non-users (Fig. 4). The relative abundances of the 7 species in individual samples are shown in Fig. 5.

Fig. 3
figure3

Differentially abundant taxa. a Genera and (b) species that showed significant differences in relative abundance between the two study groups as identified by linear discriminant analysis (LDA) effect size analysis (LEfSe)

Full size image
Fig. 4
figure4

Hierarchical centroid clustering. Samples were clustered based on the relative abundances of differentially abundant species with false discovery rate (FDR) ≤ 0.2. Clustering and plotting were performed with STAMP (statistical analysis of taxonomic and functional profiles) [16]

Full size image
Fig. 5
figure5

Per sample abundance plots. Relative abundances of differentially abundant species with false discovery rate (FDR) ≤ 0.2 in individual samples

Full size image

Discussion

The current study characterized the tongue microbiome associated with use of shammah, as a highly carcinogenic ST product, with the aim of identifying shifts that may be relevant to development of oral cancer. In other words, the study is based on the premise that, in addition to inducing genetic and epigenetic aberrations, tobacco can contribute to oral carcinogenesis through disrupting tongue microbiome. Indeed, the study found, after adjustment for multiple comparisons, 6 species to be enriched in the tongue microbiome of SU, namely R. mucilaginosa, Streptococcus sp. oral taxon 66, A. meyeri, S. vestibularis, S. sanguinis and a potentially novel Veillonella species.

Enrichment of R. mucilaginosa is particularly relevant. This species has been found to be significantly more abundant in tongue leukoplakia lesions compared to contralateral side, and to tongue swab samples collected from healthy controls [17]. More importantly, most strains of R. mucilaginosa has been recently found to produce high levels of acetaldehyde from ethanol comparable to that of Candida and Neisseria spp., and to lack genes encoding acetaldehyde dehydrogenases- a group of enzymes that detoxify acetyl aldehyde [18]. Acetaldehyde is well known carcinogenic compound, and its production has been proposed as a mechanism by which bacteria can contribute to oral and gastrointestinal carcinogenesis [19, 20]. Interestingly, Rothia mucilaginosa have been reported to be reduced in established oral cancer lesions [21, 22], suggestive of a possible role only in early stages.

Streptococci are also known to produce acetaldehyde, although there are variations among the different species, with Streptococcus salivarius, Streptococcus intermedius and Streptococcus mitis having the highest acetaldehyde-producing potential [23]. Indeed S. mitis, was among the species identified by LEfSe analysis in this study as overabundant among the SU, but it did not stand adjustment for multiple comparisons. No information is available in the literature about acetaldehyde-producing potential of the other three Streptococcus species found here to be enriched in SU, except S. Sanguinis that has been shown to produce relatively smaller amounts of acetaldehyde but to encode non-functional acetaldehyde dehydrogenase genes [24]. The acetaldehyde-producing abilities of S. vestibularis and Streptococcus sp. oral taxon 66 needs to be experimentally assessed.

Based on the above, it may be hypothesized that use of smokeless tobacco (probably tobacco in general) indirectly contributes to initiation of oral cancer by enrichment of acetaldehyde-producing bacterial species. This may be particularly relevant in people who consume alcohol in addition to using tobacco. In fact, this could be one mechanism underlying the known interaction between alcohol and tobacco in head and neck cancers [25]. This possibility, however, needs to be validated in in vitro studies. Although not statistically significant, use of shammah was also associated with higher species richness and diversity. This may be interesting as some studies found oral cancer to be associated with an increase in microbial diversity [26, 27], contrary to what is observed in other cancers such as those of the colon [28].

To our knowledge, this is the first study investigating the effect of ST on tongue microbiome. Only two studies used a comparable approach, in order to assess the effect of smoking on tongue microbiome using 16S [29] or metagenome sequencing [30]. Interestingly, both showed Streptococci to be enriched in the current smokers, which is consistent with our findings. One of them also showed Veillonella dispar was more abundant in the current smokers [30], which aligns with the observation from the current study that a potentially novel Veillonella sp. was enriched by shammah use. Neither studies found the relative abundance of Rothia to be associated with smoking, but the metagenomic study revealed R. mucilaginosa found in the current smokes to have significantly less gene variations (or strains) compared to the never smokers. However, another study on the buccal microbiome found this species to be enriched by smoking [31].

The study has some limitations to note. First, the variation in effect of shammah use by gender could not be assessed due to exclusion of females. This, however, was because it was difficult to recruit females who are willing to report using shammah due to the social stigma associated with using it. Secondly, and despite all efforts made, it was extremely difficult to exclude qat chewing due to the strong association between the two habits, so some of the shammah users recruited were also qat chewers, which may have confounded the results. Nevertheless, analysis of the data after exclusion of these cases did not change the results significantly (Supplementary Figure 1). There were also cigarette smokers among the two groups, but their distribution did not significantly differ between the two groups. The small number of smokers in the control group did not allow for testing for the effect of smoking on the microbiome. A study with sufficient sample size to allow stratification and statistical analysis by each of these habits, to assess how they influence the microbiome independently or in combination is required. Another study limitation, which is inherent to all marker-gene sequencing studies, is that no information could be obtained about the microbial community function, which is probably more relevant to understanding the effects of tobacco on the microbiome. Therefore, future studies should consider employing functional approaches such as metatranscriptomcis, metaproteomics and metabolomics. Finally, the results of the study, namely enrichment of the certain species by shammah use, should be interpreted with caution, since they were not confirmed by another method, e.g. real-time PCR.

Conclusion

The present study provides a preliminary sight into shifts in tongue microbiome in association with shammah use, namely enrichment of several species including Rothia and Streptococcus species which are known to produce high levels of acetaldehyde. Further studies are needed to validate these findings and to explore their potential relevance to oral carcinogenesis and, possibly, the interaction between tobacco and alcohol.

Methods

Study design and subjects

The objective of this study was to explore the potential effect of chronic use of shammah, as an example of ST product, on the tongue microbiome in comparison to the tongue microbiome of shammah non-users. The study was conducted during the academic years 2018/2019 and 2019/2020. Participants were recruited to this cross-sectional study from among attendants of the dental clinics at the College of Dentistry, Jazan University. They had to be 20–40 years old and systemically healthy (as self-reported). Due to the difficulty recruiting females who use shammah, the study was limited to male subjects. Shammah users (SU) were defined as those who used shammah daily for at least 1 year without a period of cessation, while shammah non-users (SNU) were required to have no history of shammah use. Subjects with moderate to severe gingivitis (bleeding on probing in ≥10% of the sites) [32] or periodontitis (detectable interdental clinical attachment loss (CAL) at ≥2 nonadjacent teeth, or detectable buccal or oral CAL ≥ 3 mm with pocketing ≥3 mm at ≥2 teeth) [33], or who had a history of antibiotic, antifungal or steroids use, or periodontal treatment, including prophylaxis, in the last 3 months were excluded. Patient’s demographic data were obtained using a structured interview questionnaire. Clinical examination included assessment of bleeding on probing, periodontal pocket depth and dental caries using Decay, Missing Filling index for Teeth (DMFT).

The study was approved by the Scientific Research Ethics Committee, Jazan University (REC39/2–432), and was conducted in compliance with the Helsinki Declaration on medical research involving human subjects. Written informed consents were obtained from all the participants.

Tongue scraping and DNA extraction

The study subjects were instructed not to eat, drink, smoke, or use shammah at least an hour before sample collection. All samples were collected in the morning between 9 am and 12 pm. No specific instruction about performing or refraining from oral hygiene and tongue brushing were provided. Tongue scraping samples were collected as follows. The tongue was isolated using sterilized cotton rolls and gauze, and the participant was asked to protrude his tongue forward as much as he could. The tongue was stabilized by holding the tip with a piece of sterile gauze and its surface was dried with another piece. Using a sterilized metal spatula, the dorsal surface of the tongue was scrapped with overlapping strokes starting posteriorly all the way to the tip. The collected scraping was then transferred with a sterile paper point into a sterile Eppendorf tube containing 600 μl sterile, molecular-grade Tris-EDTA buffer (pH 8.0) and stored at − 20 °C.

Prior to DNA extraction, the samples were thawed, vortexed vigorously, and centrifuged at 14,000 rpm for 1 minute (Micro 120, Hettich Zentrifuge, Germany) to pellet the cells. The supernatant was decanted and the pellet washed once with 500 μl phosphate-buffered saline, suspended in 180 μl of lysozyme solution (20 mg/ml), and incubated overnight at 37 °C. DNA was then extracted using PureLink™ Genomic DNA Mini Kit (Invitrogen, USA) according the manufacturer’s instructions, using an elution volume of 100 μl. The quantity of DNA was assessed by Jenway Genova Nano 3-in-1 Spectrophotmeter (Jenway®, UK). The extracts were stored at − 20 °C for subsequent analysis.

16S sequencing and bioinformatic analysis

Library preparation and sequencing of the 16S rRNA gene were performed at the Australian Center for Ecogenomics (Brisbane, Australia) as described elsewhere [34]. In brief, the degenerate primers 27FYM [35] and 519R [36] were employed to amplify the V1–3 region in standard PCR conditions. The generated amplicons (~ 520 bp) were purified and, in a second PCR, tagged with 8-base barcodes. The libraries were then pooled in equimolar concentrations and sequenced on a MiSeq (Illumina, USA) using the v3 2 × 300 bp chemistry, with a minimum sequencing depth of 30,000 reads per sample.

The raw data were preprocessed, including merging of reads, primer-trimming, quality-filtration, alignment and chimera removal, using PEAR [37] and mothur [38] as detailed previously [22]. The resultant high quality, merged reads were classified using our BLASTn-based, species-level taxonomy assignment algorithm, described in details elsewhere [22, 39]. Briefly, the algorithm works by searching individual reads at alignment coverage and % identity of ≥98% against four 16S rRNA reference databases, and assigning them taxonomy of the hit sequence with the highest % identity and bit score belonging to the highest priority reference set. The databases in the order of their biological relevance (priority) are: The Human Oral Microbiome Database (HOMD) version 14.5; a chimera-free version of the Human Oral Microbiome extended database (trusted-HOMDext); a modified version of the Greengene Gold set (modified-GGG); and NCBI’s microbial 16S set. Downstream analysis of microbial profiles including subsampling, generation of taxonomy plots/tables and rarefaction curves, and calculation of species richness, coverage, alpha diversity indices and beta diversity distance matrices, was performed with QIIME (Quantitative Insights Into Microbial Ecology) software package version 1.9.1 [40]. Principal component analysis (PCoA) was used to cluster samples based on microbial similarity. Differentially abundant taxa were identified with linear discriminant analysis (LDA) effect size (LEfSe) [41].

Availability of data and materials

The dataset supporting the conclusions of this article is available from NCBI’s Sequence Read Archive, [PRJNA605810; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bioproject/605810].

Abbreviations

SU:

Shammah users

SNU:

Sammah non-users

ST:

Smokeless tobacco

DMFT:

Decay, Missing Filling index for Teeth

FDR:

False discovery rate

R. mucilaginosa :

Rothia mucilabinosa

A. meyeri :

Actinomyces meyeri

S. vestibularis :

Streptococcus vestibularis

S. sanguinis :

Streptococcus sanguinis

S. mitis :

Streptococcus mitis

μl:

Microliter

DNA:

Deoxyribonucleic acid

rpm:

Round per minute

°C:

Degree Celsius

mg/ml:

Milligram per milliliter

PCR:

Polymerase chain reaction

bp:

base pair

QIIME:

Quantitative Insights Into Microbial Ecology

PCoA:

Principal component analysis

LDA:

linear discriminant analysis

LEfSe:

linear discriminant analysis (LDA) effect size

References

  1. 1.

    World Health Organization. WHO report on the global tobacco epidemic: Offer help to quit tobacco use, vol. 2019. Geneva: World Health Organization. Available from: https://www.who.int/tobacco/global_report/en//; 2019.

    Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    IARC Working Group on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans, International Agency for Research on Cancer. Smokeless tobacco and some tobacco-specific N-nitrosamines. In: A review of human carcinogens: Personal habits and indoor combustions, Volume 100 E, vol. E100. Lyon: World Health Organization; distributed by WHO Press; 2012. p. 267–321.

    Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Petti S, Masood M, Scully C. The magnitude of tobacco smoking-betel quid chewing-alcohol drinking interaction effect on oral cancer in South-East Asia. A meta-analysis of observational studies. PLoS One. 2013;8(11):e78999.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Khan Z, Tonnies J, Muller S. Smokeless tobacco and oral cancer in South Asia: a systematic review with meta-analysis. J Cancer Epidemiol. 2014;2014:394696.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Tomar SL, Hecht SS, Jaspers I, Gregory RL, Stepanov I. Oral health effects of combusted and smokeless tobacco products. Adv Dent Res. 2019;30(1):4–10.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Jiang X, Wu J, Wang J, Huang R. Tobacco and oral squamous cell carcinoma: a review of carcinogenic pathways. Tob Induc Dis. 2019;17:29.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Al-Hebshi NN, Borgnakke WS, Johnson NW. The microbiome of Oral squamous cell carcinomas: a functional perspective. Curr Oral Health Rep. 2019;6:145–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Perera M, Al-Hebshi NN, Speicher DJ, Perera I, Johnson NW. Emerging role of bacteria in oral carcinogenesis: a review with special reference to perio-pathogenic bacteria. J Oral Microbiol. 2016;8:32762.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Wu J, Peters BA, Dominianni C, Zhang Y, Pei Z, Yang L, Ma Y, Purdue MP, Jacobs EJ, Gapstur SM, et al. Cigarette smoking and the oral microbiome in a large study of American adults. ISME J. 2016;10(10):2435–46.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Yang Y, Zheng W, Cai QY, Shrubsole MJ, Pei Z, Brucker R, Steinwandel MD, Bordenstein SR, Li Z, Blot WJ, et al. Cigarette smoking and oral microbiota in low-income and African-American populations. J Epidemiol Commun Health. 2019;73(12):1108–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Jin J, Guo L, VonTungeln L, Vanlandingham M, Cerniglia CE, Chen H. Smokeless tobacco impacts oral microbiota in a Syrian Golden hamster cheek pouch carcinogenesis model. Anaerobe. 2018;52:29–42.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Patil S, Alamir AWH, Arakeri G, Awan KH, Bhandi SH, Aljabab A, Maddur N, Gomez RS, Brennan PA. The relationship of shammah (Arabian snuff) chewing to the risk of oral cancer and oral potentially malignant disorders. J Oral Pathol Med. 2019;48(6):425–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Quadri MFA, Tadakamadla SK, John T. Smokeless tobacco and oral cancer in the Middle East and North Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Tob Induc Dis. 2019;17:56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Ren W, Xun Z, Wang Z, Zhang Q, Liu X, Zheng H, Zhang Q, Zhang Y, Zhang L, Wu C, et al. Tongue coating and the salivary microbial communities vary in children with halitosis. Sci Rep. 2016;6:24481.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Nasher AT, Al-Hebshi NN, Al-Moayad EE, Suleiman AM. Viral infection and oral habits as risk factors for oral squamous cell carcinoma in Yemen: a case-control study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2014;118(5):566–572 e561.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Parks DH, Tyson GW, Hugenholtz P, Beiko RG. STAMP: statistical analysis of taxonomic and functional profiles. Bioinformatics. 2014;30(21):3123–4.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Amer A, Galvin S, Healy CM, Moran GP. The microbiome of potentially malignant Oral leukoplakia exhibits enrichment for Fusobacterium, Leptotrichia, campylobacter, and Rothia species. Front Microbiol. 2017;8:2391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Abdrazak A, Aine W, Al-Hebshi NN, Healy CM, Moran GP. Acetaldehyde production by Rothia mucilaginosa isolates from patients with oral leukoplakia. J Oral Microbiol. 2020;12:1743066 Accepted Manuscript.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Homann N. Alcohol and upper gastrointestinal tract cancer: the role of local acetaldehyde production. Addict Biol. 2001;6(4):309–23.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Meurman JH. Oral microbiota and cancer. J Oral Microbiol. 2010;2:5195 https://doi.org/10.3402/jom.v2i0.5195.

  21. 21.

    Perera M, Al-Hebshi NN, Perera I, Ipe D, Ulett GC, Speicher DJ, Chen T, Johnson NW. Inflammatory Bacteriome and Oral squamous cell carcinoma. J Dent Res. 2018;97(6):725–32.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Al-Hebshi NN, Nasher AT, Maryoud MY, Homeida HE, Chen T, Idris AM, Johnson NW. Inflammatory bacteriome featuring Fusobacterium nucleatum and Pseudomonas aeruginosa identified in association with oral squamous cell carcinoma. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):1834.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Kurkivuori J, Salaspuro V, Kaihovaara P, Kari K, Rautemaa R, Gronroos L, Meurman JH, Salaspuro M. Acetaldehyde production from ethanol by oral streptococci. Oral Oncol. 2007;43(2):181–6.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Pavlova SI, Jin L, Gasparovich SR, Tao L. Multiple alcohol dehydrogenases but no functional acetaldehyde dehydrogenase causing excessive acetaldehyde production from ethanol by oral streptococci. Microbiology. 2013;159(Pt 7):1437–46.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Hashibe M, Brennan P, Chuang SC, Boccia S, Castellsague X, Chen C, Curado MP, Dal Maso L, Daudt AW, Fabianova E, et al. Interaction between tobacco and alcohol use and the risk of head and neck cancer: pooled analysis in the international head and neck Cancer epidemiology consortium. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2009;18(2):541–50.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Lee WH, Chen HM, Yang SF, Liang C, Peng CY, Lin FM, Tsai LL, Wu BC, Hsin CH, Chuang CY, et al. Bacterial alterations in salivary microbiota and their association in oral cancer. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):16540.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Zhao H, Chu M, Huang Z, Yang X, Ran S, Hu B, Zhang C, Liang J. Variations in oral microbiota associated with oral cancer. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):11773.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Ai D, Pan H, Li X, Gao Y, Liu G, Xia LC. Identifying gut microbiota associated with colorectal Cancer using a zero-inflated lognormal model. Front Microbiol. 2019;10:826.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Sato N, Kakuta M, Uchino E, Hasegawa T, Kojima R, Kobayashi W, Sawada K, Tamura Y, Tokuda I, Imoto S, et al. The relationship between cigarette smoking and the tongue microbiome in an east Asian population. J Oral Microbiol. 2020;12(1):1742527.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Sato N, Kakuta M, Hasegawa T, Yamaguchi R, Uchino E, Kobayashi W, Sawada K, Tamura Y, Tokuda I, Murashita K, et al. Metagenomic analysis of bacterial species in tongue microbiome of current and never smokers. NPJ Biofilms Microbiomes. 2020;6(1):11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Karabudak S, Ari O, Durmaz B, Dal T, Basyigit T, Kalcioglu MT, Durmaz R. Analysis of the effect of smoking on the buccal microbiome using next-generation sequencing technology. J Med Microbiol. 2019;68(8):1148–58.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Trombelli L, Farina R, Silva CO, Tatakis DN. Plaque-induced gingivitis: case definition and diagnostic considerations. J Periodontol. 2018;89(Suppl 1):S46–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Papapanou PN, Sanz M, Buduneli N, Dietrich T, Feres M, Fine DH, Flemmig TF, Garcia R, Giannobile WV, Graziani F, et al. Periodontitis: Consensus report of workgroup 2 of the 2017 World workshop on the classification of periodontal and Peri-implant diseases and conditions. J Periodontol. 2018;89(Suppl 1):S173–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Al-Hebshi NN, Alharbi FA, Mahri M, Chen T. Differences in the bacteriome of smokeless tobacco products with different oral carcinogenicity: compositional and predicted functional analysis. Genes. 2017;8:106 in press.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Frank JA, Reich CI, Sharma S, Weisbaum JS, Wilson BA, Olsen GJ. Critical evaluation of two primers commonly used for amplification of bacterial 16S rRNA genes. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2008;74(8):2461–70.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Lane DJ, Pace B, Olsen GJ, Stahl DA, Sogin ML, Pace NR. Rapid determination of 16S ribosomal RNA sequences for phylogenetic analyses. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1985;82(20):6955–9.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Zhang J, Kobert K, Flouri T, Stamatakis A. PEAR: a fast and accurate Illumina paired-end reAd mergeR. Bioinformatics. 2014;30(5):614–20.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Schloss PD, Westcott SL, Ryabin T, Hall JR, Hartmann M, Hollister EB, Lesniewski RA, Oakley BB, Parks DH, Robinson CJ, et al. Introducing mothur: open-source, platform-independent, community-supported software for describing and comparing microbial communities. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2009;75(23):7537–41.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Al-Hebshi NN, Nasher AT, Idris AM, Chen T. Robust species taxonomy assignment algorithm for 16S rRNA NGS reads: application to oral carcinoma samples. J Oral Microbiol. 2015;7:28934.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Caporaso JG, Kuczynski J, Stombaugh J, Bittinger K, Bushman FD, Costello EK, Fierer N, Pena AG, Goodrich JK, Gordon JI, et al. QIIME allows analysis of high-throughput community sequencing data. Nat Methods. 2010;7(5):335–6.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Segata N, Izard J, Waldron L, Gevers D, Miropolsky L, Garrett WS, Huttenhower C. Metagenomic biomarker discovery and explanation. Genome Biol. 2011;12(6):R60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Not applicable.

Funding

The study was funded by The Deanship of Scientific Research, Jazan University through The Eighth Scientific Research Program (Number: JUP//000261). The funding body provided financial support to purchase the chemicals required for the project and to pay for the analyses. However, it had no influence on the study design, on the collection, analysis and interpretation of the data nor had a role in writing the manuscript.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Department of Maxillofacial Surgery and Diagnostic Sciences, College of Dentistry, Jazan University, Jazan, Saudi Arabia

    Esam Halboub, Abdulwahab H. Alamir & Husham E. Homeida

  2. Department of Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology and Oral Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Sana’a university, Sana’a, Yemen

    Esam Halboub

  3. Department of Preventive Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, Jazan University, Jazan, Saudi Arabia

    Mohammed S. Al-Ak’hali

  4. Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Dentistry, Sana’a University, Sana’a, Yemen

    Mohammed S. Al-Ak’hali

  5. Oral Microbiome Research Laboratory, Department of Oral Health Sciences, Maurice H. Kornberg School of Dentistry, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Divyashri Baraniya & Nezar Noor Al-Hebshi

  6. Department of Microbiology, Forsyth Institute, Cambridge, MA, USA

    Tsute Chen

Authors
  1. Esam Halboub
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mohammed S. Al-Ak’hali
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Abdulwahab H. Alamir
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Husham E. Homeida
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Divyashri Baraniya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Tsute Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Nezar Noor Al-Hebshi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

EH contributed to conception and design, data acquisition and analysis and drafted the manuscript. MA and HH contributed to data acquisition. AA contributed to conception and design. DB and TC contributed to data analysis. NA contributed to conception and design, data analysis and interpretation and critically revised the manuscript. All authors revised the draft and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Esam Halboub or Nezar Noor Al-Hebshi.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study was approved by the Scientific Research Ethics Committee, Jazan University (REC39/2–432), and was conducted in compliance with the Helsinki Declaration on medical research involving human subjects. Written informed consents were obtained from all the participants.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have not any kinds of conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Halboub, E., Al-Ak’hali, M.S., Alamir, A.H. et al. Tongue microbiome of smokeless tobacco users. BMC Microbiol 20, 201 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12866-020-01883-8

Download citation

Keywords

  • Rothia mucilaginosa, high-throughput nucleotide sequencing
  • Microbiota
  • Mouth neoplasms
  • Tobacco
  • Tongue

BMC Microbiology

ISSN: 1471-2180

Contact us