Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Salivary microbiome with gastroesophageal reflux disease and treatment

Abstract

The effect of oral microbial composition on periodontal health and on systemic health has been, and is being established. The oral microbiome, in turn, can be altered by local and systemic diseases and conditions. Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), has been associated with increased acidity in the oral cavity resulting in dental erosion, and controversially a reduced risk of periodontal disease. We hypothesized that presence of GERD was linked to a modified microbial profile in untreated GERD patients and that the use of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) drugs: potent disruptors of gut microbiome, in GERD patients might result in a salivary microbiome that is further distinct. Untreated GERD patients showed multiple differences in salivary microbiome as compared to healthy controls. Taxa found at lower levels related to the presence of GERD not treated by PPI included: Prevotella melaninogenica, Prevotella pallens, Leptotrichia, and Solobacterium moorei and thirteen others. In contrast, GERD patients chronically using PPI showed minimal differences in salivary taxa compared to healthy controls not using PPI.

Introduction

There are hundreds of species of bacteria that inhabit the mucosal and hard surfaces of the oral cavity, and upper respiratory and gastrointestinal tracts, that can be sampled by examining the saliva1,2. Oral bacteria of the mouth have been shown not only to play a role in oral disease such as caries, dental erosion, periodontal disease, and mucosal lesions, but also may contribute to systemic disease such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes mellitus, even pancreatic cancer1,3,4,5. A large number of bacteria genera and species contribute to a complex oral microbial ecosystem, thus it is difficult to differentiate a healthy microbiome or what used to be described as “normal oral flora” versus a pathogenic oral microbiome. A first step is identifying specific bacteria taxa that are associated with a disease or condition.

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a condition that is believed to occur due to dysfunction of the lower esophageal sphincter, which is responsible for preventing back flow of stomach contents into the esophagus6. This regurgitation of gastric juices into the esophagus, oropharyngeal and oral cavity lowers their pH7. In the esophagus, this can contribute to chronic inflammation, histological changes in the mucosal cells lining the distal esophagus, and increased risk for esophageal cancer8,9. Changes in distal esophageal microbiome have been characterized, including lower levels of Prevotella, Helicobacter, and Moraxella genera with GERD10,11,12. In the oral cavity, the presence of GERD is associated with acidic saliva (pH 4.9) versus the near neutral pH of 6.5 in healthy subjects13. Inflammation of the oral mucosa is often seen, as well as reduction in oral salivary flow14,15. This acidic environment favors loss of tooth structure through enamel erosion.

PPIs are drugs that work by inhibiting release of Hydrogen ions from mucosal cells of the GI tract, particularly those in the stomach7. While PPIs are indicated for usage against H. Pylori infection, erosive esophagitis, gastric ulcers, and for stress ulcer prevention in critically ill patients, they are available over the counter and are used long term for a number of other aliments9,16,17. Epidemiological studies reveal that usage of PPIs is associated with increased risk of Clostridium difficile infection in the gut, small intestinal bacterial overgrowth, pneumonia, and nutritional deficiencies18,19,20. These illnesses are thought to be linked to reduced levels of gastric acid release and increased pH in stomach and small intestine as well as other sites. PPI usage can have effects on upper GI sites such as esophagus and oral cavity even in healthy subjects. After 4 week of PPI administration, healthy subjects were seen to show changes in salivary microbiota, including reductions in Neisseria, Veillonella, possibly Haemophilus, and an increase in Streptococcus21.

The aim of this study was to determine the role of GERD in the makeup of the oral microbiome. This study examined the salivary microbiome in dental patients who reported with GERD. In addition, the salivary microbiome of patients with GERD chronically treated with PPI was also analyzed. In patients with GERD, usage of PPI has been shown to be associated with restoration of normal pH and possibly saliva flow7. In these patients one might expect the oral microbiome to be more similar to healthy subjects.

Results

Selected subjects

In the original study samples were collected from 208 subjects who came to the dental clinics for checkups. Of these 36 self-reported having GERD comprised of 20 patients with GERD who used PPI (GERD + PPI) group, and 16 who had GERD but did not use medication (GERD + No PPI) group. Negative controls did not have GERD and did not use PPI. This negative control group had a lower percentage of tobacco usage, fewer females and trended toward a higher level of periodontal disease than the group with GERD that did not use PPI (Supplemental Table 1).

To facilitate comparison between the GERD subjects that did not use PPI and the negative control a subset of 92 negative control subjects was created so to minimize differences in clinical covariates. There was a total of 128 subjects in total in the final groups used for saliva microbiome analysis in this study (Table 1). Sixty patients were edentulous.

Table 1 Demographic and clinical indices after matching.

Comparison of microbial communities among GERD patients with and without PPI usage

Differences in the microbial population in the large negative control group, the group with GERD that did not use PPI, and the group with GERD that did use PPI, were examined. In total 4,964,720 reads from 128 saliva samples were obtained. These were subjected to DADA2 for variant identification and followed by BLAST analysis so to be assigned to taxa of the Human Oral Microbiome Database (HOMD)27. Alpha diversity analysis revealed no significant differences among the groups (Fig. 1a,b). For beta diversity study, overall bacterial community structure was compared between the negative controls and the two other groups using Bray Curtis analysis (Fig. 1c–e). Principal coordinate analysis (PCoA) with Bray Curtis to calculate distances between the negative controls and GERD patients not using PPI showed the groups fell into clusters with some subtle differences. Due to the unbalanced nature of the datasets quantitation by PEMANOVA or ANOSIM of the differences was not possible29. A similar comparison of the GERD + PPI group to negative controls revealed the scatter plots were superimposable, and thus similar (Fig. 1e).

Figure 1
figure1

Box plot of (a) Chao1 index of control, GERD patients not using PPI, and GERD patients using PPI. Comparison of the control to GERD patients not using PPI, p < 0.302, and the control comparison to GERD using PPI, p < 0.513; and (b) Shannon index in controls versus GERD patients not using PPI, p < 0.330 and versus GERD using PPI, p < 0.571. Principal coordinate analysis (PCoA) of saliva microbiome profiles of (c) all 3 groups; (d) negative controls versus GERD patient not using PPI; and (e) negative controls versus GERD patients using PPI reveal some differences in microbiota community structure in the GERD group not using PPI.

Examination of individual taxa in the three groups

Analysis of the 16 s rDNA based HOMD database taxonomic assignments revealed in the barplot the 16 most common species and genera in GERD patients not using PPI and those found in the negative controls without GERD and not using PPI (Fig. 2). Abundant taxa that were significantly different in the two groups included Prevotella pallens, Prevotella melaninogenica and Leptotrichia (see below). Figure 2 also displays the distribution of major taxa for the GERD + PPI patients. The distribution of the major taxa looks remarkably similar to the controls without GERD and not using PPI.

Figure 2
figure2

The bar plot reveals the 16 most common species and/or genus subgroups in saliva of the three groups studied (Control, without GERD and not using PPI, GERD, GERD patients not using PPI, and GERD + PPI, GERD patients using PPI) and allows comparison of relative taxa proportions.

A key question is which of the apparent differences between the GERD with no PPI group, and the negative controls, were statistically significant. Two sample Welch’s t-test which is robust for imbalance of sample size between groups was employed to determine the specific difference between the two groups31. Of 176 taxa at the species and genus subset level in the saliva of the three patient groups, 17 were shown by Welch’s t-test, to be at different levels in the group of patients with GERD who did not use PPI versus the controls, FDR < 0.1 (Fig. 3). The same comparison of subjects with GERD using PPI versus the negative controls gave a different result. No taxa came close to showing a difference in levels between the two groups at FDR < 0.2.

Figure 3
figure3

Differentially abundant species in saliva of GERD patients not using PPI versus negative controls without GERD and not using PPI. Shown are the 17 taxa that showed changes in relative abundance at FDR < 0.05 in separate analyses V3 16S rDNA. Bars represent relative abundance in the two groups.

While the GERD subjects not using PPI and negative controls were matched based on periodontal status, edentualism, and more or less for tobacco use, they still differed by gender. For that reason, multivariable analysis was used to re-examine the differences between this group and the controls after adjusting for differences in gender and tobacco usage in the two groups. Table 2 indicates that after adjustment for gender and tobacco 4 taxa were revealed to be significantly different between the two groups.

Discussion

This observational study is the first that we know of to characterize the salivary microbiome in GERD patients using PPI and in those with GERD who do not use PPI. Within the original population in this study, subjects who had GERD and did not use PPI were more frequently tobacco users and trended toward having no, or milder, periodontal disease (Supp. Table 1). Along with GERD patient groups a matched group negative control without GERD who did not use PPI was further analyzed for salivary microbiome. Even after matching for age, periodontal status, and edentualism, which may affect salivary bacteria1,32, there were 17 species and subgenera that were at different levels in the GERD patients not using PPI compared to negative controls. Four of the 17 bacteria taxa shown to be decreased in the GERD patients who did not use PPI compared to controls, Porphyromonas gingivalis, Filifactor alocis, Fretibacterium fastidiosum, and Lachnospiraceae_[G-8];s_[G-8]_bacterium_HMT_500, have been found to be elevated in the saliva and/or periodontia of patients with chronic or aggressive periodontitis (Fig. 3)33,34,35. This is consistent with the recent findings that GERD patients have lower risk for periodontal disease36. Multivariable analysis adjusting for a trend toward differences in tobacco usage, and an imbalance in gender, in the GERD group versus the negative controls, revealed none of these 4 taxa showed statistically significant differences in level. This relationship between GERD and the 4 periodontal disease-related taxa may well not be direct. Further exploration of the role of these periodontal pathogens in GERD effects on the oral cavity awaits a larger study.

Adverse effects of long-term use of PPI on other organ systems has been established and cautioned against19,20,37, presumably due to pH increases. By lowering acid release in the stomach, the pH there and in the intestine can be increased, which can change microbiome at those sites whether the patient is healthy or not11,12,38,39,40. Less attention has been paid to how PPI usage affects the oral or esophageal microbiota in GERD patients. Earlier it has been shown that healthy subjects without GERD who used PPIs for 4 weeks experienced changes in oral bacterial taxa21. In contrast, the subset of GERD patients chronically treated with PPI showed salivary taxa profiles quite similar to that of the negative controls (Fig. 1, 2). Finally, the GERD patients in this study who did not use PPI showed 17 different taxa at reduced levels versus negative controls. Four taxa, Prevotella melaninogenica, Prevotella pallens, Solobacterium moorei, and Leptotrichia remained at lower abundance in this group versus the negative control group after multivariable analysis suggesting the lower levels of these taxa in these subjects (Table 2) is directly related to the presence of GERD without PPI treatment. Together these studies revealed that these factors, GERD or PPI separately, were linked to differences in oral microbiome. When present together, the effects seem to be minimized. It has already been shown that usage of PPI can restore normal oral pH, and even salivary flow, in GERD patients13,14. One can speculate that in the oral cavity, a body site not normally subjected to gastric acid, the usage of a PPI to inhibit acid production in the gut would help maintain a healthy microbiota. Though not studied here it is expected to have a similar effect on the esophagus with long-term treatment of GERD with PPIs linked to a normal or healthy microbiome. While the current study included 36 subjects with GERD, the groups were small after stratification by PPI usage. It was unclear what caused the differences in salivary microbiome among the groups and whether the presence of GERD has a complex role in oral microbiome makeup. GERD patients who did not use PPI could do this for different reasons7. One cannot be certain that having GERD and not using PPI causes the differences in microbiome. To get a better understanding about GERD effects on oral microbiome and, in turn, PPI effects on GERD, it will be necessary to study patients before and after administration of these drugs.

Table 2 Summary of composition of the oral microbiome by two groups.

Conclusion

The differences in bacteria taxa levels in untreated GERD patients may be a result of a pH change due to GERD and may have effects on oral conditions. The long-term effects on oral health due to the differences can only be guessed. Remarkably, in GERD subjects who use PPI, the salivary microbiome was quite similar to that in negative controls without the disease not using PPI. This would suggest at least some benefit in the oral cavity with usage of those drugs in people with GERD. Clinical studies looking at the effects of GERD on the oral cavity should take into consideration salivary oral microbial differences between treated and untreated GERD patients.

Material and methods

Study design

A cross-sectional study was conducted at the University of Illinois at Chicago College of Dentistry, General Practice and Denture clinics that compared the oral microbiome using stimulated saliva22 between subjects with GERD and those without, with an effort to match subjects based on age. All subjects were questioned on physician diagnosed medical conditions on each visit as part of routine clinical procedures. Subjects who indicated that they had GERD at multiple visits including time of sample collection were considered to have GERD. Patients who included GERD in the medical history at the time of collection but no other time, and vice versa, were reinterviewed to confirm GERD diagnosis. Twelve potential subjects who used PPI but did not report as having GERD were also reinterviewed, two reported as having GERD, the remaining ten did not and were not included in the study. All subjects provided written informed consent to participate in accordance with guidelines of the Office for the Protection of Research Subjects of the University of Illinois at Chicago, with formal approval of the study protocol, 2016-0696, by the Institutional Review Board 1 of the University of Illinois at Chicago.

Study inclusion criteria were: Subjects 18 years and older; complete medical record; current medication list; and full periodontal exam. Study exclusion criteria were: presence of restored dental implants; removable partial dentures; scaling of teeth within the past 3 months; acute disease that requires urgent care; less than twenty (20) natural teeth for the dentate subjects; antibiotic use within the past month; use of antimicrobial mouthwash within the past 48 h; and food consumption within the past 1 h. Periodontal health was assessed using the ADA/AAP classification system based on clinical and radiographic findings. Subjects were classified into groups based on the severity of the disease. Classes I and II are considered healthy or have mild form of periodontal disease, Class III have moderate and Class IV have severe periodontal disease. The focus is active, not historical periodontal disease. Edentulous patients without periodontia are considered to lack active periodontal disease. For the purpose of microbiome analysis, subjects in the negative control group were selected to maximize matching with the GERD without PPI group in regard to periodontal disease status, tobacco usage, presence of teeth and age.

Sampling procedure

After rinsing with water, patients chewed on paraffin wax for 5 min and then stimulated saliva was collected. All samples were centrifuged at 6000 × g for 5 min prior to 2× washing of pellet with cold PBS and storage frozen prior to DNA extraction23.

Characterization of microbial community structure

Genomic DNA was extracted from saliva samples as described earlier23. Amplicon assay targeted the V1-V3 variable region of bacterial 16S ribosomal RNA rRNA genes as described23. The second PCR reactions with barcoding and the Illumina miSeq sequencing were performed at the University of Illinois at Chicago Sequencing Core.

Bioinformatics analysis

For taxa assignment and measurement, reverse sequences from the FASTQ files were analyzed using the software package QIIME224,25. Sequences were trimmed if the average quality was lower than 25. As a result, the read sequences were truncated at 258nt. DADA2-plugin in QIIME2 was used to sequence, denoise, and generate feature data and feature tables for the dataset26. Taxonomy assignments were done by classify-consensus-blast function with 98% match identity to the Human Oral Microbiome Database27. Of the 208 samples, there were 13,383 to 63,154 reads per sample. There were 8,349,860 reads total. Data from 3 additional subject samples were discarded due to low read numbers.

Alpha diversity analysis were performed using MicrobiomeAnalyst28. This analysis included calculation of Shannon’s diversity index of both species number and their distribution, and Chao1′s of richness. The significance of the differences between each group and the controls was derived using an unpaired Welch’s t-test. Beta diversity analysis was visulalized using Bray Curtis dissimilarity (non-phylogenetic) metric. PERMANOVA or ANOSIM test to determine differences between groups were not run due to the unbalanced datasets used29.

STAMP was used to determine differences in specific microbiota taxonomic abundance between the groups using Welch’s t-test and with determination of false discovery rate (FDR) using the Benjamini Hochberg test30. This was performed after eliminating taxa that appeared in 10% or fewer subjects at < 2 reads30.

General linear model (GLM) was used in the multivariable analyses to investigate the adjusted difference in Taxa between different groups after adjusting for significant patient’s characteristic and clinical factors. The best predictive GLM model was used to explore the significant predictors of Taxa using a backward selection with a retaining criteria of 0.2. All multivariable analyses were done in SPSS and SAS.

Data availability

The sequencing data from this study is deposited as PRJNA674379 in the National Center for Biotechnology Information Sequence Read Archive.

References

  1. 1.

    Belstrom, D. The salivary microbiota in health and disease. J. Oral Microbiol. 12, 1723975. https://doi.org/10.1080/20002297.2020.1723975 (2020).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Chen, T. et al. The Human Oral Microbiome Database: a web accessible resource for investigating oral microbe taxonomic and genomic information. Database (Oxford) https://doi.org/10.1093/database/baq013 (2010).

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Graves, D. T., Correa, J. D. & Silva, T. A. The oral microbiota is modified by systemic diseases. J. Dent. Res. 98, 148–156. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034518805739 (2019).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Li, X., Kolltveit, K. M., Tronstad, L. & Olsen, I. Systemic diseases caused by oral infection. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 13, 547–558. https://doi.org/10.1128/cmr.13.4.547-558.2000 (2000).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Nakano, K. et al. The collagen-binding protein of Streptococcus mutans is involved in haemorrhagic stroke. Nat. Commun. 2, 485. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms1491 (2011).

    ADS  CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Vakil, N., van Zanten, S. V., Kahrilas, P., Dent, J. & Jones, R. The Montreal definition and classification of gastroesophageal reflux disease: a global evidence-based consensus. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 101, 1900–1920. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1572-0241.2006.00630.x (2006).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Azzam, R. S. Are the persistent symptoms to proton pump inhibitor therapy due to refractory gastroesopahgeal reflux disease or to other disorders?. Arq Gastroenterol. 55(Suppl 1), 85–91. https://doi.org/10.1590/s0004-2803.201800000-48 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Chen, J. & Brady, P. Gastroesophageal reflux disease: pathophysiology, diagnosis, and treatment. Gastroenterol. Nurs. 42, 20–28. https://doi.org/10.1097/sga.0000000000000359 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Katz, P. O., Gerson, L. B. & Vela, M. F. Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 108, 308–328. https://doi.org/10.1038/ajg.2012.444 (2013).

    ADS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Blackett, K. L. et al. Oesophageal bacterial biofilm changes in gastro-oesophageal reflux disease, Barrett’s and oesophageal carcinoma: association or causality?. Aliment Pharmacol. Ther. 37, 1084–1092. https://doi.org/10.1111/apt.12317 (2013).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Liu, N. et al. Characterization of bacterial biota in the distal esophagus of Japanese patients with reflux esophagitis and Barrett’s esophagus. BMC Infect. Dis. 13, 130. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2334-13-130 (2013).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Yu, Y., Gao, F., Chen, X., Zheng, S. & Zhang, J. Changes in the distal esophageal microbiota in Chinese patients with reflux esophagitis. J. Dig. Dis. 20, 18–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/1751-2980.12692 (2019).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Caruso, A. A. et al. Relationship between gastroesophageal reflux disease and Ph nose and salivary: proposal of a simple method outpatient in patients adults. Open Med. (Wars) 11, 381–386. https://doi.org/10.1515/med-2016-0069 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Eckley, C. A. & Costa, H. O. Comparative study of salivary pH and volume in adults with chronic laryngopharyngitis by gastroesophageal reflux disease before and after treatment. Braz. J. Otorhinolaryngol. 72, 55–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1808-8694(15)30035-5 (2006).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Watanabe, M. et al. Oral soft tissue disorders are associated with gastroesophageal reflux disease: retrospective study. BMC Gastroenterol. 17, 92. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12876-017-0650-5 (2017).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Jaynes, M. & Kumar, A. B. The risks of long-term use of proton pump inhibitors: a critical review. Ther. Adv. Drug Saf. 10, 2042098618809927. https://doi.org/10.1177/2042098618809927 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Mejia, A. & Kraft, W. K. Acid peptic diseases: pharmacological approach to treatment. Expert Rev. Clin. Pharmacol. 2, 295–314. https://doi.org/10.1586/ecp.09.8 (2009).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Moayyedi, P. et al. Safety of proton pump inhibitors based on a large, multi-year, randomized trial of patients receiving rivaroxaban or aspirin. Gastroenterology 157, 682-691.e682. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2019.05.056 (2019).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Sheen, E. & Triadafilopoulos, G. Adverse effects of long-term proton pump inhibitor therapy. Dig. Dis. Sci. 56, 931–950. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-010-1560-3 (2011).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Yang, Y. X., Lewis, J. D., Epstein, S. & Metz, D. C. Long-term proton pump inhibitor therapy and risk of hip fracture. JAMA 296, 2947–2953. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.296.24.2947 (2006).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Mishiro, T. et al. Oral microbiome alterations of healthy volunteers with proton pump inhibitor. J. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 33, 1059–1066. https://doi.org/10.1111/jgh.14040 (2018).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Navazesh, M. Methods for collecting saliva. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 694, 72–77. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1993.tb18343.x (1993).

    ADS  CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Gazdeck, R. K. et al. Diversity of the oral microbiome between dentate and edentulous individuals. Oral Dis. 25, 911–918. https://doi.org/10.1111/odi.13039 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Bolyen, E. et al. Reproducible, interactive, scalable and extensible microbiome data science using QIIME 2. Nat. Biotechnol. 37, 852–857. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-019-0209-9 (2019).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Hall, M. & Beiko, R. G. 16S rRNA Gene Analysis with QIIME2. Methods Mol. Biol. 1849, 113–129. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-8728-3_8 (2018).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Callahan, B. J. et al. DADA2: high-resolution sample inference from Illumina amplicon data. Nat. Methods 13, 581–583. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.3869 (2016).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Dewhirst, F. E. et al. The human oral microbiome. J. Bacteriol. 192, 5002–5017. https://doi.org/10.1128/JB.00542-10 (2010).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Chong, J., Liu, P., Zhou, G. & Xia, J. Using microbiome analyst for comprehensive statistical, functional, and meta-analysis of microbiome data. Nat. Protoc. 15, 799–821. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41596-019-0264-1 (2020).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Anderson, M. J. & Walsh, D. C. I. PERMANOVA, ANOSIM, and the Mantel test in the face of heterogeneous dispersions: what null hypothesis are you testing?. Ecol. Monogr. 83, 8 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Parks, D. H., Tyson, G. W., Hugenholtz, P. & Beiko, R. G. STAMP: statistical analysis of taxonomic and functional profiles. Bioinformatics 30, 3123–3124. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btu494 (2014).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Ruxton, G. D. The unequal variance t-test is an underused alternative to Student’s t-test and the Mann-Whitney U test. Behav. Ecol. 17, 3 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Wu, J. et al. Cigarette smoking and the oral microbiome in a large study of American adults. ISME J. 10, 2435–2446. https://doi.org/10.1038/ismej.2016.37 (2016).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Cui, X., Liu, J., Xiao, W., Chu, Y. & Ouyang, X. Subgingival microbiome in Chinese patients with generalized aggressive periodontitis compared to healthy controls. Arch. Oral. Biol. 101, 92–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.archoralbio.2019.02.012 (2019).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Darby, I. B., Hodge, P. J., Riggio, M. P. & Kinane, D. F. Microbial comparison of smoker and non-smoker adult and early-onset periodontitis patients by polymerase chain reaction. J. Clin. Periodontol. 27, 417–424. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-051x.2000.027006417.x (2000).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Kumar, P. S. et al. Changes in periodontal health status are associated with bacterial community shifts as assessed by quantitative 16S cloning and sequencing. J. Clin. Microbiol. 44, 3665–3673. https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.00317-06 (2006).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Chatzopoulos, G. S., Cisneros, A., Sanchez, M. & Wolff, L. F. Systemic medical conditions and periodontal status in older individuals. Spec. Care Dent. 38, 373–381. https://doi.org/10.1111/scd.12319 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Hojo, M. et al. Gut microbiota composition before and after use of proton pump inhibitors. Dig. Dis. Sci. 63, 2940–2949. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-018-5122-4 (2018).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Imhann, F. et al. Proton pump inhibitors affect the gut microbiome. Gut 65, 740–748. https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2015-310376 (2016).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Jackson, M. A. et al. Proton pump inhibitors alter the composition of the gut microbiota. Gut 65, 749–756. https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2015-310861 (2016).

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Seto, C. T., Jeraldo, P., Orenstein, R., Chia, N. & DiBaise, J. K. Prolonged use of a proton pump inhibitor reduces microbial diversity: implications for Clostridium difficile susceptibility. Microbiome 2, 42. https://doi.org/10.1186/2049-2618-2-42 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The Research Open Access Publishing (ROAP) fund of the University of Illinois at Chicago paid in part the open access fees for this article.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

G.R.A., J.L.S., N.K., S.G.P. designed the research; J.L.S., N.K., G.R.A., S.G.P., N.C., A.O., and B.Y., conducted the research; G.R.A., S.G.P. and Z.C. analyzed the data; and G.R.A., N.K., A.O. wrote the manuscript. G.R.A., N.K. and J.L.S. had primary responsibility for the final content. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Guy R. Adami.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

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/.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kawar, N., Park, S.G., Schwartz, J.L. et al. Salivary microbiome with gastroesophageal reflux disease and treatment. Sci Rep 11, 188 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-80170-y

Download citation

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing