Assessment of Fusobacterium and Leptotrichia among Patients with Premalignant Lesions and Healthy Subjects: A Comparative Study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.52783/jns.v14.3354Keywords:
Fusobacterium, Leptotrichia, Premalignant Lesions, Oral Microbiome, Quantitative PCR, Microbial Dysbiosis, Oral CancerAbstract
Background: Oral premalignant lesions (OPML) are associated with an increased risk of progression to oral cancer. The microbial dysbiosis in the oral cavity has been proposed as a contributory factor in the carcinogenic process. Fusobacterium and Leptotrichia, two anaerobic bacteria, have been implicated in oral and systemic diseases. This study aims to assess the prevalence and concentration of Fusobacterium and Leptotrichia among patients with premalignant lesions and healthy subjects to establish their potential role in disease progression.
Materials and Methods: A total of 60 participants were recruited for this comparative study, comprising 30 patients with clinically diagnosed premalignant lesions (Group A) and 30 healthy subjects (Group B). Saliva samples were collected from all participants under sterile conditions. Quantitative Polymerase Chain Reaction (qPCR) was employed to detect and quantify Fusobacterium and Leptotrichia. The data were statistically analyzed using the Student’s t-test, with p-values less than 0.05 considered significant.
Results: The mean concentration of Fusobacterium in Group A was 2.35 × 10⁴ CFU/mL, significantly higher than in Group B (0.95 × 10⁴ CFU/mL) (p < 0.001). Similarly, Leptotrichia levels were elevated in Group A (1.85 × 10⁴ CFU/mL) compared to Group B (0.75 × 10⁴ CFU/mL) (p < 0.001). The prevalence of Fusobacterium was 80% in Group A and 30% in Group B, while Leptotrichia was detected in 70% of Group A and 25% of Group B.
Conclusion: The findings suggest a higher prevalence and concentration of Fusobacterium and Leptotrichia in patients with premalignant lesions compared to healthy subjects. This microbial dysbiosis may contribute to the pathogenesis and progression of oral premalignant conditions. Further studies are warranted to explore the potential of these bacteria as diagnostic markers and therapeutic targets
Downloads
Metrics
References
Sajid M, Sharma P, Srivastava S, Hariprasad R, Singh H, Bharadwaj M. Alteration of oral bacteriome of smokeless tobacco users and their association with oral cancer. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2023;107(12):4009-4024. doi: 10.1007/s00253-023-12534-z.
Srivastava A, Mishra S, Garg PK, Dubey AK, Deo SVS, Verma D. Comparative and analytical characterization of the oral bacteriome of smokeless tobacco users with oral squamous cell carcinoma. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2022;106(11):4115-4128. doi: 10.1007/s00253-022-11980-5.
Sajid M, Sharma P, Srivastava S, Hariprasad R, Singh H, Bharadwaj M. Smokeless tobacco consumption induces dysbiosis of oral mycobiome: a pilot study. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2022;106(17):5643-5657. doi: 10.1007/s00253-022-12096-6.
Srivastava A, Mishra S, Verma D. Characterization of Oral Bacterial Composition of Adult Smokeless Tobacco Users from Healthy Indians Using 16S rDNA Analysis. Microb Ecol. 2021;82(4):1061-1073. doi: 10.1007/s00248-021-01711-0.
Gopinath D, Wie CC, Banerjee M, Thangavelu L, Kumar RP, Nallaswamy D, Botelho MG, Johnson NW. Compositional profile of mucosal bacteriome of smokers and smokeless tobacco users. Clin Oral Investig. 2022;26(2):1647-1656. doi: 10.1007/s00784-021-04137-7.
Sajid M, Srivastava S, Joshi L, Bharadwaj M. Impact of smokeless tobacco-associated bacteriome in oral carcinogenesis. Anaerobe. 2021;70:102400. doi: 10.1016/j.anaerobe.2021.102400.
Asthana S, Labani S, Kailash U, Sinha DN, Mehrotra R. Association of Smokeless Tobacco Use and Oral Cancer: A Systematic Global Review and Meta-Analysis. Nicotine Tob Res. 2019;21(9):1162-1171. doi: 10.1093/ntr/nty074.
Saxena R, Prasoodanan PKV, Gupta SV, Gupta S, Waiker P, Samaiya A, Sharma AK, Sharma VK. Assessing the Effect of Smokeless Tobacco Consumption on Oral Microbiome in Healthy and Oral Cancer Patients. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2022;12:841465. doi: 10.3389/fcimb.2022.841465.
Halboub E, Al-Ak’hali MS, Alamir AH, Homeida HE, Baraniya D, Chen T, Al-Hebshi NN. Tongue microbiome of smokeless tobacco users. BMC Microbiol. 2020;20(1):201. doi: 10.1186/s12866-020-01883-8.
Srivastava S, Sajid M, Singh H, Bharadwaj M. Delineating the Bacteriome of Packaged and Loose Smokeless Tobacco Products Available in North India. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2022;106(11):4129-4144. doi: 10.1007/s00253-022-11979-y.
Chattopadhyay S, Malayil L, Chopyk J, Smyth E, Kulkarni P, Raspanti G, Thomas SB, Sapkota A, Mongodin EF, Sapkota AR. Oral microbiome dysbiosis among cigarette smokers and smokeless tobacco users compared to non-users. Sci Rep. 2024;14(1):10394. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-60730-2.
Gupta S, Gupta R, Sinha DN, Mehrotra R. Relationship between type of smokeless tobacco & risk of cancer: A systematic review. Indian J Med Res. 2018;148(1):56-76. doi: 10.4103/ijmr.IJMR_2023_17.
Azam MN, Shahjahan M, Yeasmin M, Ahmed NU. Prevalence of Smokeless Tobacco among Low Socioeconomic Populations: A Cross-Sectional Analysis. PLoS One. 2016;11(6):e0156887. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0156887.
Khan Z, Khan S, Christianson L, Rehman S, Ekwunife O, Samkange-Zeeb F. Smokeless tobacco and oral potentially malignant disorders in South Asia: a protocol for a systematic review. Syst Rev. 2016;5(1):142. doi: 10.1186/s13643-016-0320-7.
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. doi: 10.1016/j.anaerobe.2018.05.010.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
Terms:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
