Evaluation of alcohol-free mouthwash for studies of the oral microbiome.

Oral bacteria play important roles in human health and disease. Oral samples collected using ethanol-containing mouthwash are widely used for oral microbiome studies. However, ethanol is flammable and not ideal for transportation/storage in large quantities, and some individuals may avoid ethanol due to the burning sensation or due to various personal, medical, religious, and/or cultural factors. Here, we compared ethanol-free and ethanol-containing mouthwashes using multiple microbiome metrics and assessed the stability of the mouthwash samples stored up to 10 days before processing. Forty volunteers provided oral wash samples collected using ethanol-free and ethanol-containing mouthwashes. From each sample, one aliquot was immediately frozen, one was stored at 4°C for 5 days and frozen, while the third aliquot was stored for 5 days at 4°C and 5 days at ambient temperature to mimic shipping delays and then frozen. DNA was extracted, the 16S rRNA gene V4 region was amplified and sequenced, and bioinformatic processing was performed using QIIME 2. Microbiome metrics measured in the two mouthwash types were very similar, with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for alpha and beta diversity metrics greater than 0.85. Relative abundances of some taxa were significantly different, but ICCs of the top four most abundant phyla and genera were high (> 0.75) for the comparability of the mouthwashes. Stability during delayed processing was also high for both mouthwashes based on alpha and beta diversity measures and relative abundances of the top four phyla and genera (ICCs ≥ 0.90). These results demonstrate ethanol-free mouthwash performs similarly to ethanol-containing mouthwash for microbial analyses, and both mouthwashes are stable for at least 10 days without freezing prior to laboratory processing. Ethanol-free mouthwash is suitable for collecting and shipping oral wash samples, and these results have important implications for planning future epidemiologic studies of the oral microbiome.

A cautionary note on the robustness of latent class models for estimating diagnostic error without a gold standard.

Modeling diagnostic error without a gold standard has been an active area of biostatistical research. In a majority of the approaches, model-based estimates of sensitivity, specificity, and prevalence are derived from a latent class model in which the latent variable represents an individual's true unobserved disease status. For simplicity, initial approaches assumed that the diagnostic test results on the same subject were independent given the true disease status (i.e., the conditional independence assumption). More recently, various authors have proposed approaches for modeling the dependence structure between test results given true disease status. This note discusses a potential problem with these approaches. Namely, we show that when the conditional dependence between tests is misspecified, estimators of sensitivity, specificity, and prevalence can be biased. Importantly, we demonstrate that with small numbers of tests, likelihood comparisons and other model diagnostics may not be able to distinguish between models with different dependence structures. We present asymptotic results that show the generality of the problem. Further, data analysis and simulations demonstrate the practical implications of model misspecification. Finally, we present some guidelines about the use of these models for practitioners.