Screening for prevalence and abundance of Capnocytophaga spp by analyzing NGS data: A scoping review

Abstract

Background. Capnocytophaga spp. are commensal bacteria of the oral cavity and constitute a genus of the core microbiome.Objective. This genus is responsible for many local and systemic conditions in both the immunocompetent and immunocompromised, but its beneficial or deleterious role in the microbiota has been little explored.Design. Online databases were used to identify papers published from 1999 to 2019 based on next-generation sequencing (NGS) data to study comparative trials. Work using other identification methods, case reports, reviews, and non-comparative clinical trials were excluded.Results and conclusion. We selected 42 papers from among 668 publications. They showed a link between the abundance of Capnocytophaga spp. in the oral microbiota and various local pathologies (higher for gingivitis and halitosis; lower in active smokers, etc.) or systemic diseases (higher for cancer and carcinomas, IgA nephropathy, etc.). After discussing the limits inherent to the NGS techniques, we present several technical and biological hypotheses to explain the diversity of results observed between studies, as well as the links between the higher or lower abundance of Capnocytophaga spp and the appearance of local or systemic conditions and diseases.

Isolation and Characterization of Capnocytophaga bilenii sp. nov., a Novel Capnocytophaga Species Detected in a Gingivitis Subject

“…In this study, we describe a novel species belonging to the genus Capnocytophaga isolated from a dental plaque sample of a male with gingivitis living in Marseille, France. The other Capnocytophaga species currently described are also generally isolated from the human oral cavity ( C. gingivalis , C. granulosa , C. haemolytica , C. leadbetteri , C. ochracea , and C. sputigena ), and also that of dogs and cats ( C. canimorsus , C. cynodegmi , and C. canis ) [ 33 ]. Among members of the genus Capnocytophaga , the Marseille-Q4570 T strain shared the highest 16S rRNA gene sequence similarities (97.24% sequence identity) with C. leadbetteri strain AHN8855 T , an anaerobic Gram-negative rod bacterium isolated from the oral cavity of children [ 21 ].…”

The Microbiome in Pancreatic Cancer-Implications for Diagnosis and Precision Bacteriophage Therapy for This Low Survival Disease

“…Of these, Citrobacter rodentium has been shown to increase the proliferation of colon cancer and to activate cancer promoting biochemical pathways ( Umar, 2012 ), and Haemophilus influenzae has been shown to increase the proliferation of k-ras positive lung adenocarcinoma ( Jungnickel et al., 2017 ). There were no studies of Parvimonas or Capnocytophaga roles in cancer, although their prevalence has been reported to be increased in several different tumour microenvironments ( Jolivet-Gougeon and Bonnaure-Mallet, 2021 ; Kabwe et al., 2021a). No research detailing the role of Selenomonas or Rothia in cancer progression has been reported either.…”

Systematic and scoping reviews to assess biological parameters

“…The most transparent study designs to synthesize biological/laboratory data are “systematic” (Page et al, 2021) and “scoping” reviews (Tricco et al, 2018; Page et al, 2021). While SRs have been more commonly used in recent years (Pérez‐Chaparro et al, 2014; 2019; Dereka et al, 2022), scoping reviews are newer in the healthcare field (Belmok et al, 2020; 2021). Choosing between these two study designs may be challenging due to the novelty of the topic and the fact they both involve a peer‐reviewed search strategy, summarization, and appraisal of data collected.…”

“…If a single, specific, objective, and focused question is identified, a systematic review would be the best choice (Arias‐Bujanda et al, 2020). On the other hand, if authors are addressing more heterogeneous questions, or attempting to map, identify and discuss broader concepts, a scoping review would be better suited (Belmok et al, 2020; Jolivet‐Gougeon & Bonnaure‐Mallet, 2021; Schmidlin et al, 2021). SRs tend to yield more solid evidence, as, contrary to scoping reviews, they demand the use of methodological quality assessment tools.…”

“…Subsequently, other SRs addressing biological questions identified as relevant to the periodontal and implant areas were published by our (Duarte et al, 2015, 2016; Pérez‐Chaparro et al, 2016; Retamal‐Valdes et al, 2019; Montenegro et al, 2020) and other research groups (Yan et al, 2014; Zeng et al, 2015; Troiano et al, 2018; Arias‐Bujanda et al, 2019, 2020; Chen et al, 2019; Nibali, Koidou, et al, 2019; Koidou et al, 2020; Dereka et al, 2022; Zoheir et al, 2022). A few scoping reviews assessing the oral microbiota and host immunoinflammatory markers have also been recently published (Belmok et al, 2020; Gare et al, 2021; Jolivet‐Gougeon & Bonnaure‐Mallet, 2021; Baima et al, 2022, 2021).…”