Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

  • Loading metrics

Impact of sleep on the microbiome of oral biofilms

  • Maki Sotozono,

    Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Funding acquisition, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft

    Affiliation Division of Cariology, Operative Dentistry and Endodontics, Department of Oral Health Science, Niigata University Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, Niigata, Japan

  • Nanako Kuriki,

    Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Validation, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Department of Restorative Dentistry and Endodontology, Osaka University Graduate School of Dentistry, Suita, Osaka, Japan

  • Yoko Asahi ,

    Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Project administration, Validation, Writing – review & editing

    yoko-a@dent.osaka-u.ac.jp

    Affiliation Department of Restorative Dentistry and Endodontology, Osaka University Graduate School of Dentistry, Suita, Osaka, Japan

  • Yuichiro Noiri,

    Roles Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Division of Cariology, Operative Dentistry and Endodontics, Department of Oral Health Science, Niigata University Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, Niigata, Japan

  • Mikako Hayashi,

    Roles Funding acquisition, Supervision

    Affiliation Department of Restorative Dentistry and Endodontology, Osaka University Graduate School of Dentistry, Suita, Osaka, Japan

  • Daisuke Motooka,

    Roles Formal analysis, Validation, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Research Institute for Microbial Diseases, Osaka University, Suita, Osaka, Japan

  • Shota Nakamura,

    Roles Data curation, Validation, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Research Institute for Microbial Diseases, Osaka University, Suita, Osaka, Japan

  • Mikiyo Yamaguchi,

    Roles Data curation

    Affiliation Department of Restorative Dentistry and Endodontology, Osaka University Graduate School of Dentistry, Suita, Osaka, Japan

  • Tetsuya Iida,

    Roles Supervision, Validation

    Affiliation Research Institute for Microbial Diseases, Osaka University, Suita, Osaka, Japan

  • Shigeyuki Ebisu

    Roles Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Supervision, Validation

    Affiliation Department of Restorative Dentistry and Endodontology, Osaka University Graduate School of Dentistry, Suita, Osaka, Japan

Abstract

Dysbiosis of the oral microbiome is associated with diseases such as periodontitis and dental caries. Because the bacterial counts in saliva increase markedly during sleep, it is broadly accepted that the mouth should be cleaned before sleep to help prevent these diseases. However, this practice does not consider oral biofilms, including the dental biofilm. This study aimed to investigate sleep-related changes in the microbiome of oral biofilms by using 16S rRNA gene sequence analysis. Two experimental schedules—post-sleep and pre-sleep biofilm collection—were applied to 10 healthy subjects. Subjects had their teeth and oral mucosa professionally cleaned 7 days and 24 h before sample collection. Samples were collected from several locations in the oral cavity: the buccal mucosa, hard palate, tongue dorsum, gingival mucosa, tooth surface, and saliva. Prevotella and Corynebacterium had higher relative abundance on awakening than before sleep in all locations of the oral cavity, whereas fluctuations in Rothia levels differed depending on location. The microbiome in different locations in the oral cavity is affected by sleep, and changes in the microbiome composition depend on characteristics of the surfaces on which oral biofilms form.

Introduction

The Human Microbiome Project (2007–2017) revealed that an enormous number of bacteria inhabit the human body, forming indigenous microbiomes in each habitat, including the gut, oral cavity, skin, vagina, and airways. In the Human Microbiome Project, 16S rRNA gene sequence analysis was performed to investigate the microbiomes of different parts of the body [1]. More than 700 species of bacteria are present in various locations in the oral cavity, including the tooth surface, tongue, soft and hard palates, gingival mucosa, and buccal mucosa [2, 3]. These oral biofilms have different microbiome compositions in different locations [4]. The oral microbiome is one of the most diverse human microbiomes. Studies have reported characteristics of the oral microbiome and intra- and interindividual variations; indeed, the microbial diversity in saliva and dental biofilms is widely different among individuals and is affected by the behavior of the host, such as oral self-care [5]. Many other factors also influence the oral microbiome, including salivary enzymes, pH, host immunity, and antibacterial agents [6].

The dental biofilm is closely associated with dental caries and periodontitis, which are chronic infectious diseases worldwide [7]. Dental caries are related to low pH on the tooth surface caused by acid produced from carbohydrates by oral bacteria [810]. Periodontitis is strongly associated with bacteria including Porphyromonas gingivalis, Treponema denticola, and Tannerella forsythia [11]. An imbalance in the oral microbial community (i.e., dysbiosis) was found to be associated with oral infections [12, 13], just as some intestinal diseases are caused by gut dysbiosis. Acidogenic and acid-tolerant bacteria are involved in dental caries, while strictly anaerobic proteolytic and alkaliphilic bacteria are involved in periodontitis [1417].

In addition to these diseases associated with the dental biofilm, halitosis has been associated with the tongue-coating biofilm and its metabolites in many studies [18]. The tongue-coating biofilm produces volatile sulfur compounds [1820], such as methyl mercaptan, hydrogen sulfide, and dimethyl sulfide [2124].

Salivary flow during sleep is decreased compared with the waking hours [25]. The number of bacteria in saliva is highest upon awakening because numbers increase rapidly during sleep [26]. It is generally thought that production of volatile sulfur compounds is highest in the morning [27] because of the increased bacterial number in saliva [26]. Therefore, it is usually recommended to perform oral self-care such as brushing teeth before sleeping, to help prevent oral disorders. In general, clinicians and patients consider that oral care before sleep is important. However, this idea is based only on the bacterial number in saliva and biofilm metabolites, and does not consider the role of the microbiome composition. Therefore, we previously investigated the effect of sleep on the characteristics of dental biofilms formed in an in situ model [28]. We found that the number of biofilm-forming bacteria did not change significantly before and after sleep, but genera associated with periodontitis (i.e., Prevotella and Fusobacterium) were relatively more abundant on awakening than during the day [28].

The salivary microbiome reportedly has circadian oscillation [29]; however, the relationship between oral biofilms and the circadian rhythm has not been clarified. Moreover, the effect of sleep on the microbiome of oral biofilms has not been sufficiently investigated because it is difficult to perform such experiments.

We hypothesized that the microbiome of oral biofilms is affected by sleep, as was true for the experimental dental biofilm. Therefore, in this study, we used 16S rRNA gene sequence analysis to investigate changes in the microbiome of biofilms in various oral locations before and after sleep to determine those changes associated with sleep.

Materials and methods

Selection of study subjects

Ten healthy volunteers (six men and four women, 27–32 years-of-age) were recruited from the students and staff of Osaka University Graduate School of Dentistry. We defined healthy subjects as previously reported [30]. Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects. No clinical signs of gingivitis, periodontitis, or caries were detected and no systemic disease was observed in any of the subjects. For each participant, we recorded the total number of decayed, missing, or filled teeth as an index of dental caries, and the Community Periodontal Index as an index of periodontal disease. Table 1 shows information on subject characteristics. Subjects abstained from antibiotics 3 months before this study. The study design was reviewed and approved by the Ethics Committee of the Osaka University Graduate School of Dentistry (H30-E42) and conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki.

Sample collection and DNA extraction

The experimental schedule is shown in Fig 1. In this study, all 10 subjects participated in two experimental schedules (post- and pre-sleep sample collection) with a minimum of 2 weeks between the two schedules. In both schedules, subjects had their teeth and oral mucosa cleaned twice by a specialist, the first cleaning 7 days before sample collection and the second cleaning 24 h before sample collection. Biofilm samples were collected at 08:00 in the post-sleep schedule, and at 00:00 (midnight) in the pre-sleep schedule. The subjects avoided oral self-care for the 24 h between the second professional cleaning and sample collection. All subjects slept for 8 h, from 00:00 to 08:00.

Schematic of schedules and timing of sample collection. Subjects had their teeth and oral mucosa professionally cleaned 7 days before sample collection in both schedules. Subjects had their teeth and oral mucosa professionally cleaned again at 08:00 in the post-sleep schedule and at 00:00 (midnight) in the pre-sleep schedule (indicated by black arrows) and were instructed not to perform oral self-care after this cleaning. Biofilm samples were collected 24 h after this second professional cleaning (indicated by arrowheads). All subjects slept for 8 h (from 00:00 to 08:00) in both schedules.

Biofilm samples were collected in accordance with the methods of the Manual of Procedures for the Human Microbiome Project, with partial modification [1, 31]. In brief, biofilm samples were collected from the buccal mucosa, hard palate, tongue dorsum, and gingival mucosa with an Isohelix swab (Sci Trove, Kent, United Kingdom). Subgingival and supragingival dental biofilm samples were collected from the maxillary right first molar, mandibular left first molar, maxillary right central incisor, mandibular left central incisor, maxillary left first premolar, and mandibular right first premolar with Gracey curettes. Unstimulated saliva was collected. Collected biofilm and saliva samples were immediately processed for DNA extraction with a DNeasy® PowerSoil® DNA Isolation Kit (QIAGEN, Hilden, Germany).

16S rRNA sequence analysis

The V1–V2 region of bacterial 16S rRNA genes was amplified using the primer set 27F (AGR GTT TGATCMTGG CTC AG [32, 33]) and 338R (TGC TGC CTC CCG TAG GAG T [34]). The Illumina library was prepared by the tailed PCR method in accordance with the Illumina 16S Metagenomic Sequencing Library Preparation Guide. Sequencing (251-bp paired-end) was performed using MiSeq Reagent Kit v2 (500 cycles) and a MiSeq instrument (Illumina Inc.). The sequences were processed and clustered into operational taxonomic units (OTUs) with a 97% similarity cutoff by using the Greengenes database (v. 13.8) [35]. The results of sequences were analyzed by using the Quantitative Insights into Microbial Ecology pipeline (v. 1.9.1) [36].

The 16S rRNA amplicon sequencing data from this study was deposited in the DNA Data Bank of Japan (DDBJ) with accession number DRA011991.

Statistical analysis

Non-metric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) and permutational multivariate analysis of variance (PERMANOVA) were performed with R software v. 3.6.1 (R Core Team, Vienna, Austria) and the vegan package. In PERMANOVA, P < 0.05 was considered a statistically significant difference between experimental schedules. The Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to evaluate alpha diversity and the relative abundance of each genus; P < 0.05 was considered a statistically significant difference between schedules. The Friedman test was used to evaluate beta diversity; P < 0.05 was considered a statistically significant difference between sites. Statistical analysis was performed and graphical outputs were prepared using IBM SPSS Statistics (v. 22.0, IBM SPSS Inc., Endicott, New York).

Results

Profiles of microbiome at each location in the oral cavity

The total number of reads was 10,169,418, and the average read count in samples was 72,639. Alpha diversity (Chao1 and Shannon indexes) are shown in Fig 2A, and beta diversity (UniFrac distances) in Fig 2B. There was a significant difference in the Chao1 index between the post-sleeping and pre-sleeping schedules at the buccal mucosa and gingival mucosa (buccal mucosa P = 0.022, gingival mucosa P = 0.037). There was also a significant difference in the Shannon index at the buccal mucosa (P = 0.007). No significant difference in intraindividual diversity was observed between the post-sleeping and pre-sleeping schedules for any oral location by unweighted UniFrac distance analysis. However, the weighted UniFrac distance of the supragingival dental biofilm between the two schedules was significantly higher than those for the buccal mucosa, hard palate, and gingival mucosa.

thumbnail
Fig 2. Alpha and beta diversity of microbiomes collected from the oral cavity.

The Chao1 index and Shannon index (A) are shown to indicate alpha diversity, and unweighted and weighted UniFrac distances between the two schedules (B) are shown to indicate intraindividual beta diversity. Asterisks indicate significant differences and circles represent outliers.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0259850.g002

To investigate the variability of the microbiome collected from each oral site and in the morning versus at night, NMDS based on the Bray–Curtis distance and PERMANOVA were performed. Samples collected from different oral sites (buccal mucosa, hard palate, tongue dorsum, gingival mucosa, subgingival dental biofilm, supragingival dental biofilm, and saliva) showed statistically significant differences in composition (Fig 3, PERMANOVA, P = 0.001). The microbiome compositions of the buccal mucosa, hard palate, and gingival mucosa resembled each other. That of the tongue dorsum was similar to that of saliva.

Symbol shapes indicate the oral sampling location, and the color indicates the sample collection schedule. The number in parentheses indicates the P-value in PERMANOVA.

In addition, the post-sleep tongue dorsum microbiome was significantly different from the pre-sleep tongue dorsum microbiome (Fig 4; PERMANOVA P = 0.046). No significant difference was observed between the post-sleep and pre-sleep schedules in the microbial composition of the buccal mucosa, hard palate, gingival mucosa, subgingival dental biofilm, supragingival dental biofilm, or saliva (Fig 4; PERMANOVA: buccal mucosa, P = 0.097; hard palate, P = 0.246; gingival mucosa, P = 0.68; subgingival dental biofilm, P = 0.754; supragingival dental biofilm, P = 0.206; saliva, P = 0.081). However, there were significant differences in the composition of the overall microbiome samples from all locations and the two schedules (PERMANOVA, P = 0.007).

thumbnail
Fig 4. Microbial profiles of samples at each location.

Non-metric multidimensional scaling and permutational multivariate analysis of variance (PERMANOVA) were performed to compare the microbial profiles at each oral location in the post-sleep and pre-sleep schedules. Data points are colored according to the sample collection schedule. Numbers in parentheses indicate the P-value determined by PERMANOVA.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0259850.g004

Bacterial taxa at the phylum level

The bacterial composition of the biofilms at the phylum level is shown in Fig 5 and S1 Table. Biofilm-forming bacteria at oral sites belonged to five phyla: Actinobacteria, Bacteroidetes, Firmicutes, Fusobacteria, and Proteobacteria. Actinobacteria were present at lower levels on the buccal mucosa than at other sites. Firmicutes accounted for about 50% of bacteria on the buccal mucosa, hard palate, and gingival mucosa (relative abundance of Firmicutes at each site in the morning and at night, respectively: buccal mucosa, 50.7% and 60.9%; hard palate, 52.5% and 58.9%; gingival mucosa, 54.2% and 55.1%). In contrast, Firmicutes accounted for 15% to 30% of bacteria in subgingival and supragingival dental biofilms, in saliva, and on the tongue dorsum (subgingival dental biofilm, 16.3% and 14.7% in the morning and at night, respectively; supragingival dental biofilm, 19.3% and 23.5%; saliva, 29.6% and 32.0%; tongue dorsum, 27.5% and 30.3%).

thumbnail
Fig 5. Relative abundance of bacterial taxa in oral biofilms at the phylum level.

The relative abundance of bacteria at the phylum level in oral biofilms grown during the post-sleep and pre-sleep schedules. The bar colors indicate taxa.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0259850.g005

Bacterial taxa at the genus level

The bacterial composition of the biofilms at the genus level is shown in Fig 6. Corynebacterium and Capnocytophaga were relatively more abundant in the subgingival and supragingival dental biofilms than at other sites.

thumbnail
Fig 6. Relative abundance of bacterial taxa in oral biofilms at the genus level.

The relative abundance of bacteria at the genus level in oral biofilms grown during the post-sleep and pre-sleep schedules. The colors of the bars indicate taxa.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0259850.g006

Genera with significant differences between morning and night are shown in Fig 7. The relative abundance of Prevotella on the buccal mucosa, hard palate, tongue dorsum, and in saliva was significantly higher in the morning than at night (Wilcoxon rank sum test: buccal mucosa, P = 0.013; hard palate, P = 0.028; tongue dorsum, P = 0.013; saliva, P = 0.011). Corynebacterium was more abundant on the buccal mucosa, hard palate, gingival mucosa, and supragingival dental biofilm in the morning than at night (Wilcoxon rank sum test: buccal mucosa, P = 0.015; hard palate, P = 0.013; gingival mucosa, P = 0.031; supragingival dental biofilm, P = 0.022). The relative abundance of Streptococcus on the buccal mucosa was significantly higher at night than in the morning (Wilcoxon rank sum test, P = 0.005). The relative abundance of Rothia on the gingival mucosa was significantly higher in the morning than at night (Wilcoxon rank sum test, P = 0.011); in contrast, the relative abundance of Rothia in saliva and on the tongue dorsum was significantly lower in the morning than at night (Wilcoxon rank sum test: saliva, P = 0.007; tongue dorsum, P = 0.022). The effect of sleep on the relative abundance of bacterial taxa differed depending on the oral site and bacterial taxon.

thumbnail
Fig 7. Genera with significantly different relative abundances between post-sleep and pre-sleep schedules.

Significant differences were observed in four genera between post-sleep and pre-sleep schedules (Wilcoxon signed rank test, P < 0.05). Asterisks indicate significant differences and circles represent outliers.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0259850.g007

Discussion

This study was performed to investigate how sleep affects the microbiome diversity of oral biofilms. The effect of sleep on the microbiome of oral biofilms was investigated in detail using 16S rRNA gene sequence analysis. Takayasu et al. found circadian oscillation patterns in some genera and bacterial phenotypes of the salivary microbiome, with the relative abundance of Prevotella increasing between 04:00 and 12:00, that of Gemella and Streptococcus increasing between 16:00 and 00:00, that of Gram-positive species increasing between 16:00 and 04:00, and that of Gram-negative species increasing between 04:00 and 16:00 [29]. However, there is little information about circadian changes in other parts of the oral microbiome, including in the dental biofilms and tongue-coating biofilm. Therefore, we investigated microbial differences in the microbiome of oral biofilms before and after sleep.

To research the impact of sleep on biofilms, it seems reasonable to collect samples before and after sleep. However, if samples are simply taken at a series of timepoints, the biofilm age will be different when sampled before and after sleep, making it difficult to accurately assess the effects of sleep. Therefore, schedules were applied in this study to allow us to obtain samples of the same age.

It has been reported that the microbiomes of oral biofilms that form on the oral mucosa differ from those on the tooth surface, and that almost all bacteria present in oral biofilms belong to five phyla: Actinobacteria, Bacteroidetes, Firmicutes, Fusobacteria, and Proteobacteria [37, 38]. The results of the present study are consistent with those of previous reports. Corynebacterium and Capnocytophaga were predominant in the supragingival and subgingival dental biofilms, as reported previously [3]. Using Human Microbiome Project 16S rRNA gene sequencing data, Eren et al. reported that the microbiomes of different oral sites are distinct from each other, and, in particular, the dental biofilm is very different from that of other locations, such as saliva, buccal mucosa, tongue dorsum, and gingival mucosa [39]. Segata et al. investigated the bacterial composition of 10 sites in the digestive tracts of healthy subjects, including seven oral sites, and showed that the microbiomes of the 10 sites divided into four groups [40]; the microbial composition was similar between the tongue dorsum and saliva. Somineni et al. compared the oral microbiome in individuals with inflammatory bowel disease and healthy controls, and reported that the bacterial composition of the buccal mucosa was clearly separate from that of the tongue dorsum with or without disease [41]. Similarly, our results showed significant differences in the microbial composition at different oral sites. Samples from the tongue dorsum resembled those from saliva, but were different from those from buccal mucosa.

In this study, biofilms collected before and after sleep were compared. Regarding alpha diversity, the Chao1 index in the post-sleep schedule was significantly higher than that in the pre-sleep schedule for samples from the buccal mucosa and gingival mucosa, and the Shannon index in the post-sleep schedule was significantly higher than that in the pre-sleep schedule in samples from buccal mucosa. Some bacteria were observed only in the post-sleeping schedule, however, their relative abundance was very low; they may have been present but below the limit of detection in the pre-sleeping schedule. Another possibility is that bacteria released from other oral sites temporarily adhered to the sample sites because of a decrease in self-cleaning action at night, i.e., decrease of salivary flow, mechanical cleaning (such as eating), and mucosal movement during sleep.

Considering beta diversity, no significant difference was observed between locations in the oral cavity in unweighted UniFrac distance analysis; however, a significant difference was observed between the supragingival dental biofilm and the buccal mucosa, hard palate, and gingival mucosa in weighted UniFrac distance analysis (Fig 2B). UniFrac distance in Fig 2B shows the difference between the pre-sleeping schedule and the post-sleeping schedule. These results suggest that the microbiome composition, rather than the microbial (taxonomic) members of the various communities, are affected by sleeping. Of the seven locations in the oral cavity that we sampled, supragingival dental biofilms had the largest changes in microbiome composition before and after sleep, and are presumed to be susceptible to environmental change.

PERMANOVA showed significant differences before compared with after sleep only in the microbiota of tongue-coating biofilms. However, at the genus level, significant time-related differences were observed not only in the tongue-coating biofilm but also in the biofilm microbiomes at other locations in the oral cavity. It is possible that differences in the relative abundance of each genus between the post-sleep and pre-sleep schedule were too small to be detected with PERMANOVA. Prevotella and Corynebacterium were relatively more abundant in the post-sleep schedule than in the pre-sleep schedule in all locations in the oral cavity. A high abundance of these genera in the post-sleep schedule was observed in our previous study that used an in situ dental biofilm model [28]. These common tendencies among locations in the oral cavity are thought to result from environmental factors, including host immunity, saliva pH, and enzymes, which reportedly affect the oral microbiome [6]. In particular, saliva plays a crucial role in host defense [42] and contains various antibacterial agents, such as cystatins, histatins, lactoferrin, lysozyme, mucins, statherin, and immunoglobulins [especially secretory immunoglobulin A (sIgA)]. Sarkar et al. explored the relationship between the salivary microbiome and cytokines [interleukin (IL)-1β, IL-6 and IL-8] in saliva in healthy subjects over 24 h. They reported that cytokine concentrations were highest at the time of waking, and the relative abundance of Prevotella was associated with IL-1β and IL-8 concentrations (most significantly with IL-1β) [43]. The salivary microbiome is thought to be formed by bacteria attached to other oral sites, especially the tongue dorsum [38, 39], so microbial changes on the tongue dorsum and saliva may be similar.

Several factors change in the oral environment during sleep. Concentrations of sIgA have been shown to peak during sleep [44]. The amount of glucose and protein contained in saliva during sleep is lower than that during awakening [25, 45]. The pH is high during the day (pH = 7.7) and slowly decreases during sleep (to pH 6.6). There is also a significant difference in the intraoral temperature: 33.9°C when awake, and 35.9°C during sleep [46]. Other factors that affect the oral microbiota may also change with periodicity. Further research is needed to clarify such interactions.

Using an in situ dental biofilm model, we investigated the chronological changes in an experimental dental biofilm, and revealed that the microbial composition changed with increasing bacterial counts [47]. We have also previously reported that the amount of dental biofilm was not changed pre- versus post-sleeping, while the dental biofilm microbiome changed [28]. In the present study, we could not estimate whether the amount of biofilm was changed by sleeping because the samples were collected by swabbing; the difference in the oral microbiome composition during sleep is considered not to be due to a change in microbial amount.

In contrast to Prevotella and Corynebacterium, which showed similar time-related changes at different oral biofilm locations, the abundance of Rothia fluctuated differently in different locations. The relative abundance of Rothia on the gingival mucosa was significantly higher on awakening, whereas levels in the saliva and on the tongue dorsum were significantly lower on awakening than before sleep. Changes in the microbiome may depend on characteristics of the surface on which the biofilm forms and on responses of the biofilm to environmental change in different locations. However, this is only inference because there remains a lack of information about environmental changes in different locations in the oral cavity during sleep. Greater knowledge about differences in the biofilm microbiome in various locations in the oral cavity and how these changes are affected by host behaviors, such as sleep, may contribute to the development of effective methods to control oral biofilms and associated diseases.

Acidic environments caused by oral bacteria lead to dental caries [8, 9]; especially on the surface of enamel, the pH drops significantly after exposure to carbohydrate [10]. The bacteria reported to produce acid in the oral cavity include members of the Streptococcus [48], Veillonella [49], and Lactobacillus [50]. Although Streptococcus and Veillonella were detected in this study, there was no significant difference in their levels in the dental biofilm before and after sleep.

Periodontitis is associated with obligate anaerobes in the dental biofilm [51]. In this work, a significantly higher relative abundance of Corynebacterium was seen in biofilms of the buccal mucosa, hard palate, gingival mucosa and in the supragingival dental biofilm on awakening compared with those before sleep. C. matruchotii contributes to dental biofilm mineralization, which leads to dental calculus formation [52]. Dental calculus promotes bacterial accumulation on tooth surfaces because of its rough surface, and is a risk factor for periodontitis. Ritz et al. examined chronological changes in the microbial composition of supragingival biofilms and showed that Corynebacterium increases up to 5 days, and its relative abundance is 1% after 3 days [53]. Corynebacterium is considered to play a central role in supragingival biofilm development; it is absent from the early microbiota and seems to bind to early colonizers [54]; late colonizers then bind to the Corynebacterium. Our study revealed that the relative abundance of Corynebacterium in the supragingival dental biofilm was significantly higher in the post-sleep schedule (9.3%) than in the pre-sleep schedule (4.2%); the same tendency was observed in the subgingival dental biofilm. Therefore, the dental biofilm may have higher potential for late-colonizing bacteria to settle on awakening than at other times of the day.

Halitosis is reportedly associated with tongue-coating biofilms [18]. In this study, Prevotella had higher relative abundance on the buccal mucosa, saliva, hard palate, and tongue dorsum in the post-sleep schedule than in the pre-sleep schedule. Some Prevotella species are related to a high concentration of methyl mercaptan [55], which is a main cause of halitosis [56]. Moreover, salivary flow and swallowing play an important role in clearance of oral bacteria and balancing the oral microbiome. [43]. Because salivary flow and swallowing decrease during sleep [25], halitosis is often observed in the morning [57]. From our findings, we consider that in addition to the low salivary flow, changes in the microbiome of the tongue dorsum and saliva may also be associated with halitosis.

There are some limitations to this study. The various sleep-related changes in the microbiomes of different locations may have resulted from differences in the characteristics of the surfaces on which the biofilms form and the responses of the biofilms to environmental changes. However, the effect of sleep on the oral environment remains unclear and is a challenge for future study. In addition, only healthy subjects without periodontitis or dental caries were investigated in this research. We found little change in the relative abundance of different genera in this study, perhaps because healthy subjects were sampled. In future study, a similar investigation into the oral microbiome of patients with oral disease will contribute to establishing effective oral care and prevention of oral disease.

In conclusion, the microbiome at different locations in the oral cavity is affected by sleep and the changes depend on the bacterial genera and the characteristics of the surface on which the oral biofilms form. The findings of this study will be useful in establishing evidence-based methods for improving oral care.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Relative abundance of bacterial taxa in oral biofilms at the phylum level.

Abbreviations: BM, buccal mucosa; HP, hard palate; GM, gingival mucosa; SUB, subgingival dental biofilm; SUP, supragingival dental biofilm; SV, saliva; TD, tongue dorsum; Post, post-sleeping schedule; Pre, pre-sleeping schedule.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0259850.s001

(DOCX)

References

  1. 1. Human Microbiome Project Consortium. A framework for human microbiome research. Nature. 2012; 486: 215–221. pmid:22699610
  2. 2. Kroes I, Lepp PW, Relman DA. Bacterial diversity within the human subgingival crevice. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1999; 96: 14547–14552. pmid:10588742
  3. 3. Aas JA, Paster BJ, Stokes LN, Olsen I, Dewhirst FE. Defining the normal bacterial flora of the oral cavity. J Clin Microbiol. 2005; 43: 5721–5732. pmid:16272510
  4. 4. The Human Microbiome Project Consortium. Structure, function and diversity of the healthy human microbiome. Nature. 2013; 486: 207–214.
  5. 5. Hall MW, Singh N, Ng KF, Lam DK, Goldberg MB, Tenenbaum HC, et al. Inter-personal diversity and temporal dynamics of dental, tongue, and salivary microbiota in the healthy oral cavity. NPJ Biofilms Microbiomes. 2017; 3: 2. pmid:28649403
  6. 6. Stewart PS, Costerton JW. Antibiotic resistance of bacteria in biofilms. Lancet. 2001; 358: 135–138. pmid:11463434
  7. 7. Peres MA, Macpherson LMD, Weyant RJ, Daly B, Venturelli R, Mathur MR, et al. Oral diseases: a global public health challenge. Lancet. 2019;394: 249–260. pmid:31327369
  8. 8. Williams JL. A contribution to the study of pathology of enamel. Dental Cosmos. 1897; 39: 269–301.
  9. 9. Black GV. A work on operative dentistry. 6th ed. Medico-Dental Publishing Company; 1936.
  10. 10. Stephan RM, Miller BF. A quantitative method for evaluating physical and chemical agents which modify production of acids in bacterial plaques on human teeth. J Dent Res. 1943; 22: 45–51.
  11. 11. Socransky SS, Haffajee AD, Cugini MA, Smith C, Kent RL Jr. Microbial complexes in subgingival plaque. J Clin Periodontol. 1998; 25: 134–144. pmid:9495612
  12. 12. Simón-Soro A, Mira A. Solving the etiology of dental caries. Trends Microbiol. 2015; 23: 76–82. pmid:25435135
  13. 13. Hajishengallis G, Lamont RJ. Beyond the red complex and into more complexity: the polymicrobial synergy and dysbiosis (PSD) model of periodontal disease etiology. Mol Oral Microbiol. 2012; 27: 409–419. pmid:23134607
  14. 14. Prakash S, Rodes L, Coussa-Charley M, Tomaro-Duchesneau C. Gut microbiota: next frontier in understanding human health and development of biotherapeutics. Biologics. 2011; 5: 71–86. pmid:21847343
  15. 15. Cani PD. Gut microbiota: changes in gut microbes and host metabolism: squaring the circle? Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016; 13: 563–564. pmid:27580685
  16. 16. Lynch SV, Pedersen O. The human intestinal microbiome in health and disease. N Engl J Med. 2016; 375: 2369–2379. pmid:27974040
  17. 17. Rosier BT, Marsh PD, Mira A. Resilience of the oral microbiota in health: Mechanisms that prevent dysbiosis. J Dent Res. 2018; 97: 371–380. pmid:29195050
  18. 18. De Boever EH, Loesche WJ. Assessing the contribution of anaerobic microflora of the tongue to oral malodor. J Am Dent Assoc. 1995;126: 1384–1393. pmid:7594010
  19. 19. Bosy A, Kulkarni GV, Rosenberg M, McCulloch CAG. Relationship of oral malodor to periodontitis: evidence of independence in discrete subpopulations. J Periodontol. 1994; 65: 37–46. pmid:8133414
  20. 20. Yaegaki K, Sanada K. Effects of a two-phase oil-water mouthwash on halitosis. Clin Prev Dent. 1992; 14: 5–9. pmid:1499240
  21. 21. Jenkins GN. Physiology and biochemistry of the mouth. In: Jenkins GNeditor. Sensations arising in the mouth. Blackwell Scientific Publications; 1978. pp. 542–570.
  22. 22. Kleinberg I, Westbay G. Oral malodor. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med. 1990; 1: 247–259. pmid:2129629
  23. 23. Tonzetich J. Direct gas chromatographic analysis of sulphur compounds in mouth air in man. Arch Oral Biol. 1971; 16: 587–597. pmid:5283483
  24. 24. Tonzetich J. Production and origin of malodor: a review of mechanisms and methods of analysis. J Periodontol. 1977; 48: 13–20. pmid:264535
  25. 25. Dawes C. Circadian rhythms in human salivary flow rate and composition. J Physiol. 1972; 220: 529–545. pmid:5016036
  26. 26. Nolte WA. Oral Microbiology: with basic microbiology and immunology. 4th ed.; Mosby, 1982. pp.198–201.
  27. 27. Sharma NC, Galustians HJ, Qaqish J. The clinical effectiveness of a dentifrice containing triclosan and a copolymer for controlling breath odor measured organoleptically twelve hours after toothbrushing. J Clin Dent. 1999; 10: 131–134. pmid:10825862
  28. 28. Sotozono M, Kuriki N, Asahi Y, Noiri Y, Hayashi M, Motooka D, et al. Impacts of sleep on the characteristics of dental biofilm. Sci Rep. 2021; 11: 138. pmid:33420225
  29. 29. Takayasu L, Suda W, Takanashi K, Iioka E, Kurokawa R, Shindo C, et al. Circadian oscillations of microbial and functional composition in the human salivary microbiome. DNA Res. 2017; 24: 261–270. pmid:28338745
  30. 30. Aagaard K, Petrosino J, Keitel W, Watson M, Katancik J, Garcia N, et al. The Human Microbiome Project strategy for comprehensive sampling of the human microbiome and why it matters. FASEB J. 2013; 27: 1012–1022. pmid:23165986
  31. 31. McInnes P, Cutting M. Manual of procedures for human microbiome project—Core microbiome sampling protocol A HMP Protocol # 07–001 Version Number: 12.0 29. Available online: https://www.hmpdacc.org/hmp/resources/
  32. 32. Lane DJ. 16S/23S rRNA Sequencing. In: Stackebrandt E, Goodfellow M, editors. Nucleic Acid Techniques in Bacterial Systematics. John Wiley & Sons. Press; 1991. pp. 115–175.
  33. 33. Weisburg WG, Barns SM, Pelletier DA, Lane DJ. 16S ribosomal DNA amplification for phylogenetic study. J Bacteriol. 1991; 173: 697–703. pmid:1987160
  34. 34. Suzuki MT, Giovannoni SJ. Bias caused by template annealing in the amplification of mixtures of 16S rRNA genes by PCR. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1996; 62: 625–630. pmid:8593063
  35. 35. DeSantis TZ, Hugenholtz P, Larsen N, Rojas M, Brodie EL, Keller K, et al. Greengenes, a chimera-checked 16S rRNA gene database and workbench compatible with ARB. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2006; 72: 5069–5072. pmid:16820507
  36. 36. Caporaso JG, Kuczynski J, Stombaugh J, Bittinger K, Bushman FD, Costello EK, et al. QIIME allows analysis of high-throughput community sequencing data. Nat Methods. 2010; 7: 335–336. pmid:20383131
  37. 37. Zaura E, Keijser BFJ, Huse SM, Crielaard W. Defining the healthy “core microbiome” of oral microbial communities. BMC Microciol. 2009; 9: 259. pmid:20003481
  38. 38. Takeshita T, Kageyama S, Furuta M, Tsuboi H, Takeuchi K, Shibata Y, et al. Bacterial diversity in saliva and oral health-related conditions: the Hisayama Study. Sci Rep. 2016; 6: 22164. pmid:26907866
  39. 39. Eren AM, Borisy GG, Huse SM, Mark Welch JL. Oligotyping analysis of the human oral microbiome. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014; 111: E2875–2884. pmid:24965363
  40. 40. Segata N, Haake SK, Mannon P, Lemon KP, Waldron L, Gevers D, et al. Composition of the adult digestive tract bacterial microbiome based on seven mouth surfaces, tonsils, throat and stool samples. Genome Biol. 2012; 13: R42. pmid:22698087
  41. 41. Somineni HK, Weitzner JH, Venkateswaran S, Dodd A, Prince J, Karikaran A et al. Site- and taxa-specific disease-associated oral microbial structures distinguish inflammatory bowel diseases. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2021 May 14; izab082. pmid:34002220
  42. 42. Pedersen AML, Belstrøm D. The role of natural salivary defences in maintaining a healthy oral microbiota. J Dent. 2019; 80: S3–S12. pmid:30696553
  43. 43. Sarkar A, Kuehl MN, Alman AC, Burkhardt BR. Linking the oral microbiome and salivary cytokine abundance to circadian osillations. Sci Rep. 2021; 11: 2658. pmid:33514800
  44. 44. Wada M, Orihara K, Kamagata M, Hama K, Sasaki H, Haraguchi A, et al. Circadian clock-dependent increase in salivary IgA secretion modulated by sympathetic receptor activation in mice. Sci Rep. 18; 7: 8802. pmid:28821839
  45. 45. Sashikumar R, Kannan R. Salivary glucose levels and oral candidal carriage in type II diabetics. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2010; 109: 706–711. pmid:20416536
  46. 46. Choi JE, Loke C, Waddell JN, Lyons KM, Kieser JA, Farella M. Continuous measurement of intra-oral pH and temperature: development, validation of an appliance and a pilot study. J Oral Rehabil. 2015; 42: 563–570. pmid:25809398
  47. 47. Wake N, Asahi Y, Noiri Y, Hayashi M, Motooka D, Nakamura S et al. Temporal dynamics of bacterial microbiota in the human oral cavity determined using an in situ model of dental biofilms. NPJ Biofilms Microbiomes. 2016; 2: 16018. pmid:28721251
  48. 48. Loesche WJ. Role of Streptococcus mutans in human dental decay. Microbiol Rev. 1986; 50: 353–380. pmid:3540569
  49. 49. Widyarman S, Theodorea CF. Effect of reuterin on dual-species biofilm in vitro of streptococcus mutans and veillonella parvula. J Int Dent Med Res. 2019; 12: 77–83.
  50. 50. Eşian D, Man A, Burlibasa L, Burlibasa M, Perieanu MV, Bică C. Salivary level of Streptococcus mutans and Lactobacillus spp. related to a high a risk of caries disease. Rom. Biotechnol. Lett. 2017; 22: 12496–12503.
  51. 51. Marsh PD, Moter A, Devine DA. Dental plaque biofilms: communities, conflict and control. Periodontol 2000. 2011; 55: 16–35. pmid:21134226
  52. 52. Ooi SW, Smillie AC, Kardos TB, Shepherd MG. Intracellular mineralization of Bacterionema matruchotii. Can J Microbiol. 1981; 27: 267–270. pmid:7237277
  53. 53. Ritz HL. Microbial population shifts in developing human dental plaque. Arch Oral Biol. 1967; 12: 1561–1568. pmid:5237337
  54. 54. Mark Welch JL, Rossetti BJ, Rieken CW, Dewhirst FE, Borisy GG. Biogeography of a human oral microbiome at the micron scale. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016; 113: E791–800. pmid:26811460
  55. 55. Takeshita T, Suzuki N, Nakano Y, Yasui M, Yoneda M, Shimazaki Y, et al. Discrimination of the oral microbiota associated with high hydrogen sulfide and methyl mercaptan production. Sci Rep. 2012; 2: 215. pmid:22355729
  56. 56. Spielman AI, Bivona P, Rifkin BR. Halitosis. A common oral problem. N Y State Dent J. 1996; 62: 36–42. pmid:9002736
  57. 57. Fukui Y, Yaegaki K, Murata T, Sato T, Tanaka T, Imai T, et al. Diurnal changes in oral malodour among dental‐office workers. Int Dent J. 2008; 58: 159–166. pmid:18630112