Strain- and Species-Level Variation in the Microbiome of Diabetic Wounds Is Associated with Clinical Outcomes and Therapeutic Efficacy

325Citations
Citations of this article
406Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Chronic wounds are a major complication of diabetes associated with high morbidity and health care expenditures. To investigate the role of colonizing microbiota in diabetic wound healing, clinical outcomes, and response to interventions, we conducted a longitudinal, prospective study of patients with neuropathic diabetic foot ulcers (DFU). Metagenomic shotgun sequencing revealed that strain-level variation of Staphylococcus aureus and genetic signatures of biofilm formation were associated with poor outcomes. Cultured wound isolates of S. aureus elicited differential phenotypes in mouse models that corresponded with patient outcomes, while wound “bystanders” such as Corynebacterium striatum and Alcaligenes faecalis, typically considered commensals or contaminants, also significantly impacted wound severity and healing. Antibiotic resistance genes were widespread, and debridement, rather than antibiotic treatment, significantly shifted the DFU microbiota in patients with more favorable outcomes. These findings suggest that the DFU microbiota may be a marker for clinical outcomes and response to therapeutic interventions. Kalan et al. investigate the role of colonizing microbiota in wound healing, clinical outcomes, and response to therapy in patients with chronic diabetic wounds. Strains of the wound pathogen S. aureus were associated with poor outcomes, and sharp debridement therapy depleted anaerobic bacteria in wounds with favorable outcomes.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Kalan, L. R., Meisel, J. S., Loesche, M. A., Horwinski, J., Soaita, I., Chen, X., … Grice, E. A. (2019). Strain- and Species-Level Variation in the Microbiome of Diabetic Wounds Is Associated with Clinical Outcomes and Therapeutic Efficacy. Cell Host and Microbe, 25(5), 641-655.e5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chom.2019.03.006

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free