Urinary Microbiota—Are We Ready for Prime Time? A Literature Review of Study Methods’ Critical Steps in Avoiding Contamination and Minimizing Biased Results

• Main Authors: Alin Adrian Cumpanas, Ovidiu Gabriel Bratu, Razvan Tiberiu Bardan, Ovidiu Catalin Ferician, Andrei Dragos Cumpanas, Florin George Horhat, Monica Licker, Catalin Pricop, Octavian Marius Cretu
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: MDPI AG 2020-05-01
• Series: Diagnostics
• Subjects: urinary microbiota; 16S mRNA gene sequencing; contamination
• Online Access: https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4418/10/6/343

Within the last few years, there have been an increased number of clinical studies involving urinary microbiota. Low-biomass microbiome sequencing (e.g., urine, lung, placenta, blood) is easily biased by contamination or cross-contamination. So far, a few critical steps, from sampling urine to processing and analyzing, have been described (e.g., urine collection modality, sample volume size, snap freezing, negative controls usage, laboratory risks for contamination assessment, contamination of negative results reporting, exploration and discussion of the impact of contamination for the final results, etc.) We performed a literature search (Pubmed, Scopus and Embase) and reviewed the published articles related to urinary microbiome, evaluating how the aforementioned critical steps to obtain unbiased, reliable results have been taken or have been reported. We identified different urinary microbiome evaluation protocols, with non-homogenous reporting systems, which can make gathering results into consistent data for similar topics difficult and further burden the already so complex emerging field of urinary microbiome. We concluded that to ease the progress in this field, a joint approach from researchers, authors and publishers would be necessary in order to create mandatory reporting systems which would allow to recognize pitfalls and avoid compromising a promising field of research.