Search

To determine whether functionally relevant questions associated with the urinary or gut microbiome and urinary stone disease (USD) can be answered from metagenome-wide association studies (MWAS), we performed the most comprehensive meta-analysis of published clinical MWAS in USD to date, using publicly available data published prior to April 2021. Six relevant studies met inclusion criteria. For alpha-diversity, significant differences were noted between USD status, stone composition, sample type, study location, age, diet, and sex. For beta-diversity, significant differences were noted by USD status, stone composition, sample type, study location, antibiotic use (30 days and 12 months before sampling), sex, hypertension, water intake, body habitus, and age. Prevotella and Lactobacillus in the gut and urinary tract, respectively, were associated with healthy individuals, while Enterobacteriaceae was associated with USD in the urine and stones. Paradoxically, other Prevotella strains were also strongly associated with USD in the gut microbiome. When data were analyzed together, USD status, stone composition, age group, and study location were the predominant factors associated with microbiome composition. Meta-analysis showed significant microbiome differences based on USD status, stone composition, age group or study location. However, analyses were limited by a lack of public data from published studies, metadata collected, and differing study protocols. Results highlight the need for field-specific standardization of experimental protocols in terms of sample collection procedures and the anatomical niches to assess, as well as in defining clinically relevant metadata and subphenotypes such as stone composition. IMPORTANCE Studies focused on the microbiome broadly support the hypothesis that the microbiome influences the onset of chronic diseases such as urinary stone disease. However, it is unclear what environmental factors shape the microbiome in ways that increase the risk for chronic disease. In addition, it is unclear how differences in study methodology can impact the results of clinical metagenome-wide association studies. In the current meta-analysis, we show that age, stone composition, and study location are the predominant factors that associate with the microbiome and USD status. Furthermore, we reveal differences in results based on specific analytical protocols, which impacts the interpretation of any microbiome study.

Numerous metagenome-wide association studies (MWAS) for urolithiasis have been published, leading to the discovery of potential interactions between the microbiome and urolithiasis. However, questions remain about the reproducibility, applicability and physiological relevance of these data owing to discrepancies in experimental technique and a lack of standardization in the field. One barrier to interpreting MWAS is that experimental biases can be introduced at every step of the experimental pipeline, including sample collection, preservation, storage, processing, sequencing, data analysis and validation. Thus, the introduction of standardized protocols that maintain the flexibility to achieve study-specific objectives is urgently required. To address this need, the first international consortium for microbiome in urinary stone disease - MICROCOSM - was created and consensus panel members were asked to participate in a consensus meeting to develop standardized protocols for microbiome studies if they had published an MWAS on urolithiasis. Study-specific protocols were revised until a consensus was reached. This consensus group generated standardized protocols, which are publicly available via a secure online server, for each step in the typical clinical microbiome-urolithiasis study pipeline. This standardization creates the benchmark for future studies to facilitate consistent interpretation of results and, collectively, to lead to effective interventions to prevent the onset of urolithiasis, and will also be useful for investigators interested in microbiome research in other urological diseases.

The AIAG established the MSA, 4th Edition, as an international guideline to determine if the selected measurement system is capable and can be used for the intended purpose. The MSA guideline provides a practical basis for decision-making and is applied in both scientific and industrial contexts. In addition to the MSA, the Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement (GUM) has standardized the determination of measurement uncertainties at an international level. This paper provides a practical example of using a surface comparator to demonstrate the limitations of the MSA for roughness parameters. Additionally, it presents a new method for assessing the capability of a measuring system for roughness measurements by considering the aspects from MSA and GUM. This work considers all information, distinguishing between existing and experimentally generated data. The experimental investigations for the application of the new method were carried out using a confocal laser scanning measuring microscope. The approach presents a new practical opportunity for both science and industry.