Oral Microbiome Profiles: 16S rRNA Pyrosequencing and
Microarray Assay Comparison
Jiyoung Ahn1*., Liying Yang2., Bruce J. Paster3,4, Ian Ganly5, Luc Morris5, Zhiheng Pei2, Richard B.
1Division of Epidemiology, Department of Environmental Medicine, New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York, United States of America,
2Department of Pathology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York, United States of America, 3Department of Molecular Genetics, The Forsyth
Institute, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States of America, 4Harvard School of Dental Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America, 5Department of
Head and Neck Surgery, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, United States of America
Objectives: The human oral microbiome is potentially related to diverse health conditions and high-throughput technology
provides the possibility of surveying microbial community structure at high resolution. We compared two oral microbiome
survey methods: broad-based microbiome identification by 16S rRNA gene sequencing and targeted characterization of
microbes by custom DNA microarray.
Methods: Oral wash samples were collected from 20 individuals at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. 16S rRNA gene
survey was performed by 454 pyrosequencing of the V3–V5 region (450 bp). Targeted identification by DNA microarray was
carried out with the Human Oral Microbe Identification Microarray (HOMIM). Correlations and relative abundance were
compared at phylum and genus level, between 16S rRNA sequence read ratio and HOMIM hybridization intensity.
Results: The major phyla, Firmicutes, Proteobacteria, Bacteroidetes, Actinobacteria, and Fusobacteria were identified with
high correlation by the two methods (r=0.70,0.86). 16S rRNA gene pyrosequencing identified 77 genera and HOMIM
identified 49, with 37 genera detected by both methods; more than 98% of classified bacteria were assigned in these 37
genera. Concordance by the two assays (presence/absence) and correlations were high for common genera (Streptococcus,
Veillonella, Leptotrichia, Prevotella, and Haemophilus; Correlation=0.70–0.84).
Conclusion: Microbiome community profiles assessed by 16S rRNA pyrosequencing and HOMIM were highly correlated at
the phylum level and, when comparing the more commonly detected taxa, also at the genus level. Both methods are
currently suitable for high-throughput epidemiologic investigations relating identified and more common oral microbial
taxa to disease risk; yet, pyrosequencing may provide a broader spectrum of taxa identification, a distinct sequence-read
record, and greater detection sensitivity.
Citation: Ahn J, Yang L, Paster BJ, Ganly I, Morris L, et al. (2011) Oral Microbiome Profiles: 16S rRNA Pyrosequencing and Microarray Assay Comparison. PLoS
ONE 6(7): e22788. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0022788
Editor: Paul J. Planet, Columbia University, United States of America
Received March 7, 2011; Accepted July 6, 2011; Published July 29, 2011
Copyright: ? 2011 Ahn et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted
use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Funding: This work was supported by grants UH3CA140233 from Human Microbiome Project of the National Institutes of Health Roadmap Initiative and
National Cancer Institute, R01 CA159036 from National Cancer Institute, and R01AI063477 from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. The
funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
* E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
. These authors contributed equally to this work.
The NIH Human Microbiome Project, launched as part of the
NIH Common Fund’s Roadmap for Medical Research, pointed to
the need to accelerate our understanding of how our bodies and
microorganisms interact to influence health and disease . The
oral microbiome plays a critical role in the maintenance of a normal
oral physiological environment and in development of oral diseases,
including periodontal disease  and tooth loss . Although little
studied, the oral microbiome may be important in cancer and other
chronic diseases, through direct metabolism of chemical carcino-
gens and through systemic inflammatory effects .
With the characterization of microbial genetic profiles,
molecular technologies can elucidate microbial community
structure, including the identification and quantification of
culturable and non-culturable organisms, at a much higher
resolution than was previously possible with culture-based
methods. Complete genetic sequencing of complex microbial
ecosystems in humans have been accomplished , however,
higher-throughput methods are needed for larger-scale epidemi-
ologic investigations relating microbiome profiles to disease risk.
The major approaches to cost-efficient high-throughput charac-
terization of the human microbiome exploit the high variability in
microbial 16S ribosomal RNA (rRNA) gene sequence, uniquely
found in prokaryotes and considered as a barcode that can be used
to identify specific microbes, characterizing the broad spectrum of
both culturable and non-culturable organisms. The development
of these methods has opened the possibility of conducting large
PLoS ONE | www.plosone.org1 July 2011 | Volume 6 | Issue 7 | e22788
population-based studies of human microbiome, providing insight
into the diversity and community structure of the human
microbiome in relation to health and disease. Our interest is in
the 16S rRNA gene pyrosequencing assay  and the Human
Oral Microbe Identification Microarray (HOMIM) hybridization
assay , two well-validated methods for microbiome profiling by
assessment of microbial 16S rRNA gene diversity in human
samples, with pyrosequencing selected as a broad-based approach
applicable generally to the microbiome and HOMIM focused
specifically on the oral microbiome.
16S rRNA gene pyrosequencing has been applied in a wide
range of human microbiome studies. Briefly, DNA primers to
highly conserved regions in the 16SrRNA gene are designed for
PCR amplification of DNA product, followed by DNA sequencing
for characterization of microbial communities, including non-
identifiable types, based on DNA sequence in the highly variable
inter-primer regions. We (LY and ZP) have designed and validated
a 16S rRNA pyrosequencing assay for the V3–V5 region of the
gene and reported that 347F/803R is the most suitable pair of
primers for classification of the foregut microbiome .
The Human Oral Microbe Identification Microarray (HO-
MIM) is a custom array-based approach developed by one of us
(BP) and others at the Forsyth Institute (Cambridge, MA), using
specially designed probes to detect ,300 of the most prevalent
oral bacterial species, initially identified from Sanger sequencing
(http://mim.forsyth.org/). The approach is based on 16S rRNA
gene sequence hybridization and has been extensively validated
[3,8]. Since this method is based on a pre-constructed microarray,
the community structure identified is for the specific hybridization
probes selected for previously identified bacteria.
Here, we quantitatively compare the two oral microbiome
survey methods: broad-based16S rRNA gene pyrosequencing and
custom 16S rRNA hybridization (HOMIM) as methods for
microbiome characterization suitable for epidemiologic investiga-
With 16S rRNA gene pyrosequencing, we recovered ,79,000
sequences from the 20 oral wash samples (Table S1), with 11
bacterial phyla detected (Table 1), including Firmicutes, Proteo-
bacteria, Bacteroidetes, Actinobacteria, and Fusobacteria as the
major phyla accounting for 99.83% of the distribution. Although
pyrosequencing additionally detected SR1, TM7, Cyanobacteria,
Spirochaetes, Tenericutes, and Synergistetes, the sum of these
comprise only 0.16% of the total sample.
HOMIM assay detected 7 phyla. As with pyrosequencing,
Firmicutes, Proteobacteria, Bacteroidetes, Actinobacteria, and
Fusobacteria were the major phyla identified by HOMIM,
accounting for 96.5% of the distribution. No phyla were detected
by HOMIM that were undetected in pyrosequencing, with the
relative distribution being similar by the two methods (Chi square
p value=0.65). Correlations for abundance, comparing continu-
ous level 16S rRNA sequence read ratio and HOMIM relative
intensity, for the five major phyla ranged from r=0.70 to r=0.86.
Relative abundance of phyla from pyrosequencing and HOMIM
assay are shown for each individual in Figure 1.
The 16S rRNA gene pyrosequencing detected 77 genera
(Table 2). In addition, 17.5% of the pyrosequencing reads were
assigned by RDPII as unclassified taxa. HOMIM detected 49
genera, including 37 detected by both methods. As shown in
Table 2 (and Table S2), .98% of classifiable bacteria in the
subject samples were assigned in these 37 genera by both methods.
Although 16S rRNA sequencing detected an additional 40
classifiable genera not identified by HOMIM microarray, most
of these are found at very low densities (1.6% of identified
bacteria), after exclusion of 17.5% unclassified taxa. Similarly, an
additional 12 genera were detected only by HOMIM; their
contribution to the overall percentage was also small (1.9%), yet
this may represent false positives on the HOMIM due to cross
hybridization on short prove reads. This could also be due to the
misidentification or incorrect nomenclature from the RDP
We compared concordance and correlations of genera detected
by the both assay methods. Streptococcus, Veillonella, and Leptotrichia,
were positive by pyrosequencing and HOMIM in most study
subjects (20 positive for Streptococcus and Veillonella; 19 positive for
Leptotrichia) with 100% concordance (Table 3) and high correla-
tions for relative abundance (r=0.71–0.80). Concordance of
Prevotella, Haemophilus, Capnocytophaga, Granulicatella, Lactococcus,
Camplylobacter, Gemella, Neisseria, Fusobacterium, Parvimonas, Kingella,
and Mycoplasma were 85% or higher. For less common genera,
including Atopobium, Slakia, and Filifactor, concordance and
correlations were low or modest. As expected, relatively uncom-
mon genera were more likely to be positive in pyrosequencing
methods, but to be negative in HOMIM which was designed to
identify the more common bacterial forms.
We found that community profiles assessed by 16S rRNA
pyrosequencing and HOMIM were highly correlated at the
phylum level and, when comparing the more commonly detected
taxa, also at the genus level. However, concordance of less
common genera was weaker. While the number of genera detected
in 16S rRNA pyrosequencing was greater than with HOMIM, the
relative contribution of these additionally detected genera was
minor, consistent with the fundamental design of the two assays:
the 16S rRNA pyrosequencing assay is designed to detect broad-
ranged microbiome profiles, while the custom-designed HOMIM
Table 1. The relative abundance correlation of phyla: data
from 16S rRNA gene pyrosequencing and Human Oral
Microbe Identification Microarray (HOMIM) assay.
Relative Distribution (%)*
SR1 0.07 0.00ND**
Synergistetes 0.00010.00 ND
*Relative Distribution was calculated after exclusion of 3.2% unclassified
**ND: non determined.
Note: P value for chi-square test of the relative abundance distribution=0.65.
Oral Microbiome Assay Comparison
PLoS ONE | www.plosone.org2 July 2011 | Volume 6 | Issue 7 | e22788
was developed to specifically capture the major oral microbiome
Despite the fundamental technological differences in these
approaches, it was possible to correlate number of reads in the 16S
rRNA pyrosequencing data with probe intensity levels in HOMIM
at the phylum and genus levels. However, due to one-to-many and
many-to-one relationships between the two grouping schemes, it
was not possible to accurately compare genus-level assignments.
Nonetheless, we found that community profiles assessed by 16S
rRNA pyrosequencing and HOMIM were highly correlated at the
phylum level, and when comparing the more commonly detected
taxa, at the genus level. The overall high correlation between these
two high-throughput methods suggests the relative robustness of
Microarrays detect only taxa that are covered by the reference
sequences. As expected, we detected greater numbers of genera
with 16S rRNA pyrosequencing, compared to HOMIM, which
uses pre-constructed probes designed to detect the most common
bacteria in the oral cavity. In contrast, broad based 16S rRNA
sequencing was able to comprehensively detect a wider range of
species, particularly in rarer taxa.
At low prevalence rates, 454 pyrosequencing is more sensitive
than HOMIM DNA hybridization (Unpublished data, Dr. Paster).
Moderate correlations in rarer taxa could also be due to the
different quantitative estimation methods: HOMIM was based on
discrete numbers in an intensity scale and 16S rRNA sequencing
was based on sequence reads on a continuous scale. Furthermore,
laboratory assay error (i.e., cross-hybridization between probes in
HOMIM and annealing bias, cloning bias and RDP misclassifi-
cation  in 16S rRNA sequencing) could also have contributed to
the discrepancies. Our findings of high correlation at the phylum
level and for common genera, with relatively lower correlations for
the overall genera level, are consistent with two smaller studies
reporting quantitative comparisons of gut microbiome profiles
using similar methods [10,11].
In Table 4, we summarize the strengths and limitations of both
assays, with respect to types of bacteria identifiable, quantification
approach and ease of use. For microbiome discovery, the
pyrosequencing approach has the distinct advantage of broader-
spectrum identifications, although the costs and labor involved are
currently somewhat greater. The approaches may, however, be
similar in utility for epidemiologic investigations relating the oral
microbiome to disease status. The great majority of genera are
identified by both methods and epidemiologic investigations,
unless very large, may not be powered to adequately investigate
risk differentials related to the rarer taxa uniquely identified by
pyrosequencing. For the same reasons, the capacity to find
sequence reads for a large variety of rarer unclassified taxa may be
of little importance at least in the earlier stages of epidemiologic
investigations. Currently, these approaches provide a similar level
Figure 1. The relative abundance of phyla for each subject (n=20). P indicates 16S rRNA gene pyrosequencing results and H indicates
Human Oral Microbe Identification Microarray (HOMIM) assay results. Unclassified bacteria in 16S rRNA gene pyrosequencing are excluded.
Table 2. Number and relative distribution of known genera
detected by 16S rRNA gene pyrosequencing and Human Oral
Microbe Identification Microarray (HOMIM) assay.
Genera detected by both
pyrosequencing and HOMIM
N=37 (98.4%)*N=37 (98.1%)
Genera detected only by
N=40 (1.6%)* NA
Genera detected only by HOMIMNAN=12 (1.9%)
*Percentages of relative distribution were calculated after exclusion of 17.5%
unclassified taxa from RDPII.
Oral Microbiome Assay Comparison
PLoS ONE | www.plosone.org3 July 2011 | Volume 6 | Issue 7 | e22788
of information for identifying etiologic associations in epidemio-
logic studies. Pyrosequencing does, however, provide a broader
spectrum of taxa identification, has a distinct sequence-read
record, may have greater detection sensitivity and, as costs and
analytic complexity decrease, will likely prove in the near-term to
be the method of choice for high-throughput epidemiologic
investigations of the oral microbiome, at least until capacity
develops for cost-effective metagenomic analysis of entire genomic
In summary, we found that community profiles assessed by 16S
rRNA pyrosequencing and HOMIM were highly correlated at the
phylum level and for the more common taxa at the genus level and
Table 3. Concordance and correlation of 37 genera detected from 16S rRNA gene pyrosequencing and Human Oral Microbe
Identification Microarray (HOMIM) assay.
HOMIM positive HOMIM NegativeHOMIM Negative HOMIM Positive
Veillonella 10020000 0.71
Prevotella95 19010 0.84
Haemophilus 9518101 0.70
Capnocytophaga 9516301 0.29
Rothia 9018020 0.67
Granulicatella90 17120 0.31
Lactococcus901 1720 0.01
Camplylobacter85 17030 0.79
Gemella 85 17012 0.62
Neisseria85 16112 0.69
Fusobacterium85 15230 0.72
Parvimonas85 12503 0.89
Kingella 856 1121 0.52
Mycoplasma 851 1630 0.97
Bifidobacterium804 1213 0.52
Scardovia 801 1531 0.75
Catonella 754 1150 0.94
Lactobacillus753 1250 0.99
Shuttleworthia752 1341 0.28
Tannerella 709542 0.64
Treponema 700 1433 0.15
Peptostreptococcus651 1270 0.88
Solobacterium50370 10 0.59
Actinomyces4581 110 0.78
Filifactor3552 130 0.48
Slackia25410 15 0.08
Atopobium510 190 0.22
acalculated by numbers of concordant counts/discordant counts.
bPearson correlation based on relative intensity of HOMIM and rations of RDP classified sequence read for each genus.
Oral Microbiome Assay Comparison
PLoS ONE | www.plosone.org4 July 2011 | Volume 6 | Issue 7 | e22788
we consider both methods currently suitable for high-throughput
epidemiologic investigations relating the oral microbiome to
disease risk; yet, pyrosequencing may provide a broader spectrum
of taxa identification, a distinct sequence-read record, and greater
Materials and Methods
20 subjects, ages 19–89 (35% male, 65% female), were recruited
at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, NY, in 2009. Informa-
tion on basic demographic and clinical factors was obtained based
on medical chart abstraction by clinicians (IG and LM). Five
patients had oral cancer, 5 had premalignant oral lesions, and 10
were healthy controls. The study was approved by the institutional
review boards at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center
and NYU School of Medicine, and all participants provided
informed written consent.
Biospecimen collection and DNA extraction
Oral wash saliva samples were obtained using saline from each
subject, and immediately centrifuged to harvest cell pellets. DNA
was extracted from the cell pellets using the QIAampH DNA Mini
Kit (Qiagen, GmbH, Hilden, Germany) according to the
instructions of the manufacturer. The extracts were stored at
220uC until use.
16S rRNA 454 Pyrosequencing
Bacterial 16S rRNA gene amplification, cloning, and sequenc-
ing of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) products were
performed as previously described , at the laboratory of Drs.
Yang and Pei. 16S rRNA genes were amplified using 347F/803R
primers, multiplexed with 10-mer nucleotide barcodes, and
sequenced using 454 technology, that we recently designed for
use in study of the foregut microbiome, targeting V3–V5
hypervariable regions and covering a sequence distance of
,450 bp, showing close to maximum percent accuracy at this
amplicon size .
16S rRNA sequence data from pyrosequencing was download-
ed, and multiplexed samples were deconvoluted computationally
using customized Perl scripts, based on the presence of the unique
barcodes assigned to each sample. Initial processing steps included
trimming off the barcodes and primers, and removing sequences of
low quality (,Q20). The sequence reads were binned to phyla and
genera using the Classifier at RDP-II . For classification at the
phylum to genus level, FASTA files were uploaded onto the
RDPII Classifier at 80% confidence threshold and results were
viewed at a display depth of 7 for assignment of data down to the
genus level. The community structure of a sample was calculated
based on the membership and relative abundance, based on
proportion of reads, of taxonomic groups in the sample.
HOMIM hybridization assay  was conducted in duplicate
at the laboratory of Dr. Paster, with previously reported protocol
[3,8]. Briefly, 16S rRNA-based, reverse-capture oligonucleotide
probes (typically 18 to 20 bases) were printed on aldehyde-coated
glass slides. Subject sample 16S rRNA genes were PCR amplified
from DNA extracts using 16S rRNA universal forward and reverse
primers and labeled via incorporation of Cy3-dCTP in a second
nested PCR. The labeled 16S amplicons were hybridized
overnight to probes on the slides. After washing, the microarray
slides were scanned using an Axon 4000B scanner and crude data
was extracted using GenePix Pro software. After microarray
scanning the slides, the median background intensity for each
individual feature was subtracted from the median feature
intensity, yielding a normalized ‘‘median intensity score.’’ The
generated files were exported to the HOMIM tool website (http://
bioinformatics.forsyth.org/homim/) to determine the presence or
absence of a particular microorganism, based on specific criteria
set for that individual spot, thus generating microbial profile maps
for each sample.
HOMIM output data were merged to the Human Oral
Microbiome Database taxon table . For each sample, we
derived an estimate of the relative distribution of each taxonomic
group in our phylogenetic tree using an algorithm that ensures that
no species contributes more than once to the estimate of
taxonomic group abundance, and that the downstream probes
(probes that represent distinct subsets of species belonging to that
phylogenetic group) are incorporated into the cumulative group
abundance estimate. Specifically, for each phylogenetic group in
each sample, all of the downstream probes were sorted according
to their microarray-based relative abundance estimates to
calculate the sum relative abundance for all nonoverlapping
probes. As a result, the specific probes added together to represent
a given taxonomic group, depending on which specific probes had
the greatest hybridization signal in that sample. Spot intensities of
HOMIM data were then summarized for all taxa at the phylum
and genus level for each sample.
Comparing Pyrosequencing and HOMIM Assays
Ratios of total sample intensity, from HOMIM, were then
compared with corresponding ratios of numbers of RDP-classified
sequence reads, from pyrosequencing, for the same sample and
taxa, making comparisons at the phylum and genera levels. The
relative abundance of a specific taxonomic group was compared
for the two assay methods by Chi-square test. Pearson coefficients
were calculated as a measure of linear correlation between
sequence and intensity ratios.
for each subject samples.
Sequences recovered by 454 pyrosequencing
Genera detected by HOMIM and pyrose-
Table 4. Strengths and limitations of 16S rRNA gene
pyrosequencing and Human Oral Microbe Identification
Microarray (HOMIM) assay.
Broad range detection
Focused detection of common known species
Detection of unclassified
Custom array based approach, covered by
Quantification based on
Quantification based on relative intensity score
Relatively high assay costRelatively low assay cost
Relatively more labor
Relatively less labor intensive
Oral Microbiome Assay Comparison
PLoS ONE | www.plosone.org5 July 2011 | Volume 6 | Issue 7 | e22788
Author Contributions Download full-text
Conceived and designed the experiments: JA LY BJP IG LM ZP RBH.
Performed the experiments: JA YL BJP. Analyzed the data: JA LP.
Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: JA LY BJP ZP. Wrote the
paper: JA RBH. Obtained biospecimen: IG LM.
1. Peterson J, Garges S, Giovanni M, McInnes P, Wang L, et al. (2009) The NIH
Human Microbiome Project. Genome Res 19: 2317–2323.
2. AbikoY, Sato T, Mayanagi G, Takahashi N (2010) Profilingof subgingival plaque
biofilm microflora from periodontally healthy subjects and from subjects with
periodontitis using quantitative real-time PCR. J Periodontal Res 45: 389–395.
3. Preza D, Olsen I, Willumsen T, Boches SK, Cotton SL, et al. (2009) Microarray
analysis of the microflora of root caries in elderly. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis
4. Meurman J (2010) Oral microbiota and cancer. Journal of Oral Microbiology 2:
5. Buchen L (2010) Microbiology: The new germ theory. Nature 468: 492–495.
6. Nossa CW, Oberdor WE, Yang L, Aas JA, Paster BJ, et al. (2010) In silico design
of 16S rRNA gene primers for analysis of human foregut microbiome using next
generation sequencing technology. World Journal of Gastroenterology 16:
7. Chen T, Yu WH, Izard J, Baranova OV, Lakshmanan A, et al. The Human
Oral Microbiome Database: a web accessible resource for investigating oral
microbe taxonomic and genomic information. Database (Oxford) 2010: baq013.
8. Colombo AP, Boches SK, Cotton SL, Goodson JM, Kent R, et al. (2009)
Comparisons of subgingival microbial profiles of refractory periodontitis, severe
periodontitis, and periodontal health using the human oral microbe identifica-
tion microarray. J Periodontol 80: 1421–1432.
9. Wang Q, Garrity GM, Tiedje JM, Cole JR (2007) Naive Bayesian classifier for
rapid assignment of rRNA sequences into the new bacterial taxonomy. Appl
Environ Microbiol 73: 5261–5267.
10. Claesson MJ, O’Sullivan O, Wang Q, Nikkila J, Marchesi JR, et al. (2009)
Comparative analysis of pyrosequencing and a phylogenetic microarray for
exploring microbial community structures in the human distal intestine. PLoS
One 4: e6669.
11. Palmer C, Bik EM, DiGiulio DB, Relman DA, Brown PO (2007) Development
of the human infant intestinal microbiota. PLoS Biol 5: e177.
12. Pei Z, Bini EJ, Yang L, Zhou M, Francois F, et al. (2004) Bacterial biota in the
human distal esophagus. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 101: 4250–4255.
13. Cole JR, Chai B, Farris RJ, Wang Q, Kulam SA, et al. (2005) The Ribosomal
Database Project (RDP-II): sequences and tools for high-throughput rRNA
analysis. Nucleic Acids Res 33: D294–296.
14. Paster BJ, Dewhirst FE (2009) Molecular microbial diagnosis. Periodontol 2000
Oral Microbiome Assay Comparison
PLoS ONE | www.plosone.org6 July 2011 | Volume 6 | Issue 7 | e22788