Sample collecting methods for bacterial community structure analysis of scalp hair: non-invasive swabbing versus invasive hair shaft cutting

Sample collecting methods for bacterial community structure analysis of scalp hair: non-invasive swabbing versus invasive hair shaft cutting | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Article Sample collecting methods for bacterial community structure analysis of scalp hair: non-invasive swabbing versus invasive hair shaft cutting Kota Watanabe, Azusa Yamada, Hao Masuda, Eri Kashiwazaki, Shunichi Nakayama, and 3 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-4638816/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Published Journal Publication published 28 Sep, 2024 Read the published version in Scientific Reports → Version 1 posted 10 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Human skin samples for microbiome analysis are traditionally collected using a non-invasive swabbing method. Here, we compared the differences in bacterial community structures on scalp hair and scalps with samples collected using non-invasive swabbing and invasive cut scalp hair shaft methods in 12 individuals. Hair-related samples, such as hair shafts and hair swabs, had significantly higher alpha diversity than scalp swab samples, whereas there were no significant differences between hair shafts and hair swabs. The relative abundances of the three major phyla and five major operational taxonomic units were not significantly different between the hair shaft and hair swab samples. The principal coordinate analysis plots based on weighted UniFrac distances were grouped into two clusters: samples from hair-related areas and scalp swabs, and there were significant differences only between samples from hair-related areas and scalp swabs. In addition, a weighted UniFrac analysis revealed that the sampling site-based category was a statistical category but not a hair sampling method-based category. These results suggest that scalp hair bacteria collected using non-invasive swab sampling were comparable to those collected using invasive hair shaft sampling. Biological sciences/Microbiology/Bacteria/Metagenomics Biological sciences/Microbiology/Communities/Microbiome scalp hair scalp bacterial community structure swabbing Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Introduction With the development of DNA-sequencing technologies, such as next-generation sequencing, human microbiome studies have revealed the characteristic features of not only internal organs, such as the gut and mouth, but also external organs, such as the skin ( 1 – 4 ). The human skin is the largest organ in the body, and its surface is colonized by a wide variety of bacteria ( 5 – 9 ). Some of these bacteria have a symbiotic relationship with their host and can provide protection against invasion by pathogenic microorganisms ( 10 – 12 ). However, an imbalance between commensal and pathogenic bacteria, known as dysbiosis, can cause skin disorders ( 13 ). Human skin samples for bacterial community structure analysis are commonly collected using a swabbing method ( 4 , 5 , 14 , 15 ). As an alternative sample collection method, tape stripping ( 16 ), scraping ( 17 ), and biopsy ( 18 – 20 ) have also been used in some bacterial community structure studies of human skin. Relationships have been reported between scalp bacterial community structure and human health. Several studies on the scalp microbiome have revealed an association between dandruff and bacterial community structure (21–24). Additionally, the overall scalp microbiome composition notably differs between normal and diseased groups in other scalp diseases, such as seboseborrheic dermatitis ( 25 , 26 ) and alopecia areata ( 27 – 29 ). Scalp sample collection for microbiome analysis is mostly performed using the swabbing method ( 21 – 25 , 27 , 29 ), although tape stripping ( 26 , 30 ) and punch biopsy ( 28 ) are also used. Scalp hair, which is part of the skin, is also composed of site-specific bacterial community structures (5, 31, 32). We have previously reported a specific feature of the bacterial community structure on scalp hair and the scalp ( 33 – 37 ). We analyzed this structure on scalp hair shafts and hair roots and found that the major bacteria on scalp hair shafts were indigenous and derived from hair roots, with a similar structure from the tip to the base of the long scalp hair shaft ( 34 ). As for bacterial localization on scalp hair, we observed a certain number of bacterial cells on the surface of scalp hair using SEM, which corresponded well with the bacterial copy numbers quantified by qPCR ( 34 ). Furthermore, the bacterial community structure on scalp hair was more similar within than between individuals and was specific to each individual ( 33 ). We reported that this structure may have been affected by host intrinsic factors (gender), as well as by extrinsic factors (hair styling and chemical treatments) ( 36 ). Furthermore, regarding the relationship between the bacterial community structure on human scalp hair and scalps, it was found that major bacterial species were commonly present at both sites, but the bacterial community structure on hair was specific and distinguishable from that on the scalp ( 35 ). Although the bacterial community structure on scalp hair may also be associated with scalp health and disease due to the relationship between the scalp and scalp hair microbiome, previous studies—except for the study using the swab method ( 5 )—have used invasively plucked or cut hair for microbiome analysis. Non-invasive swabbing methods have commonly been used for skin microbiome analysis, although no reports have compared the outcomes of these methods for bacterial community structure analysis of scalp hair. The aim of this study was to compare bacterial community structure differences between scalp hair and scalp samples collected using non-invasive swabbing and invasive cutting scalp hair shaft methods through 16S rRNA gene sequencing. Results Alpha diversity of the bacterial community structures Figure 1 shows the two alpha diversity indices: observed OTUs and the Shannon index. The observed OTU numbers and Shannon index on hair shaft, hair swab, and scalp swab samples were 25.4 ± 5.3 and 2.3 ± 0.3, 29.4 ± 10.0 and 2.5 ± 0.4, and 17.3 ± 4.1 and 1.9 ± 0.3, respectively. Both indices were significantly higher ( p < 0.0001) in hair shaft and hair swab samples than in scalp swab samples. Notably, both indices were the highest in hair swab samples, although there were no significant differences between hair shafts and hair swabs. Bacterial community structures at the phylum level Three major phyla—Actinomycetota, Pseudomonadota, and Bacillota—were commonly found in all samples, and their total abundances were 99.0, 98.8, and 99.5% in hair shaft, hair swab, and scalp swab samples, respectively (Fig. 2 ). Actinomycetota was the predominant phylum in all sample groups, with significant differences between hair and scalp swab samples ( p < 0.01). Pseudomonadota abundance was significantly higher ( p < 0.01) on hair shaft (45.8 ± 15.6%) and hair swab (42.0 ± 14.2%) samples than on scalp swab samples (14.9 ± 12.8%). Conversely, Bacillota abundance was significantly lower ( p < 0.01) on hair shaft (6.6 ± 4.9%) and hair swab (12.8 ± 11.8%) samples than on scalp swab samples (29.3 ± 20.8%). There were no significant differences in the relative abundance of the three major phyla between hair shafts and hair swabs. Bacterial community structures at the OTU level Based on the results obtained from all the individuals, we assigned the top 15 most abundant OTU sequences to the most closely related bacterial species (Fig. 3 ). Of these, the five major OTUs (Phylum, pairwise similarity) showing > 5% abundance in any of the sample groups were OTU2 related to Cutibacterium acnes (Actinomycetota, 99.7%), OTU3 related to Pseudomonas allii (Pseudomonadota, 99.7%), OTU4 related to Staphylococcus epidermidis (Bacillota, 99.7%), OTU5 related to Lawsonella clevelandensis (Actinomycetota, 99.7%) and OTU7 related to Curvibacter gracilis (Pseudomonadota, 99.7%). The relative abundance of the five major OTUs present in each sample group are shown in Fig. 4 . OTU2 related C. acnes was the most predominant species in all sample groups. Relative abundance was not significantly different among the sample groups (Fig. 4 a). The relative abundance of OTU3 related to P. allii and OTU7 related to C. gracilis were significantly higher ( p < 0.01) in hair-related samples than in scalp swab samples (Fig. 5 b and 5 e). In contrast, the relative abundance of OTU4 related to S. epidermidis and OTU5 related to L. clevelandensis were significantly lower ( p < 0.01) in hair-related samples than in scalp swab samples (Fig. 4 c and 4 d). Similar to the results observed at the phylum level, there were no significant differences in the relative abundances of the five major OTUs between hair shaft and hair swab samples. Beta diversity of the bacterial community structures Figure 5 shows the beta diversity of the bacterial community structure in hair shaft, hair swab, and scalp swab samples obtained by principal coordinate analysis (PCoA) based on weighted UniFrac distances. The plots were grouped into two clusters, hair-related samples and scalp swab samples, although some were positioned in similar areas. This clustering was also confirmed within individual samples, except for some individuals (Fig. S1 ). We further performed a biplot analysis at the phylum level, and the results corresponded well with the relative abundance of major phyla in the bacterial community structure in each sample group (Fig. 1 ). The Actinomycetota and Bacillota biplots were was located in the middle of the two clusters and in the scalp swab cluster, respectively (Fig. 5 ). In contrast, the Pseudomonadota biplot was located in a hair-related cluster. The clustering tendency of the PCoA plot for each sample group was confirmed by comparing weighted UniFrac distances (Fig. 6 ). The distances within hair-related samples (hair swab vs hair swab, hair swab vs hair shaft, and hair shaft vs hair shaft) were significantly lower ( p < 0.01) than those between hair-related samples and scalp swab samples (hair shaft vs scalp swab and hair swab vs scalp swab). This result corresponded well with the comparison of weighted UniFrac distances within individual samples, except for some individuals (Fig. S2). Finally, to analyze the contribution of the PCoA plots in each sample group, weighted UniFrac distances were calculated using Adonis (Table 1). The sampling site-based category was statistically significant and affected the contribution to the variance ( p < 0.001). In contrast, the hair sampling method-based category was not statistically significant. Discussion Our previous study suggested that bacterial community structures on the human scalp hair shaft are formed from both hair-specific and skin-derived bacteria and are distinguishable from other human skin microbiomes ( 35 ). We verified whether non-invasive swab sampling—a commonly used human skin microbiome analysis—could reflect the bacterial community structure on scalp hair in concordance with invasive hair shaft sampling, using 16S rRNA gene sequencing. Scalp samples were also analyzed to verify differences between swabs. We identified three bacterial community structure characteristics using different sampling methods. Firstly, there were no significant differences in the alpha diversity indices between hair shaft and hair swab samples. Secondly, the relative abundances of the three major phyla and five major OTUs were not significantly different between hair shaft and hair swab samples. Third, the PCoA plots based on weighted UniFrac distances were grouped into two clusters: hair-related samples and scalp samples, and there were significant differences only between hair-related samples and scalp swab samples. We further discuss each result individually below. First, we compared two alpha diversity indices in each sample group and found that hair-related samples—hair shafts and hair swabs—had significantly higher indices than did scalp swab samples, while there were no significant differences between those of hair shaft and hair swab samples (Fig. 1 ). Generally, variations in the cutaneous microbiota of healthy volunteers—including sebaceous, dry, and moist environments—are associated with skin ecological zones ( 6 ). Skin physiological conditions affect the formation of skin bacterial communities; thus, the alpha diversity of the bacterial community structure on sebaceous skin is lower than that on dry skin sites ( 5 , 23 , 14 ). The higher hydrophobicity of scalp hair causes higher diversity compared with a sebaceous scalp. Hair bacteria are present on the scalp hair surface, as quantified by qPCR and SEM observations ( 34 ), and bacterial community structure distribution on scalp hair shafts within individuals is relatively steady, even when the scalp hair sampling sites were different ( 37 ). Therefore, swab sampling and hair shaft sampling methods can collect similar bacterial community structures on scalp hair in terms of alpha diversity, since hair-attached bacteria are present on the hair surface and their diversity is constant at any hair site. Second, we identified three major common phyla in all sample groups: Actinomycetota, Pseudomonadota, and Bacillota (Fig. 2 ). For a more detailed analysis of the bacterial community structure, we extracted the top 15 most abundant OTU sequences and compared the relative abundances of the five major OTUs (Figs. 3 and 4 ). Similar to the alpha diversity comparison, the four major OTUs—except for OTU2 related to C. acnes— were significantly different between hair-related samples and scalp swabs, whereas there were no significant differences between hair shafts and hair swabs. These major phyla on the hair shaft and scalp are similar to those described in our previous study ( 35 ). In addition, the four major OTUs—except OTU7, related to C. gracilis , which was isolated from well water ( 38 )—were consistent with previous reports ( 34 , 35 ). Although our study showed that Pseudomonas was more abundant, and Staphylococcus was less abundant, on scalp hair, some studies have shown that Corynebacteriaceae , Tissierellaceae , and Staphylococcus are the major bacterial families or genera of bacterial community structures on scalp hair ( 31 , 32 ). Kerk et al. ( 39 ) reported that P. aeruginosa colonizes and adheres to the scalp hair shaft when cultured on these shafts, whereas the growth of S. epidermidis was inhibited. In addition, hair-derived antimicrobial proteins or peptides have been identified in scalp hair shafts that may inhibit the growth of S. epidermidis ( 40 , 41 ). Although Cutibacterium is known to carry genes for biotin biosynthesis, an essential nutrient for scalp hair growth ( 24 , 42 , 43 ), Pseudomonas— the second major bacterial genus on hair—is not known to play a key role, and further detailed studies are required to clarify the bacterial ecology of scalp hair. Third, we analyzed beta diversity and biplots at the phylum level to compare bacterial community structures among each sample group (Fig. 5 ). It was confirmed that the plots were grouped into two clusters: hair-related samples and scalp swab samples. In addition, the phylum Pseudomonadota contributed to the formation of a bacterial community structure specific to hair-related samples, while the phylum Bacillota contributed to that on the scalp. UniFrac analysis revealed significant differences between hair-related samples and scalp swab samples, but not between hair shafts and hair swabs (Fig. 6 ). In addition, we confirmed the contribution to the variance of weighted UniFrac distance using Adonis, and the sampling site category was statistically significant, but not the hair sampling method category (Table 1). Grice et al. ( 44 ) reported that the bacterial community structure of the inner elbow of healthy human subjects obtained by swabs, scrapes, and biopsies had bacterial compositions comparable to those of all the employed sampling methods. Moreover, Ogai et al. ( 16 ) reported that the bacterial community structure on the back skin of healthy young participants collected using tape stripping was comparable to that collected using the swabbing method. Even in lesional skin, such as diabetic foot ulcers, there were no significant differences in the overall bacterial communities recovered from swabs compared to tissue scrapings ( 17 ). Prast-Nielsen et al. ( 18 ) recently reported that the bacterial community structure obtained via skin biopsies and swabs revealed stark differences compared to that of normal skin. In lesional skin, such as psoriasis ( 20 ) and diabetic foot ulcers ( 19 ), different sampling techniques, such as swabs and biopsies, resulted in different bacterial community profiles. It is important to note that swabbing and tape stripping collected surface microbiota, whereas skin biopsies collected the full skin layer microbiota. Lange-Asschenfeldt et al. ( 45 ) reported that 85% of skin surface bacteria were found within the corneocyte layers, and ~ 25% of the cutaneous bacterial population was localized within the hair follicles. Nakatsuji et al. ( 46 ) also reported that different microbiota may be present in the dermis, epidermis, and superficial adipose tissues. Swab and hair shaft sampling methods can be used to collect similar bacterial community structures on scalp hair, as almost all hair bacteria are present on the hair surface. In conclusion, the results here suggest that scalp hair bacteria collected using non-invasive swab sampling were comparable to those collected using invasive hair shaft sampling. The establishment of a non-invasive hair sampling method for the analysis of bacterial community structure is expected to advance research on the relationship between hair bacteria and scalp diseases, such as dandruff and androgenetic alopecia. Recently, we evaluated the effect of bacteria on human keratinocyte cellular activity and reported that some predominant bacteria in scalp hair enhanced the expression of several longevity genes ( 47 ). Further studies on isolating hair-specific bacteria to investigate the interactions between scalp hair and bacteria are currently underway. Materials and methods Ethics approval and consent to participate The study was conducted in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration on this subject. On recruitment, participants signed a document in which they consented to the confidential treatment of their personal information and consented to the publication of anonymized data. The study protocol and the informed consent form were reviewed and approved by the Research Ethics Board of the Tokyo University of Agriculture (Authorized No. 2211). Samples and collection Scalp hair shaft samples were collected from 12 healthy Japanese and Taiwanese adults (six females and six males), aged 21 to 45 years, who consented to participate in this study. No volunteer was taking any medication during the experimental period. Hair shafts, hair swabs, and scalp swabs were collected using nitrile gloves, and hair shaft samples were cut using sterile scissors. After sampling, the hairs were chopped into lengths of ~5 mm with scissors and placed in plastic microtubes. Hair swab samples were directly taken from the hair using cotton swabs (Mentip for hospitals, Nihon Menbou Corporation, Saitama, Japan) and pre-moistened with 50 μL of sterile distilled water. Scalp swab samples were collected directly from the head crown using cotton swabs by rubbed them onto the scalp surface (between hair strands) to cover a total surface area of 2.5 cm 2 . The head of each swab was removed from the handle and placed in an Eppendorf tube. Extraction of bacterial DNA Bacterial DNA was extracted using the NucleoSpin ® Tissue kit (MACHEREY-NAGEL, Düren, Germany) according to the manufacturer’s instructions, with a slight modification. First, hair shaft, hair swab, and scalp swab samples were immersed in 100 μL lysozyme solution (20 mg/ml lysozyme derived from egg white [Wako Pure Chemical Industries, Osaka, Japan] in 20 mM Tris-HCl and 0.2 mM EDTA, pH 8.0) for 30 min at 37 °C, as previously reported (34), and the DNA extracts obtained (100 μL) were stored at -20 °C until use. Analysis of bacterial community structures using 16S rRNA gene sequencing To analyze the bacterial community structures using the MiSeq™ platform (Illumina Inc., CA, USA), a three-step PCR method was performed using the extracted DNA samples. In the first-step PCR amplification, a universal primer set for the V4 region of the bacterial 16S rRNA gene (515F, 5ʹ-GTG CCA GCM GCC GCG GTA A-3ʹ and 806R, 5ʹ-GGA CTA CHV GGG TWT CTA AT-3ʹ) (48) was used. The 25 μL reaction mixture consisted of 12.5 μL of Kapa HiFi HotStart Ready Mix (Kapa Biosystems Inc., Wilmington, MA, USA), 0.5 μL of each primer (10 pM), and 11.5 μL of extracted bacterial DNA. The amplification program included an initial denaturation step at 95 °C for 3 min, followed by 40 cycles of denaturation at 98 °C for 30 s, annealing at 56 °C for 30 s, and elongation at 72 °C for 30 s. After electrophoresis through a 1.5 % (w/v) agarose gel, the targeted bands were excised from the gel with sterilized cutters, and the DNA extracted using the FastGene ® Gel/PCR Extraction Kit (NIPPON Genetics Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan), according to the manufacturer’s instructions. The DNA concentration was measured using a NanoDrop 2000 spectrophotometer (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA). To prepare for 16S rRNA amplicon sequencing using MiSeq sequencing, templates are given tail, adapter, and index sequences in a two-step PCR; therefore, long-tailed primers are required, making amplification difficult. We were unable to perform direct amplification using a two-step PCR, probably because the amount of bacterial DNA obtained from the 3 cm hair shafts was very low. Therefore, we first performed a PCR using a universal primer set without any additional sequences. Consequently, we successfully obtained sufficient template fragments with a minimum number of reaction cycles. For the second-step PCR, a universal primer set for the V4 region of the bacterial 16S rRNA gene and tailed sequences for MiSeq sequencing were used (1-515F, 5ʹ- TCG TCG GCA GCG TCA GAT GTG TAT AAG AGA CAG GTG CCA GCM GCC GCG GTA A-3ʹ and 1-806R, 5ʹ-GTC TCG TGG GCT CGG AGA TGT GTA TAA GAG ACA GGG ACT ACH VGG GTW TCT AAT-3ʹ) (49). Although it has been reported that this primer set poorly amplifies Propionibacterium in human skin (50), the results here showed good amplification of the predominant species in hair, Cutibacterium acnes (previously named Propionibacterium acnes ). The 25 μL reaction mixture consisted of 1.0 µL of each primer (5 µM), which was heat-shocked at 95 °C for 5 min, 12.5 µL of Kapa HiFi HotStart Ready Mix, 12.5 ng of DNA obtained from the first-step PCR amplicon, and sterilized ultrapure water. The amplification program included an initial denaturation step at 95 °C for 3 min, followed by 20 cycles of denaturation at 98 °C for 30 s, annealing at 55 °C for 30 s, and elongation at 72 °C for 30 s. The PCR products were purified using the FastGene ® Gel/PCR extraction kit according to the manufacturer’s instructions. For the third-step PCR, a primer set with flow cell adapter sequences, index sequences, and tailed sequences was used (forward primer, 5ʹ-AAT GAT ACG GCG ACC ACC GAG ATC TAC AC-Index sequence-TCG TCG GCA GCG TC-3ʹ and reverse primer, 5ʹ-CAA GCA GAA GAC GGC ATA CGA GAT-Index sequence-GTC TCG TGG GCT CGG-3ʹ). The third-step PCR mixture (25 µL) comprised 12.5 µL of Kapa HiFi HotStart Ready Mix, 0.5 µL of each primer (10 pM), and 11.5 µL of the second-step PCR amplicon. The amplification program included an initial denaturation step at 95 °C for 3 min, followed by 8 cycles of denaturation at 98 °C for 30 s, annealing at 55 °C for 30 s, and elongation at 72 °C for 30 s. After electrophoresis in a 1.5 % (w/v) agarose gel, the target bands were excised with sterilized cutters, and the DNA extracted using the FastGene ® Gel/PCR extraction kit, as described above. The DNA concentrations of the third-step PCR amplicons were quantified using the Qubit dsDNA HS assay kit (Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc., USA) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Purified PCR products from each sample were mixed, denatured, and sequenced with a MiSeq System (Illumina Inc., USA) using the MiSeq reagent kit v3 (300 bp ×2 cycles with paired end reads; Illumina, Inc., USA) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Good’s coverage values (>95 %) were obtained for all hair samples using the DNA extraction kit and PCR conditions described above. Good’s coverage values were estimated using QIIME™ 1.9.1 software (51). Bioinformatics and statistical analysis The index and universal sequences of each read were checked and reads with complete index sequences were selected as valid. USEARCH V8.1.1861 software (52) was used to merge paired-end reads and remove chimeric sequences. After the chimeric check, the reads were grouped into operational taxonomic units (OTUs) with >97 % similarity. Clostridium and Escherichia were filtered from the OTU tables for further analysis because they are frequently used in our laboratory and have rarely been detected in previous reports (34–36). Alpha diversity (observed OTUs and Shannon’s index) was evaluated at a 1 % OTU distance using the QIIME™ software package (51). For taxonomy-based analyses, the representative sequences of each OTU were analyzed using the EzBioCloud platform (53). Statistical analysis of the bacterial community structure was performed using the Kruskal–Wallis test in XLSTAT software ver. 2014 (http://www.xlstat.com/en/). Data availability Raw sequence data were deposited under the bioproject number PRJDB18517 and the biosample number SAMD00802426-00802533 in the DDBJ Sequence Read Archive. The top 15 most abundant OTU sequences were deposited in the DDBJ/ENA/GenBank databases under the accession numbers LC822820-LC822834. Declarations Acknowledgements The authors acknowledge the NODAI Genome Research Center, Tokyo University of Agriculture, for their support with MiSeq. This work was supported by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science under a Grant-in-Aid for Research Activity Start-up [number JP22K20573]. Author contributions K.W., Y.T., and K.S. designed the experiments. H. M. and E. K. performed the experiments. K.W., A.Y., S.N., and T.K. performed the data analysis. K.W. prepared the figures and wrote the manuscript. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript. Competing financial interests The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that may have influenced the work reported in this study. References Turnbaugh, P. J., Ley, R. E., Hamady, M., Fraser-Ligget, C. M, Knight, R. & Gordon, J. I. The human microbiome project. Nature. 449, 804–810 (2007). The NIH HMP Working Group. The NIH Human Microbiome Project. Genome Res. 19, 2317–2323 (2009). The Human Microbiome Project Consortium. Structure, function and diversity of the healthy human microbiome. Nature. 486, 207–214 (2012). Capone, K. A., Dowd, S. E., Stamatas, G. N., Nikolovski, J. Diversity of the human skin microbiome early in life. J Invest Dermatol. 131, 2026–2032 (2011). Costello, E. K., Lauber, C. L., Hamady, M., Fierer, N., Gordon, J. I. & Knight, R. Bacterial community variation in human body habitats across space and time. Science. 326, 1694–1697 (2009). Grice, E. A. & Segre, J.A. The skin microbiome. Nat Rev Microbiol. 9, 244–253 (2011). Findley, K. et al . Topographic diversity of fungal and bacterial communities in human skin. Nature. 498, 367–370 (2013). Oh, J. et al . Biogeography and individuality shape function in the human skin metagenome. Nature. 514, 59–64 (2014). Wylie, K. M., Mihindukulasuriya, K. A., Zhou, Y., Sodergren, E., Storch, G. A. & Weinstock, G. M. Metagenomic analysis of double-stranded DNA viruses in healthy adults. BMC Biol. 12, 71 (2014). Montes, L. F., Wilborn, W. H. Anatomical location of normal skin flora. Arch Dermatol. 101, 45–159 (1970). Roth, R.R., James, W.D. Microbial ecology of the skin. Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 42, 441–464 (1988). Chiller, K., Selkin, B. A., Murakawa, G. J. Skin microflora and bacterial infections of the skin. J Investig Dermatol Symp Proc. 6, 170–1744 (2001). Schommer, N. N., Gallo, R. L. Structure and function of the human skin microbiome. Trends Microbiol. 21, 660–668 (2013). Gao, Z., Tseng, C. H., Pei, Z. H. & Blaser, M. J. Molecular analysis of human forearm superficial skin bacterial biota. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 104, 2927–2932 (2007). Grice, E. A. et al . Topographical and temporal diversity of the human skin microbiome. Science. 324, 1190–1192 (2009). Ogai, K. et al . A comparison of techniques for collecting skin microbiome samples: swabbing versus tape-stripping. Front Microbiol. 9, 2362 (2018). Travis, D. J., Bradbury, J., Benkendorff, K. Toward non-invasive collection methods for sampling the microbiome of diabetic foot ulcers. Int Wound J. 20, 3731–3737 (2023). Prast-Nielsen. et al . Investigation of the skin microbiome: swabs vs. biopsies. Br J Dermatol. 181, 572–579 (2019). Travis, J. et al . The microbiome of diabetic foot ulcers: a comparison of swab and tissue biopsy wound sampling techniques using 16S rRNA gene sequencing. BMC Microbiol. 20, 163 (2020). Rungjang, A. et al . Skin microbiota profiles from tape stripping and skin biopsy samples of patients with psoriasis treated with narrowband ultraviolet B. Clin Cosmet Investig Dermatol. 15, 1767–1778 (2022). Clavaud, C. et al . Dandruff is associated with disequilibrium in the proportion of the major bacterial and fungal populations colonizing the scalp. PloS one. 8, e58203 (2013). Wang, L. et al . Characterization of the major bacterial–fungal populations colonizing dandruff scalps in Shanghai, China, shows microbial disequilibrium. Exp Dermatol. 24, 398–400 (2015). Xu, Z. et al . Dandruff is associated with the conjoined interactions between host and microorganisms. Sci Rep. 6, 24877 (2016). Saxena, R. et al . Comparison of healthy and dandruff scalp microbiome reveals the role of commensals in scalp health. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 8, 346 (2018). Park, T. et al . Collapse of human scalp microbiome network in dandruff and seborrheic dermatitis. Exp Dermatol. 26, 835–838 (2017). Dityen, K. et al . Analysis of cutaneous bacterial microbiota of Thai patients with seborrheic dermatitis. Exp Dermatol. 31, 1949–1955 (2022). Pinto, D. et al . Scalp bacterial shift in Alopecia areata. PLoS One. 14, e0215206 (2019). Ho, B. S. et al . Microbiome in the hair follicle of androgenetic alopecia patients. PLoS One. 14, e0216330 (2019). Won, E. J., Jang, H. H., Park, H., Kim, S. J. A Potential predictive role of the scalp microbiome profiling in patients with Alopecia areata: Staphylococcus caprae , Corynebacterium , and Cutibacterium species. Microorganisms. 10, 864 (2022). Liang, K. et al . A 3D-printed transepidermal microprojection array for human skin microbiome sampling. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA . 119, e2203556119 (2022). Tridico, S. R., Murray, D. C., Addison, J., Kirkbride, K. P. & Bunce, M. Metagenomic analyses of bacteria on human hairs: a qualitative assessment for applications in forensic science. Invest Gen. 5, 16 (2014). Brinkac, L. et al . Spatial and Environmental Variation of the Human Hair Microbiota. Sci Rep. 8, 9017 (2018). Nishi, E., Watanabe, K., Tashiro, Y. & Sakai, K. Terminal restriction fragment length polymorphism profiling of bacterial flora derived from single human hair shafts can discriminate individuals. Legal Med. 25, 75–82 (2017). Watanabe, K., Nishi, E., Tashiro, Y. & Sakai, K. Mode and structure of the bacterial community on human scalp hair. Microbes Environ. 34, 252–259 (2019). Watanabe, K., Yamada, A., Nishi, Y., Tashiro, Y. & Sakai, K. Relationship between the bacterial community structures on human hair and scalp. Biosci Biotechnol Biochem. 84, 2585–2596 (2020). Watanabe, K., Yamada, A., Nishi, Y., Tashiro, Y., Sakai, K. Host factors that shape the bacterial community structure on scalp hair shaft. Sci Rep. 11, 17711 (2021). Watanabe, K. et al . Distribution of bacterial community structures on human scalp hair shaft in relation to scalp sites. Biosci Biotechnol Biochem. 87, 1551–1558 (2023). Ding, L., Yokota, A. Proposals of Curvibacter gracilis gen. nov., sp. nov. and Herbaspirillum putei sp. nov. for bacterial strains isolated from well water and reclassification of [ Pseudomonas ] huttiensis , [ Pseudomonas ] lanceolata , [ Aquaspirillum ] delicatum and [ Aquaspirillum ] autotrophicum as Herbaspirillum huttiense comb. nov., Curvibacter lanceolatus comb. nov., Curvibacter delicatus comb. nov. and Herbaspirillum autotrophicum comb. nov. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol . 54, 2223–2230 (2004). Kerk, S. K. et al . Bacteria display differential growth and adhesion characteristics on human hair shafts. Front Microbiol. 9, 2145 (2018). Adav, S. S. et al . Studies on the proteome of human hair - identification of histones and deamidated keratins. Sci Rep 8, 1599 (2018). Subbaiah, R. S. et al . Identification of antibacterial components in human hair shafts. Acta Derm Venereol. 98, 708–710 (2018). Patel, D. P., Swink, S. M., Castelo-Soccio, L. A review of the use of biotin for hair loss. Skin Appendage Disord. 3, 66–169 (2017). Chiu, C. H., Huang, S. H., Wang, H. M. A review: hair health, concerns of shampoo ingredients and scalp nourishing treatments. Curr Pharm Biotechnol. 16, 1045–1052 (2015). Grice, E. A. et al . A diversity profile of the human skin microbiota. Genome Res. 18, 1043–1050 (2008). Lange-Asschenfeldt, B. et al . Distribution of bacteria in the epidermal layers and hair follicles of the human skin. Skin Pharmacol Physiol. 24, 305–311 (2011). Nakatsuji, T. et al . The microbiome extends to subepidermal compartments of normal skin. Nat Commun. 4, 1431 (2013). Yamada, A. et al . Scalp bacterial species influence SIRT1 and TERT expression in keratinocytes. Biosci Biotechnol Biochem. 87, 1364–1372 (2023). Caporaso, J. G. et al . Global patterns of 16S rRNA diversity at a depth of millions of sequences per sample. Proc National Academy Sci. 108, 4516–4522 (2011). Brown, C. T. et al . Unusual biology across a group comprising more than 15% of domain Bacteria. Nature. 523, 208–211 (2015). Kuczynski, J. et al . Experimental and analytical tools for studying the human microbiome. Nat Rev Genet. 13, 47–58 (2012). Caporaso, J. G. et al . QIIME allows analysis of high-throughput community sequencing data. Nat Methods. 7, 335–336 (2010). Edgar, R. C. UPARSE: highly accurate OTU sequences from microbial amplicon reads. Nat. Methods. 10, 996–998 (2013. Chun, J. et al . EzTaxon: a web-based tool for the identification of prokaryotes based on 16S ribosomal RNA gene sequences. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 57, 2259–2261 (2007). Tables Table 1 is available in the Supplementary Files section. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files Table1.pptx Supplementaly.pdf Cite Share Download PDF Status: Published Journal Publication published 28 Sep, 2024 Read the published version in Scientific Reports → Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 28 Aug, 2024 Reviews received at journal 23 Aug, 2024 Reviews received at journal 20 Aug, 2024 Reviewers agreed at journal 12 Aug, 2024 Reviewers agreed at journal 09 Aug, 2024 Reviewers invited by journal 08 Aug, 2024 Editor assigned by journal 01 Aug, 2024 Editor invited by journal 29 Jul, 2024 Submission checks completed at journal 29 Jul, 2024 First submitted to journal 25 Jun, 2024 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-4638816","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":343683893,"identity":"85469d29-c63b-4cf2-b6f1-25ba1e785d2c","order_by":0,"name":"Kota Watanabe","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Tokyo University of Agriculture","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Kota","middleName":"","lastName":"Watanabe","suffix":""},{"id":343683894,"identity":"ed124157-60ae-461c-a6c2-c10d18214d5e","order_by":1,"name":"Azusa Yamada","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Kyushu University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Azusa","middleName":"","lastName":"Yamada","suffix":""},{"id":343683895,"identity":"436485d0-1662-4d0a-82e6-5f69526d89ef","order_by":2,"name":"Hao Masuda","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Tokyo University of Agriculture","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Hao","middleName":"","lastName":"Masuda","suffix":""},{"id":343683896,"identity":"7c69ab2c-774d-49e9-b12b-68edebd73642","order_by":3,"name":"Eri Kashiwazaki","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Tokyo University of Agriculture","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Eri","middleName":"","lastName":"Kashiwazaki","suffix":""},{"id":343683897,"identity":"ba7368b8-3c57-4801-8006-751a95d35ff3","order_by":4,"name":"Shunichi Nakayama","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Tokyo University of Agriculture","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Shunichi","middleName":"","lastName":"Nakayama","suffix":""},{"id":343683898,"identity":"186df2f5-d838-4646-abf7-c2a7da8ddb63","order_by":5,"name":"Toshimori Kadokura","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Tokyo University of Agriculture","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Toshimori","middleName":"","lastName":"Kadokura","suffix":""},{"id":343683899,"identity":"a3e8644e-1f5e-42a4-9940-98c372bfd12a","order_by":6,"name":"Kenji Sakai","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Kyushu University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Kenji","middleName":"","lastName":"Sakai","suffix":""},{"id":343683900,"identity":"aa7831b6-a717-40d0-b0cd-a3d45f9276c0","order_by":7,"name":"Yukihiro Tashiro","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Kyushu University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Yukihiro","middleName":"","lastName":"Tashiro","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2024-06-25 22:23:15","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4638816/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4638816/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[{"content":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-72936-5","type":"published","date":"2024-09-28T15:57:11+00:00"}],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":63154445,"identity":"80cbfb8b-dafa-435d-acaa-ff01343052c0","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-08-23 19:57:47","extension":"jpg","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":193741,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eComparison of alpha diversity of bacterial community structures on the scalp swab, hair swab, and hair shaft, based on (a) observed OTUs and (b) Shannon’s index. The values are obtained from a clustering of 1,000 reads per sample. The different alphabets mean that there are significant differences (Kruskal–Wallis test, \u003cem\u003ep \u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt; 0.01).\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure1.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4638816/v1/9c6b88fee4d29908b76da73c.jpg"},{"id":63154012,"identity":"a28a6d74-99aa-450e-b89a-1a40845cfde0","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-08-23 19:41:47","extension":"jpg","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":153771,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eAverage relative abundances of the major phyla in bacterial community structures the on scalp swab, hair swab, and hair shaft. The different alphabets mean that there are significant differences of each bacterial phyla between the sample groups (Kruskal–Wallis test, \u003cem\u003ep \u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt; 0.01).\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure2.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4638816/v1/d9e11165b900c67cb40127e4.jpg"},{"id":63154016,"identity":"527af004-c802-4dd5-b25c-6ade8bda7d1f","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-08-23 19:41:47","extension":"jpg","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":1007567,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003ePhylogenetic tree and abundance heatmap of the 15 major OTUs in 12 individuals.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure3.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4638816/v1/50150ce4aa632cd7bb1b3cec.jpg"},{"id":63154017,"identity":"59c4933c-cb97-4fc4-8e96-854cad5ef3a7","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-08-23 19:41:47","extension":"jpg","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":453277,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eComparison of the relative abundance of the five major OTUs between the scalp swab, hair swab, and hair shaft. Relative abundance of (a) OTU2 related to \u003cem\u003eCutibacterium acnes\u003c/em\u003e, (b) OTU3 related to \u003cem\u003ePseudomonas allii\u003c/em\u003e, (c) OTU4 related to \u003cem\u003eStaphylococcus epidermidis\u003c/em\u003e, (d) OTU5 related to \u003cem\u003eLawsonella clevelandensis\u003c/em\u003e, and (e) OTU7 related to \u003cem\u003eCurvibacter gracillis\u003c/em\u003e. The different alphabets mean that there are significant differences of each bacterial phyla between the sample groups (Kruskal–Wallis test, \u003cem\u003ep \u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt; 0.01).\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figre4.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4638816/v1/cc86ccb95a16fe304201bd04.jpg"},{"id":63154230,"identity":"99ff96b1-b546-4dc3-b031-798d8a332115","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-08-23 19:49:47","extension":"jpg","order_by":5,"title":"Figure 5","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":261031,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eBeta diversity of bacterial community structures on the scalp swab, hair swab, and hair shaft in 108 samples from 12 volunteers and their biplot analysis at phylum level. The PCoA is based on the weighted Unifrac distance.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure5.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4638816/v1/5a824b35a7ee24ff2613ee49.jpg"},{"id":63154013,"identity":"6eb2257c-c4c9-456d-9b14-e56ec14364a4","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-08-23 19:41:47","extension":"jpg","order_by":6,"title":"Figure 6","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":140847,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eComparison of weighted Unifrac distances within hair swab samples and between scalp swab or hair shaft samples. The different alphabets means that there are significant differences of each bacterial phyla between the sample groups (Kruskal–Wallis test, \u003cem\u003ep \u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt; 0.01).\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure6.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4638816/v1/8bb81bf229e6fc0a2431fa53.jpg"},{"id":65628221,"identity":"fb48c276-a76d-4104-837e-4389e71d60a7","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-09-30 16:18:30","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":2717570,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4638816/v1/ecfbc794-71c8-4371-888b-123620108322.pdf"},{"id":63154018,"identity":"f73f4f4d-afc4-4a95-923c-027da9d4af9e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-08-23 19:41:47","extension":"pptx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":58984,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Table1.pptx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4638816/v1/2ba96558919e77ca0c9e11f8.pptx"},{"id":63154019,"identity":"c4e78f58-bc62-41bc-b686-9c4a299d2146","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-08-23 19:41:47","extension":"pdf","order_by":9,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":2917899,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Supplementaly.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4638816/v1/132e9f922eae18e525724f13.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Sample collecting methods for bacterial community structure analysis of scalp hair: non-invasive swabbing versus invasive hair shaft cutting","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eWith the development of DNA-sequencing technologies, such as next-generation sequencing, human microbiome studies have revealed the characteristic features of not only internal organs, such as the gut and mouth, but also external organs, such as the skin (\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR2 CR3\" citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e). The human skin is the largest organ in the body, and its surface is colonized by a wide variety of bacteria (\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR6 CR7 CR8\" citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e). Some of these bacteria have a symbiotic relationship with their host and can provide protection against invasion by pathogenic microorganisms (\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR11\" citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e). However, an imbalance between commensal and pathogenic bacteria, known as dysbiosis, can cause skin disorders (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e). Human skin samples for bacterial community structure analysis are commonly collected using a swabbing method (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e). As an alternative sample collection method, tape stripping (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e), scraping (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e), and biopsy (\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR19\" citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e) have also been used in some bacterial community structure studies of human skin.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRelationships have been reported between scalp bacterial community structure and human health. Several studies on the scalp microbiome have revealed an association between dandruff and bacterial community structure (21\u0026ndash;24). Additionally, the overall scalp microbiome composition notably differs between normal and diseased groups in other scalp diseases, such as seboseborrheic dermatitis (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e) and alopecia areata (\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR28\" citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e). Scalp sample collection for microbiome analysis is mostly performed using the swabbing method (\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR22 CR23 CR24\" citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e), although tape stripping (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e) and punch biopsy (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e) are also used.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eScalp hair, which is part of the skin, is also composed of site-specific bacterial community structures (5, 31, 32). We have previously reported a specific feature of the bacterial community structure on scalp hair and the scalp (\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR34 CR35 CR36\" citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e37\u003c/span\u003e). We analyzed this structure on scalp hair shafts and hair roots and found that the major bacteria on scalp hair shafts were indigenous and derived from hair roots, with a similar structure from the tip to the base of the long scalp hair shaft (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e). As for bacterial localization on scalp hair, we observed a certain number of bacterial cells on the surface of scalp hair using SEM, which corresponded well with the bacterial copy numbers quantified by qPCR (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e). Furthermore, the bacterial community structure on scalp hair was more similar within than between individuals and was specific to each individual (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e). We reported that this structure may have been affected by host intrinsic factors (gender), as well as by extrinsic factors (hair styling and chemical treatments) (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e). Furthermore, regarding the relationship between the bacterial community structure on human scalp hair and scalps, it was found that major bacterial species were commonly present at both sites, but the bacterial community structure on hair was specific and distinguishable from that on the scalp (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e). Although the bacterial community structure on scalp hair may also be associated with scalp health and disease due to the relationship between the scalp and scalp hair microbiome, previous studies\u0026mdash;except for the study using the swab method (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e)\u0026mdash;have used invasively plucked or cut hair for microbiome analysis. Non-invasive swabbing methods have commonly been used for skin microbiome analysis, although no reports have compared the outcomes of these methods for bacterial community structure analysis of scalp hair.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe aim of this study was to compare bacterial community structure differences between scalp hair and scalp samples collected using non-invasive swabbing and invasive cutting scalp hair shaft methods through 16S rRNA gene sequencing.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eAlpha diversity of the bacterial community structures\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFigure \u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e shows the two alpha diversity indices: observed OTUs and the Shannon index. The observed OTU numbers and Shannon index on hair shaft, hair swab, and scalp swab samples were 25.4\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;5.3 and 2.3\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.3, 29.4\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;10.0 and 2.5\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.4, and 17.3\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;4.1 and 1.9\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.3, respectively. Both indices were significantly higher (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.0001) in hair shaft and hair swab samples than in scalp swab samples. Notably, both indices were the highest in hair swab samples, although there were no significant differences between hair shafts and hair swabs.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eBacterial community structures at the phylum level\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThree major phyla\u0026mdash;Actinomycetota, Pseudomonadota, and Bacillota\u0026mdash;were commonly found in all samples, and their total abundances were 99.0, 98.8, and 99.5% in hair shaft, hair swab, and scalp swab samples, respectively (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). Actinomycetota was the predominant phylum in all sample groups, with significant differences between hair and scalp swab samples (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01). Pseudomonadota abundance was significantly higher (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01) on hair shaft (45.8\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;15.6%) and hair swab (42.0\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;14.2%) samples than on scalp swab samples (14.9\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;12.8%). Conversely, Bacillota abundance was significantly lower (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01) on hair shaft (6.6\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;4.9%) and hair swab (12.8\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;11.8%) samples than on scalp swab samples (29.3\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;20.8%). There were no significant differences in the relative abundance of the three major phyla between hair shafts and hair swabs.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eBacterial community structures at the OTU level\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eBased on the results obtained from all the individuals, we assigned the top 15 most abundant OTU sequences to the most closely related bacterial species (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e). Of these, the five major OTUs (Phylum, pairwise similarity) showing\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;5% abundance in any of the sample groups were OTU2 related to \u003cem\u003eCutibacterium acnes\u003c/em\u003e (Actinomycetota, 99.7%), OTU3 related to \u003cem\u003ePseudomonas allii\u003c/em\u003e (Pseudomonadota, 99.7%), OTU4 related to \u003cem\u003eStaphylococcus epidermidis\u003c/em\u003e (Bacillota, 99.7%), OTU5 related to \u003cem\u003eLawsonella clevelandensis\u003c/em\u003e (Actinomycetota, 99.7%) and OTU7 related to \u003cem\u003eCurvibacter gracilis\u003c/em\u003e (Pseudomonadota, 99.7%).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe relative abundance of the five major OTUs present in each sample group are shown in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e. OTU2 related \u003cem\u003eC. acnes\u003c/em\u003e was the most predominant species in all sample groups. Relative abundance was not significantly different among the sample groups (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003ea). The relative abundance of OTU3 related to \u003cem\u003eP. allii\u003c/em\u003e and OTU7 related to \u003cem\u003eC. gracilis\u003c/em\u003e were significantly higher (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01) in hair-related samples than in scalp swab samples (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003eb and \u003cspan refid=\"Fig5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003ee). In contrast, the relative abundance of OTU4 related to \u003cem\u003eS. epidermidis\u003c/em\u003e and OTU5 related to \u003cem\u003eL. clevelandensis\u003c/em\u003e were significantly lower (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01) in hair-related samples than in scalp swab samples (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003ec and \u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003ed). Similar to the results observed at the phylum level, there were no significant differences in the relative abundances of the five major OTUs between hair shaft and hair swab samples.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eBeta diversity of the bacterial community structures\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFigure \u003cspan refid=\"Fig5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e shows the beta diversity of the bacterial community structure in hair shaft, hair swab, and scalp swab samples obtained by principal coordinate analysis (PCoA) based on weighted UniFrac distances. The plots were grouped into two clusters, hair-related samples and scalp swab samples, although some were positioned in similar areas. This clustering was also confirmed within individual samples, except for some individuals (Fig. \u003cspan refid=\"MOESM1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003eS1\u003c/span\u003e). We further performed a biplot analysis at the phylum level, and the results corresponded well with the relative abundance of major phyla in the bacterial community structure in each sample group (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). The Actinomycetota and Bacillota biplots were was located in the middle of the two clusters and in the scalp swab cluster, respectively (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e). In contrast, the Pseudomonadota biplot was located in a hair-related cluster.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe clustering tendency of the PCoA plot for each sample group was confirmed by comparing weighted UniFrac distances (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig6\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e). The distances within hair-related samples (hair swab vs hair swab, hair swab vs hair shaft, and hair shaft vs hair shaft) were significantly lower (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01) than those between hair-related samples and scalp swab samples (hair shaft vs scalp swab and hair swab vs scalp swab). This result corresponded well with the comparison of weighted UniFrac distances within individual samples, except for some individuals (Fig. S2).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFinally, to analyze the contribution of the PCoA plots in each sample group, weighted UniFrac distances were calculated using Adonis (Table\u0026nbsp;1). The sampling site-based category was statistically significant and affected the contribution to the variance (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001). In contrast, the hair sampling method-based category was not statistically significant.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eOur previous study suggested that bacterial community structures on the human scalp hair shaft are formed from both hair-specific and skin-derived bacteria and are distinguishable from other human skin microbiomes (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e). We verified whether non-invasive swab sampling\u0026mdash;a commonly used human skin microbiome analysis\u0026mdash;could reflect the bacterial community structure on scalp hair in concordance with invasive hair shaft sampling, using 16S rRNA gene sequencing. Scalp samples were also analyzed to verify differences between swabs. We identified three bacterial community structure characteristics using different sampling methods. Firstly, there were no significant differences in the alpha diversity indices between hair shaft and hair swab samples. Secondly, the relative abundances of the three major phyla and five major OTUs were not significantly different between hair shaft and hair swab samples. Third, the PCoA plots based on weighted UniFrac distances were grouped into two clusters: hair-related samples and scalp samples, and there were significant differences only between hair-related samples and scalp swab samples. We further discuss each result individually below.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFirst, we compared two alpha diversity indices in each sample group and found that hair-related samples\u0026mdash;hair shafts and hair swabs\u0026mdash;had significantly higher indices than did scalp swab samples, while there were no significant differences between those of hair shaft and hair swab samples (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). Generally, variations in the cutaneous microbiota of healthy volunteers\u0026mdash;including sebaceous, dry, and moist environments\u0026mdash;are associated with skin ecological zones (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e). Skin physiological conditions affect the formation of skin bacterial communities; thus, the alpha diversity of the bacterial community structure on sebaceous skin is lower than that on dry skin sites (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e). The higher hydrophobicity of scalp hair causes higher diversity compared with a sebaceous scalp. Hair bacteria are present on the scalp hair surface, as quantified by qPCR and SEM observations (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e), and bacterial community structure distribution on scalp hair shafts within individuals is relatively steady, even when the scalp hair sampling sites were different (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e37\u003c/span\u003e). Therefore, swab sampling and hair shaft sampling methods can collect similar bacterial community structures on scalp hair in terms of alpha diversity, since hair-attached bacteria are present on the hair surface and their diversity is constant at any hair site.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSecond, we identified three major common phyla in all sample groups: Actinomycetota, Pseudomonadota, and Bacillota (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). For a more detailed analysis of the bacterial community structure, we extracted the top 15 most abundant OTU sequences and compared the relative abundances of the five major OTUs (Figs.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e and \u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e). Similar to the alpha diversity comparison, the four major OTUs\u0026mdash;except for OTU2 related to \u003cem\u003eC. acnes\u0026mdash;\u003c/em\u003ewere significantly different between hair-related samples and scalp swabs, whereas there were no significant differences between hair shafts and hair swabs. These major phyla on the hair shaft and scalp are similar to those described in our previous study (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e). In addition, the four major OTUs\u0026mdash;except OTU7, related to \u003cem\u003eC. gracilis\u003c/em\u003e, which was isolated from well water (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e38\u003c/span\u003e)\u0026mdash;were consistent with previous reports (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e). Although our study showed that \u003cem\u003ePseudomonas\u003c/em\u003e was more abundant, and \u003cem\u003eStaphylococcus\u003c/em\u003e was less abundant, on scalp hair, some studies have shown that \u003cem\u003eCorynebacteriaceae\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eTissierellaceae\u003c/em\u003e, and \u003cem\u003eStaphylococcus\u003c/em\u003e are the major bacterial families or genera of bacterial community structures on scalp hair (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e). Kerk et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e39\u003c/span\u003e) reported that \u003cem\u003eP. aeruginosa\u003c/em\u003e colonizes and adheres to the scalp hair shaft when cultured on these shafts, whereas the growth of \u003cem\u003eS. epidermidis\u003c/em\u003e was inhibited. In addition, hair-derived antimicrobial proteins or peptides have been identified in scalp hair shafts that may inhibit the growth of \u003cem\u003eS. epidermidis\u003c/em\u003e (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e40\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e41\u003c/span\u003e). Although \u003cem\u003eCutibacterium\u003c/em\u003e is known to carry genes for biotin biosynthesis, an essential nutrient for scalp hair growth (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e42\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e43\u003c/span\u003e), \u003cem\u003ePseudomonas\u0026mdash;\u003c/em\u003ethe second major bacterial genus on hair\u0026mdash;is not known to play a key role, and further detailed studies are required to clarify the bacterial ecology of scalp hair.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThird, we analyzed beta diversity and biplots at the phylum level to compare bacterial community structures among each sample group (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e). It was confirmed that the plots were grouped into two clusters: hair-related samples and scalp swab samples. In addition, the phylum Pseudomonadota contributed to the formation of a bacterial community structure specific to hair-related samples, while the phylum Bacillota contributed to that on the scalp. UniFrac analysis revealed significant differences between hair-related samples and scalp swab samples, but not between hair shafts and hair swabs (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig6\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e). In addition, we confirmed the contribution to the variance of weighted UniFrac distance using Adonis, and the sampling site category was statistically significant, but not the hair sampling method category (Table\u0026nbsp;1). Grice et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e44\u003c/span\u003e) reported that the bacterial community structure of the inner elbow of healthy human subjects obtained by swabs, scrapes, and biopsies had bacterial compositions comparable to those of all the employed sampling methods. Moreover, Ogai et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e) reported that the bacterial community structure on the back skin of healthy young participants collected using tape stripping was comparable to that collected using the swabbing method. Even in lesional skin, such as diabetic foot ulcers, there were no significant differences in the overall bacterial communities recovered from swabs compared to tissue scrapings (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e). Prast-Nielsen et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e) recently reported that the bacterial community structure obtained via skin biopsies and swabs revealed stark differences compared to that of normal skin. In lesional skin, such as psoriasis (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e) and diabetic foot ulcers (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e), different sampling techniques, such as swabs and biopsies, resulted in different bacterial community profiles. It is important to note that swabbing and tape stripping collected surface microbiota, whereas skin biopsies collected the full skin layer microbiota. Lange-Asschenfeldt et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e45\u003c/span\u003e) reported that 85% of skin surface bacteria were found within the corneocyte layers, and ~\u0026thinsp;25% of the cutaneous bacterial population was localized within the hair follicles. Nakatsuji et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e46\u003c/span\u003e) also reported that different microbiota may be present in the dermis, epidermis, and superficial adipose tissues. Swab and hair shaft sampling methods can be used to collect similar bacterial community structures on scalp hair, as almost all hair bacteria are present on the hair surface.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn conclusion, the results here suggest that scalp hair bacteria collected using non-invasive swab sampling were comparable to those collected using invasive hair shaft sampling. The establishment of a non-invasive hair sampling method for the analysis of bacterial community structure is expected to advance research on the relationship between hair bacteria and scalp diseases, such as dandruff and androgenetic alopecia. Recently, we evaluated the effect of bacteria on human keratinocyte cellular activity and reported that some predominant bacteria in scalp hair enhanced the expression of several longevity genes (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e47\u003c/span\u003e). Further studies on isolating hair-specific bacteria to investigate the interactions between scalp hair and bacteria are currently underway.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Materials and methods","content":"\u003ch2\u003eEthics approval and consent to participate\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e The study was conducted in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration on this subject. On recruitment, participants signed a document in which they consented to the confidential treatment of their personal information and consented to the publication of anonymized data. The study protocol and the informed consent form were reviewed and approved by the Research Ethics Board of the Tokyo University of Agriculture (Authorized No. 2211).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eSamples and collection\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eScalp hair\u0026nbsp;shaft samples were collected from 12 healthy Japanese and Taiwanese adults (six females and six males), aged 21 to 45 years, who consented to participate in this study. No volunteer was taking any medication during the experimental period. Hair shafts, hair swabs, and scalp swabs\u0026nbsp;were\u0026nbsp;collected using nitrile gloves, and hair shaft samples were cut using sterile scissors. After sampling,\u0026nbsp;the hairs\u0026nbsp;were chopped into lengths of ~5 mm with scissors and placed in plastic microtubes.\u0026nbsp;Hair swab samples were directly taken from the hair using cotton swabs (Mentip for hospitals, Nihon Menbou Corporation, Saitama, Japan) and pre-moistened with 50 \u0026mu;L of sterile distilled water. Scalp swab samples were\u0026nbsp;collected directly\u0026nbsp;from the head\u0026nbsp;crown using cotton swabs by\u0026nbsp;rubbed them onto the scalp surface (between hair strands) to cover a total surface area of 2.5 cm\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e. The head of each swab was removed from the handle and placed in\u0026nbsp;an Eppendorf tube.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eExtraction of bacterial DNA\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBacterial DNA was extracted using the NucleoSpin\u003csup\u003e\u0026reg;\u003c/sup\u003e Tissue kit (MACHEREY-NAGEL, D\u0026uuml;ren, Germany) according to the manufacturer\u0026rsquo;s instructions, with a slight modification. First, hair shaft, hair swab, and scalp swab samples were immersed in 100 \u0026mu;L lysozyme solution (20 mg/ml lysozyme derived from egg white [Wako Pure Chemical Industries, Osaka, Japan] in 20 mM Tris-HCl and 0.2 mM EDTA, pH 8.0) for 30 min at 37 \u0026deg;C, as previously reported (34), and the DNA extracts obtained (100 \u0026mu;L) were stored at -20 \u0026deg;C until use.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eAnalysis of bacterial community structures using 16S rRNA gene sequencing\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo analyze the bacterial community structures using the MiSeq\u0026trade; platform (Illumina Inc., CA, USA), a three-step PCR method was performed using the extracted DNA samples. In the first-step PCR amplification, a universal primer set for the V4 region of the bacterial 16S rRNA gene (515F, 5ʹ-GTG CCA GCM GCC GCG GTA A-3ʹ and 806R, 5ʹ-GGA CTA CHV GGG TWT CTA AT-3ʹ) (48) was used. The 25 \u0026mu;L reaction mixture consisted of 12.5 \u0026mu;L of Kapa HiFi HotStart Ready Mix (Kapa Biosystems Inc., Wilmington, MA, USA), 0.5 \u0026mu;L of each primer (10 pM), and 11.5 \u0026mu;L of extracted bacterial DNA. The amplification program included an initial denaturation step at 95\u0026nbsp;\u0026deg;C\u0026nbsp;for 3 min, followed by 40 cycles of denaturation at 98\u0026nbsp;\u0026deg;C\u0026nbsp;for 30 s, annealing at 56\u0026nbsp;\u0026deg;C\u0026nbsp;for 30 s, and elongation at 72\u0026nbsp;\u0026deg;C\u0026nbsp;for 30 s. After electrophoresis through a 1.5 % (w/v) agarose gel, the targeted bands were excised from the gel with sterilized cutters, and the DNA extracted using the FastGene\u003csup\u003e\u0026reg;\u003c/sup\u003e Gel/PCR Extraction Kit (NIPPON Genetics Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan), according to the\u0026nbsp;manufacturer\u0026rsquo;s instructions. The DNA concentration was measured using a NanoDrop 2000 spectrophotometer (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA).\u0026nbsp;To prepare for 16S rRNA amplicon sequencing using MiSeq sequencing, templates are given tail, adapter, and index sequences in a two-step PCR; therefore, long-tailed primers are required, making amplification difficult. We were unable to perform direct amplification using a two-step PCR, probably because the amount of bacterial DNA obtained from the 3 cm hair shafts was very low. Therefore, we first performed a PCR using a universal primer set\u0026nbsp;without\u0026nbsp;any additional sequences. Consequently, we successfully obtained sufficient template fragments with a minimum number of reaction cycles.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor the second-step PCR, a universal primer set for the V4 region of the bacterial 16S rRNA gene and tailed sequences for MiSeq sequencing were used (1-515F, 5ʹ-\u0026nbsp;TCG TCG GCA GCG TCA GAT GTG TAT AAG AGA CAG GTG CCA GCM GCC GCG GTA A-3ʹ\u0026nbsp;and 1-806R,\u0026nbsp;5ʹ-GTC TCG TGG GCT CGG AGA TGT GTA TAA GAG ACA GGG ACT ACH VGG GTW TCT AAT-3ʹ) (49). Although it has been reported that this primer set poorly amplifies \u003cem\u003ePropionibacterium\u003c/em\u003e in human skin (50), the results here showed good amplification of\u0026nbsp;the predominant species in hair,\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Cutibacterium acnes\u003c/em\u003e (previously named \u003cem\u003ePropionibacterium acnes\u003c/em\u003e).\u0026nbsp;The 25 \u0026mu;L reaction mixture consisted\u0026nbsp;of 1.0 \u0026micro;L of each primer (5 \u0026micro;M), which was heat-shocked at 95 \u0026deg;C for 5 min, 12.5 \u0026micro;L of Kapa HiFi HotStart Ready Mix, 12.5 ng of DNA obtained from the first-step PCR amplicon, and\u0026nbsp;sterilized\u0026nbsp;ultrapure water.\u0026nbsp;The amplification program included an initial denaturation step at\u0026nbsp;95\u0026nbsp;\u0026deg;C for 3 min, followed by 20 cycles of denaturation at 98 \u0026deg;C for 30 s, annealing at 55 \u0026deg;C for 30 s, and elongation at 72 \u0026deg;C for 30 s. The PCR products were purified using the\u0026nbsp;FastGene\u003csup\u003e\u0026reg;\u003c/sup\u003e Gel/PCR extraction kit according to the\u0026nbsp;manufacturer\u0026rsquo;s instructions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor the third-step PCR, a primer set with flow cell adapter sequences, index sequences, and tailed sequences was used (forward primer, 5ʹ-AAT GAT ACG GCG ACC ACC GAG ATC TAC AC-Index sequence-TCG TCG GCA GCG TC-3ʹ and reverse primer, 5ʹ-CAA GCA GAA GAC GGC ATA CGA GAT-Index sequence-GTC TCG TGG GCT CGG-3ʹ). The third-step PCR mixture (25 \u0026micro;L) comprised\u0026nbsp;12.5 \u0026micro;L of Kapa HiFi HotStart Ready Mix, 0.5 \u0026micro;L of each primer (10 pM), and 11.5 \u0026micro;L of the second-step PCR amplicon.\u0026nbsp;The amplification program included an initial denaturation step at\u0026nbsp;95\u0026nbsp;\u0026deg;C for 3 min, followed by 8 cycles of denaturation at 98 \u0026deg;C for 30 s, annealing at 55 \u0026deg;C for 30 s, and elongation at 72 \u0026deg;C for 30 s.\u0026nbsp;After electrophoresis in a 1.5 % (w/v) agarose gel, the target bands were excised with sterilized cutters, and the DNA extracted using the FastGene\u003csup\u003e\u0026reg;\u003c/sup\u003e Gel/PCR extraction kit, as described above. The DNA concentrations of the third-step PCR amplicons were quantified using the Qubit dsDNA HS assay kit (Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc., USA) according to the manufacturer\u0026rsquo;s instructions.\u0026nbsp;Purified PCR products from each sample were mixed, denatured, and sequenced with a\u0026nbsp;MiSeq System\u0026nbsp;(Illumina Inc., USA) using\u0026nbsp;the MiSeq reagent kit v3\u0026nbsp;(300 bp \u0026times;2 cycles with paired end reads; Illumina, Inc., USA) according to the manufacturer\u0026rsquo;s instructions. Good\u0026rsquo;s coverage values (\u0026gt;95 %) were obtained for all hair samples using the DNA extraction kit and PCR conditions described above. Good\u0026rsquo;s coverage values were estimated using QIIME\u0026trade; 1.9.1 software (51).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eBioinformatics and statistical analysis\u0026nbsp;\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe index and universal sequences of each read were checked and reads with complete index sequences were selected as valid. USEARCH V8.1.1861 software\u0026nbsp;(52) was used to merge\u0026nbsp;paired-end reads and remove chimeric sequences. After the chimeric check, the reads were grouped into operational taxonomic units (OTUs) with \u0026gt;97 % similarity.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eClostridium\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eEscherichia\u003c/em\u003e were filtered from the OTU tables for further analysis because they are frequently used in our laboratory and have rarely been detected in previous reports (34\u0026ndash;36). Alpha diversity (observed OTUs and Shannon\u0026rsquo;s index) was evaluated at a 1 % OTU distance using the QIIME\u0026trade; software package (51). For taxonomy-based analyses, the representative sequences of each OTU were analyzed using the EzBioCloud platform (53). Statistical analysis of the bacterial community structure was performed using the Kruskal\u0026ndash;Wallis test in XLSTAT software ver. 2014 (http://www.xlstat.com/en/).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eData availability\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; Raw sequence data were deposited under the bioproject number PRJDB18517 and the biosample number SAMD00802426-00802533 in the DDBJ Sequence Read Archive. The top 15 most abundant OTU sequences were deposited in the DDBJ/ENA/GenBank databases under the accession numbers LC822820-LC822834.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003eAcknowledgements\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors acknowledge the NODAI Genome Research Center, Tokyo University of Agriculture, for their support with MiSeq.\u0026nbsp;This work was supported by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science under a Grant-in-Aid for Research Activity Start-up [number JP22K20573].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAuthor contributions\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eK.W., Y.T., and K.S. designed the experiments. H.\u0026nbsp;M. and E. K. performed the experiments. K.W., A.Y., S.N., and T.K. performed\u0026nbsp;the data analysis. K.W. prepared the figures and wrote the manuscript. All\u0026nbsp;authors approved the final version of the manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting financial interests\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that may have influenced the work reported in this study.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTurnbaugh, P. J., Ley, R. E., Hamady, M., Fraser-Ligget, C. M, Knight, R. \u0026amp; Gordon, J. I. The human microbiome project. Nature. 449, 804\u0026ndash;810 (2007).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThe NIH HMP Working Group. The NIH Human Microbiome Project. Genome Res. 19, 2317\u0026ndash;2323 (2009).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThe Human Microbiome Project Consortium. Structure, function and diversity of the healthy human microbiome. Nature. 486, 207\u0026ndash;214 (2012).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCapone, K. A., Dowd, S. E., Stamatas, G. N., Nikolovski, J. Diversity of the human skin microbiome early in life. J Invest Dermatol. 131, 2026\u0026ndash;2032 (2011).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCostello, E. K., Lauber, C. L., Hamady, M., Fierer, N., Gordon, J. I. \u0026amp; Knight, R. Bacterial community variation in human body habitats across space and time. Science. 326, 1694\u0026ndash;1697 (2009).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGrice, E. A. \u0026amp; Segre, J.A. The skin microbiome. Nat Rev Microbiol. 9, 244\u0026ndash;253 (2011).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFindley, K. \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e. Topographic diversity of fungal and bacterial communities in human skin. Nature. 498, 367\u0026ndash;370 (2013).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOh, J. \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e. Biogeography and individuality shape function in the human skin metagenome. Nature. 514, 59\u0026ndash;64 (2014).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWylie, K. M., Mihindukulasuriya, K. A., Zhou, Y., Sodergren, E., Storch, G. A. \u0026amp; Weinstock, G. M. Metagenomic analysis of double-stranded DNA viruses in healthy adults. BMC Biol. 12, 71 (2014).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMontes, L. F., Wilborn, W. H. Anatomical location of normal skin flora. Arch Dermatol. 101, 45\u0026ndash;159 (1970).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRoth, R.R., James, W.D. Microbial ecology of the skin. Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 42, 441\u0026ndash;464 (1988).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChiller, K., Selkin, B. A., Murakawa, G. J. Skin microflora and bacterial infections of the skin. \u003cem\u003eJ Investig Dermatol Symp Proc.\u003c/em\u003e 6, 170\u0026ndash;1744 (2001).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSchommer, N. N., Gallo, R. L. Structure and function of the human skin microbiome. Trends Microbiol. 21, 660\u0026ndash;668 (2013).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGao, Z., Tseng, C. H., Pei, Z. H. \u0026amp; Blaser, M. J. Molecular analysis of human forearm superficial skin bacterial biota. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 104, 2927\u0026ndash;2932 (2007).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGrice, E. A. \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e. Topographical and temporal diversity of the human skin microbiome. Science. 324, 1190\u0026ndash;1192 (2009).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOgai, K. \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e. A comparison of techniques for collecting skin microbiome samples: swabbing versus tape-stripping. Front Microbiol. 9, 2362 (2018).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTravis, D. J., Bradbury, J., Benkendorff, K. Toward non-invasive collection methods for sampling the microbiome of diabetic foot ulcers. Int Wound J. 20, 3731\u0026ndash;3737 (2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePrast-Nielsen. \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e. Investigation of the skin microbiome: swabs vs. biopsies. Br J Dermatol. 181, 572\u0026ndash;579 (2019).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTravis, J. \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e. The microbiome of diabetic foot ulcers: a comparison of swab and tissue biopsy wound sampling techniques using 16S rRNA gene sequencing. BMC Microbiol. 20, 163 (2020).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRungjang, A. \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e. Skin microbiota profiles from tape stripping and skin biopsy samples of patients with psoriasis treated with narrowband ultraviolet B. Clin Cosmet Investig Dermatol. 15, 1767\u0026ndash;1778 (2022).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eClavaud, C. \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e. Dandruff is associated with disequilibrium in the proportion of the major bacterial and fungal populations colonizing the scalp. PloS one. 8, e58203 (2013).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWang, L. \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e. Characterization of the major bacterial\u0026ndash;fungal populations colonizing dandruff scalps in Shanghai, China, shows microbial disequilibrium. Exp Dermatol. 24, 398\u0026ndash;400 (2015).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eXu, Z. \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e. Dandruff is associated with the conjoined interactions between host and microorganisms. Sci Rep. 6, 24877 (2016).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSaxena, R. \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e. Comparison of healthy and dandruff scalp microbiome reveals the role of commensals in scalp health. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 8, 346 (2018).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePark, T. \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e. Collapse of human scalp microbiome network in dandruff and seborrheic dermatitis. Exp Dermatol. 26, 835\u0026ndash;838 (2017).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDityen, K. \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e. Analysis of cutaneous bacterial microbiota of Thai patients with seborrheic dermatitis. Exp Dermatol. 31, 1949\u0026ndash;1955 (2022).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePinto, D. \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e. Scalp bacterial shift in Alopecia areata. PLoS One. 14, e0215206 (2019).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHo, B. S. \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e. Microbiome in the hair follicle of androgenetic alopecia patients. PLoS One. 14, e0216330 (2019).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWon, E. J., Jang, H. H., Park, H., Kim, S. J. A Potential predictive role of the scalp microbiome profiling in patients with Alopecia areata: \u003cem\u003eStaphylococcus caprae\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eCorynebacterium\u003c/em\u003e, and \u003cem\u003eCutibacterium\u003c/em\u003e species. Microorganisms. 10, 864 (2022).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLiang, K. \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e. A 3D-printed transepidermal microprojection array for human skin microbiome sampling. \u003cem\u003eProc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA\u003c/em\u003e. 119, e2203556119 (2022).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTridico, S. R., Murray, D. C., Addison, J., Kirkbride, K. P. \u0026amp; Bunce, M. Metagenomic analyses of bacteria on human hairs: a qualitative assessment for applications in forensic science. Invest Gen. 5, 16 (2014).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBrinkac, L. \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e. Spatial and Environmental Variation of the Human Hair Microbiota. Sci Rep. 8, 9017 (2018).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNishi, E., Watanabe, K., Tashiro, Y. \u0026amp; Sakai, K. Terminal restriction fragment length polymorphism profiling of bacterial flora derived from single human hair shafts can discriminate individuals. Legal Med. 25, 75\u0026ndash;82 (2017).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWatanabe, K., Nishi, E., Tashiro, Y. \u0026amp; Sakai, K. Mode and structure of the bacterial community on human scalp hair. Microbes Environ. 34, 252\u0026ndash;259 (2019).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWatanabe, K., Yamada, A., Nishi, Y., Tashiro, Y. \u0026amp; Sakai, K. Relationship between the bacterial community structures on human hair and scalp. Biosci Biotechnol Biochem. 84, 2585\u0026ndash;2596 (2020).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWatanabe, K., Yamada, A., Nishi, Y., Tashiro, Y., Sakai, K. Host factors that shape the bacterial community structure on scalp hair shaft. Sci Rep. 11, 17711 (2021).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWatanabe, K. \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e. Distribution of bacterial community structures on human scalp hair shaft in relation to scalp sites. Biosci Biotechnol Biochem. 87, 1551\u0026ndash;1558 (2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDing, L., Yokota, A. Proposals of \u003cem\u003eCurvibacter gracilis\u003c/em\u003e gen. nov., sp. nov. and \u003cem\u003eHerbaspirillum putei\u003c/em\u003e sp. nov. for bacterial strains isolated from well water and reclassification of [\u003cem\u003ePseudomonas\u003c/em\u003e] \u003cem\u003ehuttiensis\u003c/em\u003e, [\u003cem\u003ePseudomonas\u003c/em\u003e] \u003cem\u003elanceolata\u003c/em\u003e, [\u003cem\u003eAquaspirillum\u003c/em\u003e] \u003cem\u003edelicatum\u003c/em\u003e and [\u003cem\u003eAquaspirillum\u003c/em\u003e] \u003cem\u003eautotrophicum\u003c/em\u003e as \u003cem\u003eHerbaspirillum huttiense\u003c/em\u003e comb. nov., \u003cem\u003eCurvibacter lanceolatus\u003c/em\u003e comb. nov., \u003cem\u003eCurvibacter delicatus\u003c/em\u003e comb. nov. and \u003cem\u003eHerbaspirillum autotrophicum\u003c/em\u003e comb. nov. \u003cem\u003eInt J Syst Evol Microbiol\u003c/em\u003e. 54, 2223\u0026ndash;2230 (2004).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKerk, S. K. \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e. Bacteria display differential growth and adhesion characteristics on human hair shafts. Front Microbiol. 9, 2145 (2018).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAdav, S. S. \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e. Studies on the proteome of human hair - identification of histones and deamidated keratins. Sci Rep 8, 1599 (2018).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSubbaiah, R. S. \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e. Identification of antibacterial components in human hair shafts. Acta Derm Venereol. 98, 708\u0026ndash;710 (2018).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePatel, D. P., Swink, S. M., Castelo-Soccio, L. A review of the use of biotin for hair loss. Skin Appendage Disord. 3, 66\u0026ndash;169 (2017).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChiu, C. H., Huang, S. H., Wang, H. M. A review: hair health, concerns of shampoo ingredients and scalp nourishing treatments. Curr Pharm Biotechnol. 16, 1045\u0026ndash;1052 (2015).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGrice, E. A. \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e. A diversity profile of the human skin microbiota. Genome Res. 18, 1043\u0026ndash;1050 (2008).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLange-Asschenfeldt, B. \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e. Distribution of bacteria in the epidermal layers and hair follicles of the human skin. Skin Pharmacol Physiol. 24, 305\u0026ndash;311 (2011).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNakatsuji, T. \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e. The microbiome extends to subepidermal compartments of normal skin. Nat Commun. 4, 1431 (2013).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYamada, A. \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e. Scalp bacterial species influence SIRT1 and TERT expression in keratinocytes. Biosci Biotechnol Biochem. 87, 1364\u0026ndash;1372 (2023).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCaporaso, J. G. \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e. Global patterns of 16S rRNA diversity at a depth of millions of sequences per sample. Proc National Academy Sci. 108, 4516\u0026ndash;4522 (2011).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBrown, C. T. \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e. Unusual biology across a group comprising more than 15% of domain Bacteria. Nature. 523, 208\u0026ndash;211 (2015).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKuczynski, J. \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e. Experimental and analytical tools for studying the human microbiome. Nat Rev Genet. 13, 47\u0026ndash;58 (2012).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCaporaso, J. G. \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e. QIIME allows analysis of high-throughput community sequencing data. Nat Methods. 7, 335\u0026ndash;336 (2010).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEdgar, R. C. UPARSE: highly accurate OTU sequences from microbial amplicon reads. Nat. Methods. 10, 996\u0026ndash;998 (2013.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChun, J. \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e. EzTaxon: a web-based tool for the identification of prokaryotes based on 16S ribosomal RNA gene sequences. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 57, 2259\u0026ndash;2261 (2007).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Tables","content":"\u003cp\u003eTable 1 is available in the Supplementary Files section.\u003c/p\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"scientific-reports","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"scirep","sideBox":"Learn more about [Scientific Reports](http://www.nature.com/srep/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"","title":"Scientific Reports","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Scientific Reports","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"scalp hair, scalp, bacterial community structure, swabbing","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4638816/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4638816/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eHuman skin samples for microbiome analysis are traditionally collected using a non-invasive swabbing method. Here, we compared the differences in bacterial community structures on scalp hair and scalps with samples collected using non-invasive swabbing and invasive cut scalp hair shaft methods in 12 individuals. Hair-related samples, such as hair shafts and hair swabs, had significantly higher alpha diversity than scalp swab samples, whereas there were no significant differences between hair shafts and hair swabs. The relative abundances of the three major phyla and five major operational taxonomic units were not significantly different between the hair shaft and hair swab samples. The principal coordinate analysis plots based on weighted UniFrac distances were grouped into two clusters: samples from hair-related areas and scalp swabs, and there were significant differences only between samples from hair-related areas and scalp swabs. In addition, a weighted UniFrac analysis revealed that the sampling site-based category was a statistical category but not a hair sampling method-based category. These results suggest that scalp hair bacteria collected using non-invasive swab sampling were comparable to those collected using invasive hair shaft sampling.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Sample collecting methods for bacterial community structure analysis of scalp hair: non-invasive swabbing versus invasive hair shaft cutting","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2024-08-23 19:41:42","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4638816/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2024-08-28T07:05:29+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2024-08-23T14:28:43+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2024-08-20T15:18:05+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"246157746781549841485023458223782874228","date":"2024-08-12T11:46:32+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"100548416987162707811569179056482622983","date":"2024-08-09T14:01:29+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2024-08-09T03:14:21+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2024-08-02T03:12:27+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvited","content":"","date":"2024-07-29T15:59:27+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2024-07-29T15:57:09+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Scientific Reports","date":"2024-06-25T22:15:35+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"scientific-reports","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"scirep","sideBox":"Learn more about [Scientific Reports](http://www.nature.com/srep/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"","title":"Scientific Reports","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Scientific Reports","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"082cf0d3-99df-422b-83a4-5a29ed4281de","owner":[],"postedDate":"August 23rd, 2024","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"published-in-journal","subjectAreas":[{"id":36418845,"name":"Biological sciences/Microbiology/Bacteria/Metagenomics"},{"id":36418846,"name":"Biological sciences/Microbiology/Communities/Microbiome"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2024-09-30T16:12:34+00:00","versionOfRecord":{"articleIdentity":"rs-4638816","link":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-72936-5","journal":{"identity":"scientific-reports","isVorOnly":false,"title":"Scientific Reports"},"publishedOn":"2024-09-28 15:57:11","publishedOnDateReadable":"September 28th, 2024"},"versionCreatedAt":"2024-08-23 19:41:42","video":"","vorDoi":"10.1038/s41598-024-72936-5","vorDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-72936-5","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-4638816","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-4638816","identity":"rs-4638816","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"qtupq5eGEP_6zYnWcrvyt","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}