Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Dec 28;16(12):e0261179. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0261179

Moraxella-dominated pediatric nasopharyngeal microbiota associate with upper respiratory infection and sinusitis

Kathryn E McCauley 1, Gregory DeMuri 2, Kole Lynch 1, Douglas W Fadrosh 1, Clark Santee 1, Nabeetha N Nagalingam 1, Ellen R Wald 2, Susan V Lynch 1,*
Editor: Aran Singanayagam3
PMCID: PMC8714118  PMID: 34962959

Abstract

Background

Distinct bacterial upper airway microbiota structures have been described in pediatric populations, and relate to risk of respiratory viral infection and, exacerbations of asthma. We hypothesized that distinct nasopharyngeal (NP) microbiota structures exist in pediatric populations, relate to environmental exposures and modify risk of acute sinusitis or upper respiratory infection (URI) in children.

Methods

Bacterial 16S rRNA profiles from nasopharyngeal swabs (n = 354) collected longitudinally over a one-year period from 58 children, aged four to seven years, were analyzed and correlated with environmental variables, URI, and sinusitis outcomes.

Results

Variance in nasopharyngeal microbiota composition significantly related to clinical outcomes, participant characteristics and environmental exposures including dominant bacterial genus, season, daycare attendance and tobacco exposure. Four distinct nasopharyngeal microbiota structures (Cluster I-IV) were evident and differed with respect to URI and sinusitis outcomes. These clusters were characteristically either dominated by Moraxella with sparse underlying taxa (Cluster I), comprised of a non-dominated, diverse microbiota (Cluster II), dominated by Alloiococcus/Corynebacterium (Cluster III), or by Haemophilus (Cluster IV). Cluster I was associated with increased risk of URI and sinusitis (RR = 1.18, p = 0.046; RR = 1.25, p = 0.009, respectively) in the population studied.

Conclusion

In a pediatric population, URI and sinusitis associate with the presence of Moraxella-dominated NP microbiota.

Introduction

Viral upper respiratory infection (URI) is the most common illness for which children present to their primary care provider. Approximately 5–10% of viral URIs are complicated by acute bacterial sinusitis [1]. Sinusitis results in over $5.8 billion in health care expenditures in the United States annually, of which $1.8 billion are spent on children under the age of 13 years [2]. Acute bacterial sinusitis is usually preceded by a viral respiratory infection. Viral URI causes mucosal inflammation within the nose and nasopharynx that promotes obstruction of the sinus ostia. Virus-induced proliferation of pathogenic bacteria in the nasopharynx can set the stage for the development of complications such as acute sinusitis and acute otitis media [1,3]. Our previous investigations described characteristics of the nasopharyngeal microbiome in a longitudinal cohort of children during a healthy state and during URI [4]. In addition, virus identification and bacterial colonization was assessed when the children were asymptomatic and at the onset of uncomplicated URIs [1,3,4].

To date, only one external study has examined the relationship between acute bacterial sinusitis and nasopharyngeal microbiota, utilizing culture-based techniques to identify pathogens in upper airways [5]. With the advent of next-generation sequencing, understanding entire community structures may allow us to understand the heterogeneity previously observed.

Here we focus on the sub-population of children with acute bacterial sinusitis and describe and compare the nasopharyngeal microbiota in children with uncomplicated URI and those whose URIs become complicated by the development of sinusitis. We test the hypothesis that specific microbiota communities exist in these children and that these assemblages and their environmental drivers are associated with increased risk of URIs and acute sinusitis. Furthermore, we identified specific bacteria within these microbiota that may influence the occurrence of sinusitis and URI in these children.

Methods

Enrollment and inclusion criteria

Healthy children ages 48–96 months were recruited from February 2012 to February 2013 from two primary care pediatric practices during well-child visits in Madison, WI and followed for one year as previously described [1,3] (S1 Fig). Briefly, children were excluded if they had an underlying condition reported by the parent or noted in the medical record that was likely to alter the natural history of URI, including asthma, congenital or acquired immunodeficiency, craniofacial abnormalities, cystic fibrosis, allergic rhinitis or a history of chronic sinusitis. Children were also excluded if they had plans to move out of the area for the study duration. Demographic information, including maternal education, tobacco exposure, animal exposure, and daycare attendance were ascertained through questionnaires completed by the child’s guardian. Written, informed consent was secured from legal guardians and assent was obtained from children ≥7 years of age. The study was approved by the University of Wisconsin Institutional Review Board. Subjects received a small stipend for participation. Demographic and past medical history information was obtained at the initial study visit.

Power and sample size calculations

To assess the effects of viral presence on progression to acute bacterial sinusitis, the type and number of viruses detected, the season, and the interaction of season and virus present and demographic variables we fit a generalized linear model (GLM) to the URI episode data (1,500 observations on 300 children, 0 = non progressing, 1 = progressing) using child as the main sampling unit and assuming a binomial distribution for the data. The average number of URI episodes per child is typically 5 per year [6]. GLM accounts for the potential correlation among multiple URI episodes in each child. For predictors which take values of yes or no (such as virus type), we calculated that our study had 80% power to detect the difference between the percent of a particular virus type equal to 30% for the acute bacterial sinusitis group and 45% for the control group. We also tested whether rhinovirus is the most common viral URI to predispose to acute bacterial sinusitis using a Chi-squared test for goodness of fit. We calculated that if rhinovirus accounts for 40% of the URIs leading to sinusitis and the second most common leads to 20% or less our study would have 80% power to conclude that rhinovirus is the most common viral antecedent to acute bacterial sinusitis.

Logistic regression was used to assess the effect of bacterial richness, evenness, and diversity, relative abundance of specific important pathogens, presence of sinopathogens, the demographic variables (including age, gender, attendance at daycare, family or personal history of asthma, pets, etc) and season on progression to acute bacterial sinusitis. A term was included to account for the paired structure of the data. For each of the continuous predictors, a difference in the mean values between the acute bacterial sinusitis group and the control group equal to 50% of the variability of that predictor would provide greater than 80% power to find a significant effect of the predictor. For predictors which take values of yes or no (such as presence of a sinopathogen), we calculated that our study would have 80% power to detect the difference between the percent of sinopathogens present equal to 55% for the acute bacterial sinusitis group and 30% for the control group.

Classification of respiratory episodes

Each respiratory episode was classified as either an uncomplicated URI or sinusitis. The diagnosis of sinusitis was based on one of the following clinical criteria: 1) persistent symptoms—nasal discharge or cough or both, that lasted more than 10 days and were not improving (symptom score at 10 days ≥ 50% of highest score), or 2) worsening symptoms—sudden renewal of respiratory symptoms (nasal discharge or cough) or fever after apparent improvement usually beyond the 6th day of illness [7].

Procedures

A flocked swab was placed into the nasopharynx and rotated for 10 seconds. The swab stick was cut off with sterile scissors and the swab placed into sterile DNAase/RNase-free cryovials containing 2 ml of RNALater (Ambion). Samples were collected at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, and stored at 4°C for 24 h to permit preservative to penetrate cells, prior to freezing at −80°C and then shipped in batches on dry ice to the University of California San Francisco for microbiota analysis.

Nasal samples were obtained at entry and during four surveillance visits (February, April, September and December) when children were asymptomatic as verified by the study nurses. Parents were instructed to call the study nurse at the first sign of a URI, which was defined as at least 48 hours of respiratory symptoms including nasal congestion, nasal discharge or cough. Nasal samples were obtained on day 3–4 of illness by the study nurse and a recovery sample was obtained on day 15. An additional nasal sample was obtained approximately on day 10, if and when a child was diagnosed to fulfill criteria for a diagnosis of acute sinusitis. A clinical assessment at the time of the initial visit assured that symptoms reflected infection confined to the upper respiratory tract. A symptom survey was filled out on day 3–4 and subsequently by telephone on days 7, 10 and 15 [8].

Briefly, the survey inquired about the presence of fever, nasal discharge, nasal congestion, cough, headache, irritability, facial pain, facial swelling, activity, sleep and impaired appetite. If a particular symptom was present initially, a score of 2 was assigned. If it was absent the score was 0. If a symptom became more severe, less severe, or stayed the same during the observation period, +1, -1 or 0, respectively, was added to the previous score for each symptom. The respiratory illness was considered resolved if the total score was ≤ 2 (reflecting insignificant residual symptoms).

Sequencing methods

A total of 477 nasopharyngeal swabs, and 10 negative controls (phosphate-buffered saline) were processed for 16S rRNA bacterial community profiling using the AllPrep (Qiagen, CA) protocol [4]. The variable region 4 (V4) region was amplified and quantified using 515F and 806R primers and a previously described protocol [9]. Amplicons were quantified using the Qubit HS dsDNA kit (Invitrogen). Of the 477 samples processed, 103 did not produce sufficient DNA for 16S rRNA amplification (<2ng/uL), resulting in 374 samples with sufficient amplicon to be included on a paired end Illumina NextSeq 500 sequence run performed as previously described [9].

Raw sequences were de-multiplexed and quality-filtered to remove low quality sequences. Sequences with three or more consecutive bases with a Q-score less than 30 were truncated and discarded if their length was less than 75% of the original 150bp read length. Paired-end sequences were merged using FLASH 38 v 1.2.7 and processed to produce an OTU table using USEARCH and Quantitative Insights into Microbial Ecology (QIIME) [10]. Dereplicated sequences were clustered into Operational Taxonomic Units (OTUs) using UPARSE at 97% identity, and chimeras were simultaneously removed. All quality-filtered reads were mapped back to the OTU sequences at 97% identity using UCLUST [11]. A phylogenetic tree was constructed using sequences that aligned using PYNAST [12], and any OTUs that failed to align were removed. Taxonomy was assigned using assign_taxonomy.py and the GreenGenes database (May 2013) [13].

OTUs possessing a number of reads that were less than 0.001% of the total reads were removed. OTUs present in at least half of the negative controls were removed from the dataset; among the Negative Control OTUs that remained, the maximum number of reads from each OTU in the negative controls was subtracted from all samples, and any resulting negative numbers (indicating fewer reads in the sample than in the negative control) were replaced by zeroes. Alpha rarefaction curves of observed species and phylogenetic diversity assisted in determining three candidate sequence read depths. For each candidate rarefying depth, the OTU table was multiply-rarefied, a process in which 100 OTU tables of the chosen rarefying depth are generated, and the sample profile located at the center of a Euclidean distance matrix for each sample was considered to be the representative profile [9]. The three candidate rarefying depths were then compared using Procrustes (transform_coordiate_matrices.py) in QIIME. Rarefying the dataset at 37,692 reads per sample resulted in 354 high-quality microbiota profiles available for analysis.

The University of Wisconsin provided de-identified patient and sample-specific data for microbiota analyses upon completion of 16S rRNA profiling by the University of California San Francisco (UCSF). Patients provided between 1 and 21 samples with a high-quality microbiota profile, with a median of 5 samples per participant. Raw sequence reads are publicly available at the European Nucleotide Archive under PRJEB35160. De-identified patient data, analysis datasets, and code are available from: https://github.com/lynchlab-ucsf/SinusitisMicrobiome.

Virus identification

Viral identification was performed on nasal samples by multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR; Respiratory Multicode Assay [EraGen Biosciences] or Respiratory Viral Panel [Luminex]) to test for the following viruses: respiratory syncytial virus (RSV; groups A and B), rhinovirus (RV; approximately 160 known types), parainfluenza (1, 2, 3, 4a and 4b), influenza (A, B and C), adenovirus (B, C and E), coronavirus (229E, NL63, OC43, HK, and severe acute respiratory syndrome), enterovirus, human bocavirus, and human metapneumovirus (A and B). Nasal specimens were also analyzed by means of partial sequencing to determine which RV types were present and differentiate closely related enterovirus from RV [14]. Resulting data was summarized by summing the total number of viruses present within each sample.

Participant metadata

Participant demographics and early life exposures were ascertained through questionnaires taken at entry into the study, which included questions about self-reported race (Native American or Alaskan Native, Asian, Black or African American, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, White or Caucasian, Unknown or Unreported, Other). Mixed-race participants could identify as other and were not excluded from the study. Season was defined by the date of study visit/sample collection, in which dates were aggregated into months; December, January and February were classified as Winter; March, April and May were defined as Spring; June, July and August were considered Summer, and September, October and November were defined as Fall. Tobacco exposure was ascertained through a question regarding second-hand exposure: “Is your child exposed to tobacco smoking where he/she lives?”. Daycare attendance was obtained by asking “Does your child attend daycare/school for at least 10 hours a week?”

Statistical analyses

Statistical analyses were performed using R v 3.6.2 and Quantitative Insights Into Microbial Ecology (QIIME) v1.9.1 [10]. Alpha diversity values (Chao1, Pielou’s Evenness, Faith’s Phylogenetic Diversity) and beta diversity distance matrices (Bray Curtis, Weighted UniFrac, Canberra, and Unweighted UniFrac) were generated in QIIME. Relationships between bacterial diversity and clinical, environmental or viral factors were assessed using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) (geepack) [15]. For analyses of beta diversity, two approaches were used. The first utilized the first principal coordinate as the dependent variable. The other applied a bootstrapped method for analyses in order to understand the proportion of variance explained by variables of interest. This second method randomly sampled independent samples 500 times, followed by PERMANOVA (vegan, R) [16]. The results from each of the 500 iterations were aggregated to generate a range of R2 and P values, and the mean of both are reported.

Dominant genus was calculated based on the genus with the greatest number of reads in each sample and genus-level proportions were obtained using summarize_taxa.py in QIIME v 1.9.1. Less frequently observed dominant genera (detected in ≤10 samples) were classified as “Other”. Community structures were evaluated using hierarchical clustering for all distance matrices. An average silhouette statistic from the silhouette package in R was used to test for goodness-of-fit of between 2 and 18 clusters, and the number of clusters with the highest silhouette statistic was chosen. Relationships between these clusters and clinical, viral, and microbiological variables were assessed using GEE with cluster category (Cluster “X” vs all other clusters) as the dependent variable.

Differential taxa were identified using a multi-model approach in which linear, Poisson, negative binomial, Tweedie, and zero-inflated negative binomial mixed effects models were applied. The Akaike Information Criterion determined the model that best fit the distribution of data for each OTU. For the “winning” model, the estimate and p-value are reported. These models were built using the glmmTMB package in R, and the script is publicly available on github: lynchlab-ucsf/lab-code/SigTaxa/ManyModelScript.R.

Results

Environmental and demographic factors are associated with nasopharyngeal microbiota composition

Subjects in this study were primarily male, white, non-Hispanic, and possessed at least some college education (Table 1). A total of 354 longitudinally-collected nasopharyngeal samples produced a high-quality 16S rRNA bacterial profile from 58 initially-healthy subjects aged 4–7 years old. Approximately 40% of samples with a high-quality microbiota profile were obtained during periods of health (n = 141), 98 (28%) were obtained during acute URI episodes. A total of 524 taxa were identified; samples dominated by Moraxella were most frequently observed (175 of 354 samples, or 49%), followed by Alloiococcus (58, 16%), Haemophilus (36, 10%), Corynebacterium (34, 10%), Staphylococcus (18, 5%), and Streptococcus (17, 5%), reflecting frequently observed dominant genera in the upper respiratory tract.

Table 1. Demographics of subjects participating in the study.

Age range (years) 4–6.6
Gender—female (%) 43
Race (%)
    American Indian or Alaska Native 1.6
    Asian 3.2
    Black or African-American 9.8
    White or Caucasian 78.7
    Other 6.6
Ethnicity (%)
    Hispanic 6.6
    Non- Hispanic 93.4
Maternal Education Level (%)
    Grade School 1.6
    High School 4.9
    Vocational/Technical 1.6
    Some College 18.0
    College Degree 41.0
    Graduate/Professional 32.8

Leveraging data generated from repeated measures, we examined factors that explained variance in the composition of the nasopharyngeal microbiota using the first principal coordinate of Canberra and Weighted UniFrac distance matrices with generalized estimating equations (GEE). Under a Canberra distance matrix, several factors related to community composition, including dominant genus (P<0.001), race (P<0.001), and visit type (P<0.001). A Weighted UniFrac related to fewer variables, though of note, season remained significant after multiple comparisons (Table 2). Several environmental exposures previously linked with protection against or development of airway disease in childhood, including dog exposure [17], daycare attendance [18] and tobacco exposure [19] were significant before but not after multiple comparisons testing.

Table 2. Microbiological, clinical and viral factors associated with principal coordinate 1 of a Canberra and Weighted UniFrac distance matrix.

  Canberra Weighted UniFrac
Variable P-value FDR P-value P-value FDR P-value
Dominant Genus <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
Race <0.001 <0.001 0.006 0.045
Visit Type <0.001 0.004 0.033 0.172
Study Outcome Group 0.018 0.055 0.054 0.203
Dog at Home 0.037 0.106 0.683 0.838
Daycare Attendance 0.046 0.121 0.034 0.178
Tobacco Exposure 0.05 0.124 0.049 0.22
Season 0.968 0.979 0.006 0.045

To identify factors explaining the greatest proportion of variance in nasopharyngeal microbiota composition, we also employed a resampled PERMANOVA approach, described in further detail in the methods section. Briefly, we subsampled one sample per participant, performed PERMANVOA, and repeated this process 500 times to obtain an average R2 and P-value. Using this method, most variables identified in the principal coordinate analysis remained significant, with dominant genus explaining the greatest proportion of variance in microbiota composition (R2 = 0.142, P = 0.001; Canberra, Table 3). These findings were also largely significant when a Weighted UniFrac distance matrix was used, indicating that these environmental factors may influence the types of bacteria that dominate these communities.

Table 3. Environmental, clinical, viral, and microbiological factors are associated with variance in bacterial community composition using a bootstrapped approach for repeated measures.

Canberraa Weighted UniFraca
Variable R2 P-value R2 P-value
Dominant Genus 0.142 0.001 0.823 0.001
Dominant Family 0.120 0.001 0.814 0.001
Study Outcome Group 0.101 0.003 0.144 0.059
Maternal Education 0.096 0.024 0.098 0.321
Visit Type 0.085 0.003 0.227 0.001
Race 0.083 0.001 0.054 0.669
Viral Detection 0.022 0.024 0.059 0.022

aA single sample per individual is used to calculate PERMANOVA R2 and p-values, repeating this process 500 times; the resulting mean R2 and p-values are presented here.

Compositionally distinct nasopharyngeal microbiota relates to URI and sinusitis

Because dominant bacterial genus explained a large proportion of variance, we postulated that compositionally and structurally distinct mucosal microbiota in the nasopharynx of these children and related to outcomes (i.e., uncomplicated URI or sinusitis). Using unsupervised hierarchical clustering, we identified four nasopharyngeal microbiota structures that differed significantly in bacterial composition (ANOVA; LME; p<0.001; Fig 1A). The selection of four clusters was supported by a comparison of average silhouette statistics (Fig 1B), where larger values represent greater separation between clusters. These compositionally distinct nasopharyngeal microbiota were characterized by being either Moraxella-dominated with sparse underlying taxonomy (Cluster I; n = 150); relatively diverse (Cluster II; n = 122); Alloiococcus/Corynebacterium co-dominated (Cluster III; n = 65); or Haemophilus-dominated (Cluster IV; n = 17; Fig 1C). Cluster II was significantly richer (Fig 2A), less dominated (Fig 2B), and more diverse (Fig 2C) compared to all other clusters, with enrichments of several underlying genera (S2 Fig).

Fig 1. Compositionally distinct nasopharyngeal microbiota are evident in longitudinally collected pediatric samples.

Fig 1

A. Four distinct microbiota assemblages are evident in nasopharyngeal samples of pediatric subjects [ANOVA(LME) P < 0.001, Canberra]. B. Average silhouette statistic supports the observation that a four-cluster solution best fits the model (greatest average silhouette statistic). C. Stacked bar plot of taxa from each cluster indicates that distinct bacterial distributions dominate each of the four nasopharyngeal microbiota. Each box represents a unique taxon within the cluster. Colors represent the genus-level identity of the taxon; white indicates lower frequency taxa.

Fig 2. Community structure is significantly different in nasopharyngeal microbiota.

Fig 2

Clusters are differentiated by A. richness, B. evenness and C. phylogenetic diversity, with cluster II exhibiting the greatest diversity across all three measures.

Generalized estimating equations were used to determine whether between-cluster differences in clinical outcomes, virus detection, and participant-level (environmental and demographic) characteristics existed. Cluster I was associated with an increased risk for both sinusitis (RR = 1.25, P = 0.009; Table 3) and URI (RR = 1.18, P = 0.046), while Cluster II trended towards decreased risk of sinusitis (RR = 0.817; p = 0.08). Cluster II also exhibited a decrease in illness samples compared to all other clusters (RR = 0.847 P = 0.008), while Cluster IV was associated with a greater frequency of illness samples (RR = 1.056, P = 0.014). Cluster IV microbiota (n = 17) was also associated with reduced detection of RV-B and multiple RV (compared to samples with no virus; P = 0.001 for both) suggesting the increased illnesses observed in children with this nasopharyngeal microbiota were less frequently accompanied by RV infection. Nasopharyngeal microbiota also exhibited seasonal variation, with Cluster III more frequently detected in Fall and Summer and Cluster IV more prevalent in Spring and Winter (Table 4).

Table 4. Microbiological, viral and clinical factors are differentially associated with microbiota assemblages.

  Cluster I Cluster II Cluster III Cluster IV
  n = 150 n = 122 n = 65 n = 17
  RR P-value RR P-value RR P-value RR P-value
Clinical Outcomes
Study Outcome Group
Healthy (n = 31) Reference Reference Reference Reference
Sinusitis (n = 143) 1.245 0.009 0.817 0.085 0.968 0.728 1.004 0.91
URI (n = 180) 1.18 0.046 0.839 0.153 0.971 0.757 1.03 0.411
Visit Type
Surveillance/Entry (n = 141) Reference Reference Reference Reference
Sick (30 days; n = 8) 0.753 0.036 1.242 0.226 1.123 0.46 0.971 0.012
Sick (Acute; n = 98) 1.103 0.162 0.818 0.001 1.053 0.363 1.043 0.081
Sick (Acute—Sinusitis; n = 15) 1.143 0.355 0.93 0.621 0.884 0.095 1.052 0.443
Sick (Recovery; n = 79) 0.943 0.347 1.014 0.833 1.002 0.974 1.032 0.25
Sick (2nd Sinusitis; n = 13) 1.222 0.179 0.782 0.028 0.846 <0.001 1.235 0.075
Visit Type (Simple)
Surveillance/Entry (n = 141) Reference Reference Reference Reference
Sick (n = 134) 1.094 0.194 0.847 0.008 1.014 0.769 1.056 0.014
Recovery (n = 79) 0.941 0.336 1.016 0.802 0.999 0.981 1.033 0.25
Viral Outcomes
Viral Detection
No (n = 165) Reference Reference Reference Reference
Yes (n = 189) 1.081 0.156 0.93 0.141 1.001 0.982 0.999 0.956
Total Viruses in Sample 1.06 0.259 0.923 0.046 0.995 0.871 1.035 0.197
HRV Type
None (n = 225) Reference Reference Reference Reference
HRV-A (n = 61) 1.077 0.252 0.891 0.047 1.013 0.844 1.037 0.336
HRV-B (n = 14) 1.175 0.284 0.837 0.113 1.1 0.445 0.952 0.001
HRV-C (n = 49) 1.089 0.313 0.982 0.814 0.964 0.525 0.972 0.308
HRV-M (n = 5) 0.856 0.39 1.223 0.41 0.987 0.951 0.949 0.001
Participant Characteristics
Season
Fall (n = 98) Reference Reference Reference Reference
Winter (n = 126) 1.027 0.718 1.032 0.649 0.891 0.038 1.057 0.005
Spring (n = 95) 0.95 0.475 1.078 0.363 0.889 0.021 1.1 0.002
  Summer (n = 35) 1.031 0.722 0.967 0.711 0.975 0.705 1.029 0.264

Models are generalized estimating equations with an exchangeable correlation structure, and Participant ID as the random effect.

We additionally noted that about 75% (n = 110) of Cluster I samples were dominated by Moraxella, as were 50% (n = 56) of Cluster II samples. When focusing on Moraxella-dominated communities, clusters I and II exhibited consistently opposing, though non-significant, relationships with the study outcome group (Healthy vs. Sinusitis. vs. URI). Moraxella dominated communities from Cluster I were slightly more likely to be related to URI (RR = 1.22, P = 0.16) and Sinusitis (RR = 1.2, P = 0.22), while communities from Cluster II were slightly less likely to be related to both outcomes (URI RR = 0.86, P = 0.21; Sinusitis RR = 0.87, P = 0.21), suggesting that the direction of effect is not driven solely by samples not dominated by Moraxella.

Longitudinal patterns of nasopharyngeal microbiota colonization

These nasopharyngeal microbiota profiles were then examined for their variability over time throughout the study period and with co-occurring rhinovirus infection (Fig 3). Of note, few children maintained the same nasopharyngeal profile throughout the study, highlighting the heterogeneity over the course of the year-long study period for these children, especially those developing sinusitis.

Fig 3. Temporal dynamics of nasopharyngeal microbiota during health and upper respiratory illness.

Fig 3

Distances were re-ordinated for each person, and the proportion of variance explained by PC1 for each individual is displayed in the participant header. Data for individual participants is presented if they provided four or more samples over the course of the study. Letters represent the type of rhinovirus infection, if any. The four colors indicate the nasopharyngeal clusters identified, and the shape of the point denotes the detailed visit type in which the sample was obtained. Abbreviations (PC: Principal Coordinate; A: Rhinovirus A; B: Rhinovirus B; C: Rhinovirus C; M: Mixed Rhinovirus).

Several taxa are depleted in children who develop URI and sinusitis

We next identified taxa detected over the sampling period that related to URI and Sinusitis outcomes. Children who developed URI or Sinusitis outcomes were consistently depleted of several bacterial taxa, including Prevotella, Acetobacteraceae, and Chryseobacterium (FDR P < 0.05; following adjustment for covariates previously identified: maternal education, tobacco exposure, season, and daycare attendance; Fig 4), while a single Moraxella taxon (OTU 1990) was significantly enriched in children who subsequently developed URI. This suggests that several bacterial taxa are present and abundant across the study period in children who do not go on to develop upper respiratory infection or sinusitis. This corroborates the findings identified through cluster analysis, in which communities enriched in underlying taxa were associated with protection against Sinusitis and URI events.

Fig 4. Several taxa are relatively depleted in the nasopharyngeal microbiota of children who develop Upper Respiratory Infection (URI) and Sinusitis, while a specific Moraxella taxon (OTU 1990) is relatively enriched in children who go on to develop URI, but not Sinusitis.

Fig 4

Children who did not develop either URI or sinusitis are used as the comparison group. Red represents differential taxa in Sinusitis outcomes, while blue represents those taxa differential in URI outcomes (FDR p<0.05). Abbreviations: Upper Respiratory Infection (URI); Operational Taxonomic Unit (OTU); False Discovery Rate (FDR).

Discussion

This study provides important insights into the microbial environment associated with the development of URI and acute sinusitis. Specifically, children having a Moraxella-dominated nasopharyngeal microbiota are at increased risk of URI or sinusitis. In baseline samples two Moraxella taxa were enriched in children who went on to develop sinusitis, while specific members of Haemophilus, Staphylococcus and Streptococcus were more abundant in children who did not go on to develop an upper respiratory infection. A previous study of the nasopharyngeal microbiota from this cohort, using a phylogenetic microarray, focused exclusively on initial samples collected from each subject. It determined that a history of sinusitis was associated with a significantly altered nasopharyngeal microbiota and enrichment of Moraxella nonliquefaciens, which also co-associated with subsequent development of sinusitis [4]. This report builds on our previous study by using 16S rRNA sequencing and longitudinally collected nasopharyngeal samples to define the characteristics of upper respiratory microbiota over the course of a year-long sampling period. The data reported in this study further supports earlier findings that a nasopharyngeal microbiota containing a broader range of bacterial phylogeny promotes protection against respiratory events in these children.

We related several variables to nasopharyngeal composition. While environmental exposures such as maternal education associated with variance in microbiota composition, the variance explained was relatively small, suggesting that a broad range of exogenous exposures exert small effects on established upper airway microbiota.

In contrast, the dominant bacterial genus explained a large proportion of the compositional variance of the microbiota, suggesting that microbe-host interactions, particularly in perturbed nasopharyngeal microbiomes, may represent the most important influence shaping composition, activities and interactions with the airway mucosa. This is consistent with recent findings in the gastrointestinal tract demonstrating that the established niche-specific endogenous microbiome governs colonization capacity of exogenous microbes [20] and suggests that pathogenic microbiomes may competitively exclude other species from the niche.

Cluster I microbiota, dominated primarily by Moraxella, exhibited lower microbiological richness and diversity, and associated with increased risk of sinusitis and URI. Moraxella, and more specifically Moraxella catarrhalis, is a common upper respiratory pathogen encoding a range of virulence factors that promote epithelial destruction and adherence [2124]. Cluster II, characterized by a diverse underlying microbiota composition, associated with protection against sinusitis and URI despite a proportion of these samples being dominated by Moraxella. This supports a recent finding from an independent pediatric cohort identifying a protective effect of Moraxella-dominated microbiota; in those cases microbiota richness was also higher [25]. There are several explanations for this; Moraxella in Clusters I and II could represent distinct strains, with cluster I strains possessing a larger repertoire of virulence factors. An alternative possibility is that genetically similar Moraxella strains exist in Clusters I and II, but that interactions with distinct underlying microbiota members (or relative lack thereof) influence Moraxella burden and behavior. This is highlighted by the finding that several taxa were enriched in children who did not progress to URI or Sinusitis. This suggests that underlying nasopharyngeal microbiota play a critical role in airway pathogenesis and downstream sequalae. This second possibility has clinical implications and suggests that antimicrobial treatment, which is known to acutely deplete bacterial diversity in the upper respiratory tract [26], may enhance Moraxella pathogenicity in the nasopharynx and increase susceptibility to subsequent clinical respiratory events.

These findings are not without limitations. First, this study is primarily generalizable to populations very similar to Madison, WI, and may not be generalizable to climates with different seasonal variation, or children from more diverse populations. In addition, this study identified several potential confounders, and studies with larger sample sizes may elucidate these findings further. We also note that the available bacterial profiles across the year varied from person to person, and having more complete data could have allowed for a refined analysis.

Distinct microbiota exist in the nasopharynx and relate to risk of URI and sinusitis events. Nasopharyngeal microbiota dominated by Moraxella are associated with respiratory events. However, simply detecting Moraxella may be insufficient to predict these outcomes since this relationship appears dependent on the underlying composition of the microbiota. Thus, studies examining bacterial strain level-genomic differentials coupled with an examination of nasopharyngeal microbiota function in the context of respiratory outcomes is necessary to fully elucidate how the airway microbiome modulates respiratory health. Such studies would facilitate precision microbiome manipulation strategies to mitigate the development of sinusitis in susceptible pediatric populations.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Graphic describing the study design and sample collection scheme, in which children were followed for one year for development of upper respiratory infection or sinusitis and quarterly well-visit samples were collected.

(TIF)

S2 Fig. Heatmap of nasopharyngeal clusters.

Taxa were agglomerated at the genus level, and abundances were log-transformed. The top 30 genera are presented in the heatmap.

(TIF)

Data Availability

Raw sequence reads are publicly available at the European Nucleotide Archive under PRJEB35160. De-identified patient data and the final analysis OTU table are available from: https://github.com/lynchlab-ucsf/SinusitisMicrobiome.

Funding Statement

This work was funded by NIH R01 AI097172: “Sinusitis in Children and the Nasopharyngeal Microbiome”.

References

  • 1.DeMuri GP, Gern JE, Moyer SC, Lindstrom MJ, Lynch SV, Wald ER. Clinical Features, Virus Identification, and Sinusitis as a Complication of Upper Respiratory Tract Illness in Children Ages 4–7 Years. The Journal of Pediatrics 2016;171:133–139.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2015.12.034 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Anand VK. Epidemiology and economic impact of rhinosinusitis. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 2004;193:3–5. doi: 10.1177/00034894041130s502 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.DeMuri GP, Gern JE, Eickhoff JC, Lynch SV, Wald ER. Dynamics of Bacterial Colonization With Streptococcus pneumoniae, Haemophilus influenzae, and Moraxella catarrhalis During Symptomatic and Asymptomatic Viral Upper Respiratory Tract Infection. Clin Infect Dis 2018;66:1045–53. doi: 10.1093/cid/cix941 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Santee CA, Nagalingam NA, Faruqi AA, DeMuri GP, Gern JE, Wald ER, et al. Nasopharyngeal microbiota composition of children is related to the frequency of upper respiratory infection and acute sinusitis. Microbiome 2016;4:34. doi: 10.1186/s40168-016-0179-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Marom T, Alvarez-Fernandez PE, Jennings K, Patel JA, McCormick DP, Chonmaitree T. Acute bacterial sinusitis complicating viral upper respiratory tract infection in young children. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2014;33:803–8. doi: 10.1097/INF.0000000000000278 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Dingle JH, Badger GF, Jordan WS. Illness in the Home. A Study of 25,000 Illnesses in a Group of Cleveland Families. Illness in the Home A Study of 25,000 Illnesses in a Group of Cleveland Families 1964. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Wald ER, Applegate KE, Bordley C, Darrow DH, Glode MP, Marcy SM, et al. Clinical practice guideline for the diagnosis and management of acute bacterial sinusitis in children aged 1 to 18 years. Pediatrics 2013;132:e262–280. doi: 10.1542/peds.2013-1071 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Wald ER, Nash D, Eickhoff J. Effectiveness of Amoxicillin/Clavulanate Potassium in the Treatment of Acute Bacterial Sinusitis in Children. Pediatrics 2009;124:9–15. doi: 10.1542/peds.2008-2902 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Fujimura KE, Sitarik AR, Havstad S, Lin DL, Levan S, Fadrosh D, et al. Neonatal gut microbiota associates with childhood multisensitized atopy and T cell differentiation. Nat Med 2016;22:1187–91. doi: 10.1038/nm.4176 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Caporaso JG, Kuczynski J, Stombaugh J, Bittinger K, Bushman FD, Costello EK, et al. QIIME allows analysis of high-throughput community sequencing data. Nat Methods 2010;7:335–6. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.f.303 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Edgar RC. Search and clustering orders of magnitude faster than BLAST. Bioinformatics 2010;26:2460–1. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btq461 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Caporaso JG, Bittinger K, Bushman FD, DeSantis TZ, Andersen GL, Knight R. PyNAST: a flexible tool for aligning sequences to a template alignment. Bioinformatics 2010;26:266–7. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btp636 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.DeSantis TZ, Hugenholtz P, Larsen N, Rojas M, Brodie EL, Keller K, et al. Greengenes, a chimera-checked 16S rRNA gene database and workbench compatible with ARB. Appl Environ Microbiol 2006;72:5069–72. doi: 10.1128/AEM.03006-05 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Bochkov YA, Grindle K, Vang F, Evans MD, Gern JE. Improved Molecular Typing Assay for Rhinovirus Species A, B, and C. J Clin Microbiol 2014;52:2461–71. doi: 10.1128/JCM.00075-14 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Højsgaard S, Halekoh U, Yan J. The R Package geepack for Generalized Estimating Equations. Journal of Statistical Software 2005;15:1–11. 10.18637/jss.v015.i02. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Oksanen J, Blanchet G, Friendly M, Kindt R, Legendre P, McGlinn D, et al. vegan: Community Ecology Package. 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Havstad S, Wegienka G, Zoratti EM, Lynch SV, Boushey HA, Nicholas C, et al. Effect of prenatal indoor pet exposure on the trajectory of total IgE levels in early childhood. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2011;128:880–885.e4. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2011.06.039 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Swartz A, Collier T, Young CA, Cruz E, Bekmezian A, Coffman J, et al. The effect of early child care attendance on childhood asthma and wheezing: A meta-analysis. J Asthma 2019;56:252–62. doi: 10.1080/02770903.2018.1445268 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Zhuge Y, Qian H, Zheng X, Huang C, Zhang Y, Li B, et al. Effects of parental smoking and indoor tobacco smoke exposure on respiratory outcomes in children. Sci Rep 2020;10:4311. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-60700-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Zmora N, Zilberman-Schapira G, Suez J, Mor U, Dori-Bachash M, Bashiardes S, et al. Personalized Gut Mucosal Colonization Resistance to Empiric Probiotics Is Associated with Unique Host and Microbiome Features. Cell 2018;174:1388–1405.e21. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2018.08.041 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Bashir H, Grindle K, Vrtis R, Vang F, Kang T, Salazar L, et al. Association of rhinovirus species with common cold and asthma symptoms and bacterial pathogens. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology 2018;141:822–824.e9. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2017.09.027 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Kloepfer KM, Lee WM, Pappas TE, Kang T, Vrtis RF, Evans MD, et al. Detection of Pathogenic Bacteria During Rhinovirus Infection is Associated with Increased Respiratory Symptoms and Exacerbations of Asthma. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2014;133:1301–1307.e3. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2014.02.030 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Perez Vidakovics ML, Riesbeck K. Virulence mechanisms of Moraxella in the pathogenesis of infection. Curr Opin Infect Dis 2009;22:279–85. doi: 10.1097/qco.0b013e3283298e4e [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Teo SM, Mok D, Pham K, Kusel M, Serralha M, Troy N, et al. The Infant Nasopharyngeal Microbiome Impacts Severity of Lower Respiratory Infection and Risk of Asthma Development. Cell Host & Microbe 2015;17:704–15. doi: 10.1016/j.chom.2015.03.008 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Luna PN, Hasegawa K, Ajami NJ, Espinola JA, Henke DM, Petrosino JF, et al. The association between anterior nares and nasopharyngeal microbiota in infants hospitalized for bronchiolitis. Microbiome 2018;6:2. doi: 10.1186/s40168-017-0385-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Merkley MA, Bice TC, Grier A, Strohl AM, Man L-X, Gill SR. The effect of antibiotics on the microbiome in acute exacerbations of chronic rhinosinusitis. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol 2015;5:884–93. doi: 10.1002/alr.21591 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Aran Singanayagam

24 May 2021

PONE-D-21-07837

Moraxella-dominated Pediatric Nasopharyngeal Microbiota Associate with Upper Respiratory Infection and Sinusitis

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Lynch,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

The reviewers raise a number of points that require consideration, particularly those related to methodological aspects. 

​Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 08 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Aran Singanayagam

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1) Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2)  You indicated that you had ethical approval for your study. In your Methods section, please ensure you have also stated whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians of the minors included in the study or whether the research ethics committee or IRB specifically waived the need for their consent.

3) In your Methods section, please provide additional information about the participant recruitment method and the demographic details of your participants. Please ensure you have provided sufficient details to replicate the analyses such as: a) the recruitment date range (month and year), b) a table of relevant demographic details, c) a description of how participants were recruited, and d) descriptions of where participants were recruited and where the research took place.

4) Please provide a sample size and power calculation in the Methods, or discuss the reasons for not performing one before study initiation.

5) Please ensure you have discussed any potential limitations of your study in the Discussion, including study design, sample size and/or potential confounders.

6) PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

7) Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

8) We note that you have a patent relating to material pertinent to this article. Please provide an amended statement of Competing Interests to declare this patent (with details including name and number), along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development or modified products etc. Please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials, as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to  PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” If there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Minor comments:

1. The authors mention in the methods part that they include negative controls. However, they don't mention what these controls actually were and how were they collected.

2. It is not clear if the authors performed 16S rRNA gene qPCR on the samples (no methods part) and thereby used the term "copy numbers" ? If not copy number cannot be used as equivalent for reads.

3. Line 130-131: "103 did not produce sufficient DNA for 16S rRNA amplification or failed to produce an amplicon", how was this checked and what is the threshold ?

4. Line 180-181: Please explain what dominant genera here means ? If the authors are talking about frequency of presence that would be prevalence. Dominance would be defined as the most abundant taxa in a sample.

5. The table in the PDF is not properly visible and poorly presented.

Major comments:

1. Please submit a proper script with instructions, metadata table on the GitHub page mentioned in the manuscript. The authors may also use Zenodo. It is evident that the authors used QIIME but compiling the script with modifications to native scripts, if any would be a great addition. The authors do provide them in the Data availability section but please add it to methods at relevant places or cite the GitHub page.

2. Why Canberra distance ? Why not Bray-Curtis? Compositional data has two inherent factors that contribute to the ecosystem. 1. Presence / Absence of a species 2. Abundance of a species. BC distance is most common since it combines both of these metrics. Having said this, if the authors still wish to use this metric then please explain the rationale behind it?

3. If the authors have indeed performed 16S rRNA copy number with qPCR on all samples, please provide a histogram plot showing the range of copy numbers by samples.

4. The starting of the results should include general characteristics of the nasopharyngeal microbiota in terms how many OTUs were obtained and how many genera. May be adding a stacked bar plot with time.

5. Metadata parameters:

The authors do not explain the rationale behind the metadata and how they are collected. Please provide more details in the methods. Some of these metadata do not seem to have any relationship or strong hypothesis. If this was intended then is a fundamental flaws in study design to introduce certain factors that the authors cannot check for with such a small sample size. Having metadata doesn't mean that it should used for PERMANOVA, if it cannot explain the data well.

M. catarrhalis Copy Number (log) - was this calculated by qPCR ? If not the authors cannot single out one species. The clusters containing this bacteria differentiate by the applied statistics. Hence, this is unnecessary and provides no extra information than the M. catarrhalis dominated cluster.

Dominant Genus - Not sure what this means, please explain.

H. influenzae Copy Number (log) - Same issue as above.

S. pneumoniae Copy Number (log) - Same issue as above

Season - how is this defined here ? Precisely which time of the year is it and how far apart are the samplings througout one season ?

Daycare Attendance - Is it just attendance ? yes or no but at what time and how was this factor controlled for?

Tobacco Exposure - Again what does actually mean ? Passive smoking ? or any oral tobacco? How can the authors control for this ?

Study Sub-Group - Its either the same as the groups below, i.e. Healthy vs Sick or the other sub-groups. Again a nested factor and I am not sure if this is actually necessary as all will say practically the same thing.

Health vs Sick Individuals - This is a more generalised description and a nested factor for the below mentioned sub-groups.

Surveillance vs. Sick vs. Recovery Sample Sinusitis vs. Non-Sinusitis Sample Number of Surveillance Visits

Visit Type - same issue as above

Mother's Age - what is the relationship with 16S data ?

Mother's Education - This is absurd! Please explain what do the author's mean by this ?

Other Children - Not sure what this means ?

Total Virus Types in Sample - What metric is used for this ?

Child Shares a Room - How does this matter when children can interaction outside the room as well. Is this factor controlled ?

Race - Do the authors imply that they exclude mixed race children from the study ? How do the authors define race ? Was there any genetic test done or this was just word of mouth ? Race-based analyses of microbiota do exist but this study doesn't have enough statistical power in terms of sample numbers to really test this.

Size of Household - Not a relevant factor.

Dog at Home - What is the hypothesis ?

Dog at School - What is the hypothesis ?

Cat at Home - What is the hypothesis ?

Cat at School - What is the hypothesis ?

Ethnicity - Same problem with race. What has ethinicity to do with any of the biological questions ? How does one judge ethnicity? Is there enough sample size to explore this ?

6. The authors mentioned the usage of UniFrac distance for first result (line 198-200). UniFrac is phylogenetic distance-based metric, which requires a phylogenetic tree. However, the authors do not mention in the methods as to how they made the tree.

7. Why use UniFrac for the first result but Canberra distance for the clustering ? What is the rationale here?

8. Line 202: What do the authors mean by " based on species-specific copy number" ? This relates to my concern raised in Point number 5.

9. Please add plot showing change in dynamics over time.

10. Why do the authors use faith's diversity for the plot when they have weighted UniFrac ?

11. Figure 3 is unreadable and if its coming out of a DESeq2 analysis, please provide volcano plots instead.

12. Line 275-280: The authors explain the phenomenon here but unfortunately this is not visible in a plot or graph of some sort. Please make it easier for the reader.

13. The authors use DESeq2 but didn't mention the model formula used ? What were the factors used ? The authors do mention in the figure that the factors are healthy vs disease but please mention this in the methods. Please also mention if the model used was a one-factorial or two-factorial design i.e. Time being another factor here.

14. Continuing with the previous point, the authors do not take sufficient advantage of the longitudinal data they have. Neither do they show movement of the clusters over time nor do they perform differential taxa analysis over time.

15. If this study goes on to claim anything the analysis has to be rock solid and it isn't now. One way to improve quality is to use DADA2 based filtering before OTU assignment and classification. The authors can use this or provide an argument against it.

Reviewer #2: This study is focused on understanding the longitudinal change in nasopharyngeal microbiota of children and its association with development of upper respiratory tract infections (URI) or sinusitits. The same group has previous published an observational study and proved that children with Moraxella dominated microbiota are at high risk of infection. The novelty of this study is here the samples were collected from healthy children and they are followed up for a period of 3 years and samples were collected periodically. This study also revealed the association of Moraxella at baseline with URI infection on subsequent visits. The study is well planned and appropriate analyses were performed. The following queries are need to be clarified.

1. Are the children are healthy controls or they visited the pediatric centre for other health problems like fever, diahorrea, etc., In case, if they are healthy, what is the purpose of their visit to pediatric centre? Are they invited specifically for this study?

2. A figure describing the timeline of sample collection and methodology will enable easy understanding of the longitudinal sample collection.

3. For viral identification, a panel of viruses were detected by multiplex PCR. The list includes both DNA and RNA viruses. Does RNA isolation and cDNA construction is performed for detecting RNA viruses? Clarify

4. In methods, under sub-heading – procedures, it is mentioned nasal samples were obtained. The authors should elaborate how nasal samples are collected?

5. Though the authors studied the presence of differet viruses by multiplex PCR, the results are not correlated with the bacterial composition. It will be interesting to find any association between a specific viral type and a dominant bacteria.

6. Table 3 is not fully visible. Footnotes onbrief details of statistical analysis can be added under the tables.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Ganesan Velmurugan

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Dec 28;16(12):e0261179. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0261179.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


5 Nov 2021

Reviewer #1: Minor comments:

1. The authors mention in the methods part that they include negative controls. However, they don't mention what these controls actually were and how were they collected.

We thank you for this comment. The negative controls were phosphate-buffered saline and underwent the same technical processing as samples. These negative controls were then used, as described in the methods, to remove technical background contamination from samples.

2. It is not clear if the authors performed 16S rRNA gene qPCR on the samples (no methods part) and thereby used the term "copy numbers" ? If not copy number cannot be used as equivalent for reads.

Given our agreement that inclusion of qPCR values do not add to the overall results, we have removed the qPCR findings and all description of those calculations.

3. Line 130-131: "103 did not produce sufficient DNA for 16S rRNA amplification or failed to produce an amplicon", how was this checked and what is the threshold ?

We use the Qubit HS dsDNA kit from Invitrogen, and we aim for more than 2 ng/uL. This information has been added to the methods.

4. Line 180-181: Please explain what dominant genera here means ? If the authors are talking about frequency of presence that would be prevalence. Dominance would be defined as the most abundant taxa in a sample.

We thank the reviewer for this comment and have clarified the definition of dominant genus accordingly.

5. The table in the PDF is not properly visible and poorly presented.

We apologize for the lack of clarity of Table 3. We were following the guidance for tables where it states “Do not split your table or otherwise try to make the table appear within the manuscript margins if it does not fit on one page. In Word, tables that run off of the manuscript page can be seen using Draft View”. (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/tables). The table has undergone edits to improve clarity.

Major comments:

1. Please submit a proper script with instructions, metadata table on the GitHub page mentioned in the manuscript. The authors may also use Zenodo. It is evident that the authors used QIIME but compiling the script with modifications to native scripts, if any would be a great addition. The authors do provide them in the Data availability section but please add it to methods at relevant places or cite the GitHub page.

We appreciate the interest in obtaining additional documentation about our statistical procedures. Code that generated Tables and Figures are available in the github repository for this study, or as code in other repositories, now clearly identified in the methods.

2. Why Canberra distance ? Why not Bray-Curtis? Compositional data has two inherent factors that contribute to the ecosystem. 1. Presence / Absence of a species 2. Abundance of a species. BC distance is most common since it combines both of these metrics. Having said this, if the authors still wish to use this metric then please explain the rationale behind it?

We thank the reviewer for this feedback. We used all four distance matrices in an exploratory manner to identify microbiota clusters. While Canberra may have not provided the highest silhouette statistic, it produces statistically significant clinically-relevant findings. We have now expanded upon this finding in our manuscript.

3. If the authors have indeed performed 16S rRNA copy number with qPCR on all samples, please provide a histogram plot showing the range of copy numbers by samples.

Given our agreement that inclusion of qPCR values do not add to the overall results, we have removed the qPCR findings and all description of those calculations.

4. The starting of the results should include general characteristics of the nasopharyngeal microbiota in terms how many OTUs were obtained and how many genera. May be adding a stacked bar plot with time.

We agree and have now added information about the general characteristics of these nasopharyngeal microbiota to the first paragraph of the results.

5. Metadata parameters:

The authors do not explain the rationale behind the metadata and how they are collected. Please provide more details in the methods. Some of these metadata do not seem to have any relationship or strong hypothesis. If this was intended then is a fundamental flaws in study design to introduce certain factors that the authors cannot check for with such a small sample size. Having metadata doesn't mean that it should used for PERMANOVA, if it cannot explain the data well.

We thank you for this comment, as such we have reduced Table 2 to the specific significant factors in our analysis, while maintaining the FDR p-value so that readers can interpret our findings knowing that other factors were tested but were not found to be significant.

M. catarrhalis Copy Number (log) - was this calculated by qPCR ? If not the authors cannot single out one species. The clusters containing this bacteria differentiate by the applied statistics. Hence, this is unnecessary and provides no extra information than the M. catarrhalis dominated cluster.

We agree that including qPCR copy number of common respiratory pathogens does not enhance the interpretation of the 16S sequencing data, and thus we have removed these variables from consideration.

Dominant Genus - Not sure what this means, please explain.

We have now explained this variable in greater detail in the methods.

H. influenzae Copy Number (log) - Same issue as above.

S. pneumoniae Copy Number (log) - Same issue as above

Season - how is this defined here ? Precisely which time of the year is it and how far apart are the samplings througout one season ?

We have included a more complete definition of season in the methods.

Daycare Attendance - Is it just attendance ? yes or no but at what time and how was this factor controlled for?

We have included a more complete definition of daycare attendance in the methods which should address this concern.

Tobacco Exposure - Again what does actually mean ? Passive smoking ? or any oral tobacco? How can the authors control for this ?

For clarity, we have expanded the methods to include the specific question asked of the parents during the extensive questionnaire session.

Study Sub-Group - Its either the same as the groups below, i.e. Healthy vs Sick or the other sub-groups. Again a nested factor and I am not sure if this is actually necessary as all will say practically the same thing.

Agreed – this variable was created to allow for the inclusion of samples within groups with very small sample sizes (ie, 30-day illness samples of n=8, or second Sinusitis samples of n=13). More information has been included in the methods, and most nested factor variables have now been removed.

Health vs Sick Individuals - This is a more generalised description and a nested factor for the below mentioned sub-groups.

Surveillance vs. Sick vs. Recovery Sample Sinusitis vs. Non-Sinusitis Sample Number of Surveillance Visits

Visit Type - same issue as above

Mother's Age - what is the relationship with 16S data ?

This variable has been removed from the set of reported variables.

Mother's Education - This is absurd! Please explain what do the author's mean by this ?

We respectfully note that maternal education often represents differences in socioeconomic status, which can account for several measured and unmeasured confounders. Our study uses maternal education, in addition to other significant factors, as a confounder in our downstream analyses.

Other Children - Not sure what this means ?

We have clarified this to state “Other Children in the Household” and again have expanded the methods to include the specific question being asked in the questionnaire. Nasopharyngeal microbiome has been shown to relate to the number of other children in the household, plausibly due to microbial sharing amongst family members.

Total Virus Types in Sample - What metric is used for this ?

This is now explained in the methods section.

Child Shares a Room - How does this matter when children can interaction outside the room as well. Is this factor controlled ?

Agreed that the child can interact with others outside of the shared room, but room sharing is important since it indicates a high-degree of daily shared environment for the child.

Race - Do the authors imply that they exclude mixed race children from the study ? How do the authors define race ? Was there any genetic test done or this was just word of mouth ? Race-based analyses of microbiota do exist but this study doesn't have enough statistical power in terms of sample numbers to really test this.

As now noted in the methods, race was ascertained through self-report. Mixed-race participants were not excluded from the study.

Size of Household - Not a relevant factor.

Dog at Home - What is the hypothesis ?

Dog at School - What is the hypothesis ?

Cat at Home - What is the hypothesis ?

Cat at School - What is the hypothesis ?

Ethnicity - Same problem with race. What has ethinicity to do with any of the biological questions ? How does one judge ethnicity? Is there enough sample size to explore this ?

We appreciate the reviewer’s interest in how these variables were ascertained. As such, we have expanded the methods considerably to help provide more clarity. These factors are included in our study because they have been shown in many large epidemiological studies to relate to airway disease development and prevalence. Hence, we determined in our study whether these pre-existing relationships between these variables and airway disease, could be explained by relationships with the upper airway microbiota. We univariately related these variables to upper respiratory microbiota to understand factors that shape colonization patterns in these young children, and respectfully believe this is a fair approach to take. We also respectfully believe that factors such as maternal education may indirectly relate to the child’s upper respiratory microbiota, as it is an indicator of socioeconomic status, and thus can influence upper respiratory microbiota through differences in pollution, diet and stress.

6. The authors mentioned the usage of UniFrac distance for first result (line 198-200). UniFrac is phylogenetic distance-based metric, which requires a phylogenetic tree. However, the authors do not mention in the methods as to how they made the tree.

We appreciate this notification and have included the methods used to construct a phylogenetic tree and further refine the taxa included in our dataset.

7. Why use UniFrac for the first result but Canberra distance for the clustering ? What is the rationale here?

As mentioned above, several distance matrices were used in our study, since each weights different aspects of microbial community composition and significant findings based on any one of these matrices offers insights into the nature of the relationship. We thus present those findings that produce the strongest data and indicate in our narrative the interpretation of these findings based on different distance matrices.

8. Line 202: What do the authors mean by " based on species-specific copy number" ? This relates to my concern raised in Point number 5.

Given our agreement that inclusion of qPCR values do not add to the overall results, we have removed the qPCR findings and all description of those calculations.

9. Please add plot showing change in dynamics over time.

We appreciate this comment and have included a figure (Figure 3) of individual composition changes over time, their microbiota cluster, and concurrent rhinovirus infection.

10. Why do the authors use faith's diversity for the plot when they have weighted UniFrac ?

We plotted three alpha diversity metrics in Figure 2. Beta Diversity metrics are presented in Tables 2 and 3.

11. Figure 3 is unreadable and if its coming out of a DESeq2 analysis, please provide volcano plots instead.

Thank you for this comment – Figure 3 has been replaced by a volcano plot displaying the differential taxa, utilizing a new method that allows for the repeated samplings to be considered with mixed effects models. This is described further in the methods section and the R script is publicly available on the cited GitHub repository.

12. Line 275-280: The authors explain the phenomenon here but unfortunately this is not visible in a plot or graph of some sort. Please make it easier for the reader.

Per several comments, the data associated with Figure 3 have been generated with a new statistical method which show slightly distinct findings, though consistent with the narrative. Additionally, data are now presented in a volcano plot to increase interpretability.

13. The authors use DESeq2 but didn't mention the model formula used ? What were the factors used ? The authors do mention in the figure that the factors are healthy vs disease but please mention this in the methods. Please also mention if the model used was a one-factorial or two-factorial design i.e. Time being another factor here.

We appreciate these additional questions about the specifics of our statistical model. We used DESeq2 on cross-sectional data, as DESeq2 doesn’t include methods to effectively handle repeated measures. Since this manuscript was submitted, we have applied a newly developed script to the data, available at our github and cited in the methods. This script applies several mixed effects models and determines which fits the data best using the Aikake Information Criterion, and reports the best-fitting resulting estimate and p-value. In addition, not unlike DESeq2, multivariable models can be utilized, and we have used the information regarding covariates relating to upper respiratory microbiomes to adjust our models, identifying taxa that relate to URI and sinusitis after adjusting for confounders such as maternal education.

14. Continuing with the previous point, the authors do not take sufficient advantage of the longitudinal data they have. Neither do they show movement of the clusters over time nor do they perform differential taxa analysis over time.

We appreciate the interest in the longitudinal data collected for this study. Per a previous comment, we have now included movement of the clusters over time and its relationship with community composition. In addition, the taxonomic analysis now utilizes the repeated measures available.

15. If this study goes on to claim anything the analysis has to be rock solid and it isn't now. One way to improve quality is to use DADA2 based filtering before OTU assignment and classification. The authors can use this or provide an argument against it.

We thank the reviewer for this comment and believe it has helped us improve the quality of the analyses we presented in this manuscript. This analysis uses stringent quality metrics before OTU assignment, which include trimming sequences with three or more consecutive bases with a Q-score less than 30. For this study, we chose to move forward with an OTU/USEARCH-based method to help reduce dimensionality of the dataset.

Reviewer #2: This study is focused on understanding the longitudinal change in nasopharyngeal microbiota of children and its association with development of upper respiratory tract infections (URI) or sinusitits. The same group has previous published an observational study and proved that children with Moraxella dominated microbiota are at high risk of infection. The novelty of this study is here the samples were collected from healthy children and they are followed up for a period of 3 years and samples were collected periodically. This study also revealed the association of Moraxella at baseline with URI infection on subsequent visits. The study is well planned and appropriate analyses were performed. The following queries are need to be clarified.

1. Are the children are healthy controls or they visited the pediatric centre for other health problems like fever, diahorrea, etc., In case, if they are healthy, what is the purpose of their visit to pediatric centre? Are they invited specifically for this study?

We thank you for this clarification request. Children were enrolled from their routine primary care clinics and recruited for the study during well-child visits, so they were typically asymptomatic at the time of recruitment. In addition, several exclusion criteria were used for the study and these are provided in the manuscript. We have included this clarification in the methods.

2. A figure describing the timeline of sample collection and methodology will enable easy understanding of the longitudinal sample collection.

We agree, and as such have included a study sampling schematic as well as an analysis of the nasopharyngeal composition over time in these children.

3. For viral identification, a panel of viruses were detected by multiplex PCR. The list includes both DNA and RNA viruses. Does RNA isolation and cDNA construction is performed for detecting RNA viruses? Clarify

We thank you for this request for clarification. Our specimen processing extracts both RNA and DNA and the multiplex chemistry includes an RT step. Therefore, we are likely detecting viruses from both cDNA and genomic DNA.

4. In methods, under sub-heading – procedures, it is mentioned nasal samples were obtained. The authors should elaborate how nasal samples are collected?

This information was previously included under the heading “Collection of samples”, in which we describe that a flocked swab was placed into the nasopharynx and rotated, and samples were stored in sterile DNAase/RNAase-free cryovials of RNAlater. For clarity, we have moved the description of sample collection to the Procedures section.

5. Though the authors studied the presence of different viruses by multiplex PCR, the results are not correlated with the bacterial composition. It will be interesting to find any association between a specific viral type and a dominant bacteria.

We appreciate this feedback and performed the associated analysis. We found that the dominant bacteria did not relate to the viral type. However, we do note a significant relationship between community composition and viral detection in Table 3.

6. Table 3 is not fully visible. Footnotes on brief details of statistical analysis can be added under the tables.

We apologize for the lack of clarity of Table 3. We were following the guidance for tables where it states “Do not split your table or otherwise try to make the table appear within the manuscript margins if it does not fit on one page. In Word, tables that run off of the manuscript page can be seen using Draft View”. (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/tables). We have made minor changes to the formatting of the table to improve visibility of the table within the PDF.

We have also included footnotes to provide additional information about the statistical methods used to obtain statistical relationships.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers_Resub.docx

Decision Letter 1

Aran Singanayagam

29 Nov 2021

Moraxella-dominated Pediatric Nasopharyngeal Microbiota Associate with Upper Respiratory Infection and Sinusitis

PONE-D-21-07837R1

Dear Dr. Lynch,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Aran Singanayagam

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors have put a great effort to diligently address my concerns and provided the necessary data. This has remarkably improved the manuscript.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Sudip Das, University of Lausanne, Switzerland

Reviewer #2: Yes: Velmurugan Ganesan

Acceptance letter

Aran Singanayagam

16 Dec 2021

PONE-D-21-07837R1

Moraxella-dominated Pediatric Nasopharyngeal Microbiota Associate with Upper Respiratory Infection and Sinusitis

Dear Dr. Lynch:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Aran Singanayagam

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. Graphic describing the study design and sample collection scheme, in which children were followed for one year for development of upper respiratory infection or sinusitis and quarterly well-visit samples were collected.

    (TIF)

    S2 Fig. Heatmap of nasopharyngeal clusters.

    Taxa were agglomerated at the genus level, and abundances were log-transformed. The top 30 genera are presented in the heatmap.

    (TIF)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers_Resub.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    Raw sequence reads are publicly available at the European Nucleotide Archive under PRJEB35160. De-identified patient data and the final analysis OTU table are available from: https://github.com/lynchlab-ucsf/SinusitisMicrobiome.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES