Skip to main content
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2022 May 9.
Published in final edited form as: Bioessays. 2021 Jun 20;43(9):e2000314. doi: 10.1002/bies.202000314

How does the early life environment influence the oral microbiome and determine oral health outcomes in childhood?

Christina Jane Adler 1,2,*, Kim-Anh Lê Cao 3, Toby Hughes 4, Piyush Kumar 5, Christine Austin 5
PMCID: PMC9084494  NIHMSID: NIHMS1801405  PMID: 34151446

Abstract

The first 1000 days of life, from conception to two years, are a critical window for the influence of environmental exposures on lifelong health trajectories. This period is also critical to the assembly of the oral microbiome, which is the precursor to dental caries (decay) and periodontal disease, two of the most prevalent microbially induced disorders worldwide. While it is known that the human microbiome is susceptible to environmental exposures, there is limited understanding of the impact of prenatal and early childhood exposures on the oral microbiome trajectory. We hypothesise that environmental exposures during early life alter the acquisition and maturation of the oral microbiome and mediate oral health outcomes in childhood. To test this, large-scale studies are required, linking early life exposures, microbiome trajectories and caries development. A barrier has been the lack of technology to directly measure the foetal ‘exposome’, which includes thousands of nutritional and toxic exposures that cross the placenta. Another barrier has been the lack of statistical methods to account for the high dimensional data generated by –omic assays. Through identifying which early life environmental exposures influence the oral microbiome and modify oral health, findings can be translated into interventions to reduce dental decay prevalence.

Keywords: Oral microbiome, dental caries, environment, exposures, -omics, prenatal, postnatal

Introduction

The oral microbiome is a major determinant of oral health. Consisting of over 700 prevalent bacteria, in addition to fungi, archaea and viruses, the oral microbiome is the second most complex and diverse microbial community in the human body [1,2]. Dysbiosis between the oral microbiome and host underpins the development of oral diseases such as dental caries [3] and periodontal disease [4,5]. The Global Burden of Health Report (2016) found dental caries was the most prevalent disease worldwide, affecting an estimated 2.44 billion and the majority of adults (80%) in the United States, with severe periodontal disease ranking as the 11th most prevalent disease globally [6]. Both diseases can cause pain, tooth loss, systemic infection and, reduced quality of life and productivity due to days lost from school and work. In addition to impacting the oral environment, dysbiosis in the oral microbiome has been associated with systemic conditions including Alzheimer’s disease [7], diabetes [8], mental health issues [9] and gastrointestinal disorders [10].

Identification of factors driving dysbiosis in the oral microbiome and mediating disease risk have remained elusive. This is particularly concerning for the situation of dental caries given it is the most common chronic disease in children, occurring at five times the rate of asthma [11]. With this comes huge costs and implications on healthcare systems, resulting in enormous burden for both children and their families. Due to this high prevalence, much time is spent in daily dental practice on the prevention and management of dental caries. While it is established that paediatric caries is a multifactorial disease, involving the developing oral microbiome, environmental factors and host genetics [12], what is yet to be determined is the interaction and relative contribution of these factors to the disease. This information is necessary to design effective prevention strategies to reduce the high prevalence of childhood dental caries.

Recent technological advancements to study oral microbiome and environmental factors have enabled incredible investigative depth, but the high dimensional data generated presents a major challenge to characterising the interaction of these factors. The development of genome-wide or -omic based sequencing to study the oral microbiome has revealed that caries is not caused by a few species and is instead a polymicrobial disease [13]. Adding to the complexity, is the identification of strain level variation of species within the oral microbiome, which are potentially clinically important [14]. Similarly, there has been a paradigm shift in studying environmental factors towards characterizing the ‘exposome’. The exposome describes the totality of all environmental exposures throughout an individual’s lifetime [15,16]. This encompasses exposures from the wider external environment (e.g. stress, climate, socioeconomic), specific external environment (e.g. chemicals, diet, infections) and the internal environment (e.g. biological response to exposures). Multiple studies also demonstrate that the timing of exposures can be critical to observed health outcomes and that the prenatal and early childhood periods are particularly vulnerable to environmental insult [17]. Measuring these exposures over the course of a lifetime, particularly during the perinatal period, is a complex challenge but new technological advances are able to measure exposure biomarker mixtures over time, creating another high dimensional data set. The interaction of the environment with the oral microbiome to predispose an individual to caries during childhood has to date focused on population level effects [18], which are too broad to reveal which exact environmental factors are critical. Emerging evidence indicates that exposures during the foetal and early postnatal environment at the chemical level may affect the trajectory of the oral microbiome and modify an individual’s caries risk. To understand the interaction at higher resolution will require application of these new ‘-omic’ technologies as well as new statistical approaches that can handle these high dimensional data sets.

To tackle the problem of the aetiology of childhood dental caries, we will review the current understanding of the disease, with a focus on the role of the developing oral microbiome and its interaction with the environment at an individual level within large-scale studies. We then present the changing paradigms in the area, in particular the mediation of the disease through environmental factors at the chemical rather than population level, and the importance of exposure timing. Lastly, we present how new approaches may resolve the problem, though direct measurements of the microbiome and early environmental exposures, in combination with multivariate statistics to distil information from high dimensional data, to propose a new, more characterised model for caries development.

Current thinking: Caries as a polymicrobial disease influenced by population level factors

Caries and the oral microbiome

The microbial cause of dental caries has been framed by the long-standing dogma that Streptococcus mutans is a keystone species for disease development [19,20]. This model of caries was originally based on findings from animal studies, which demonstrated that rats inoculated with S. mutans and fed a diet containing sucrose, developed rampant caries [21]. The role of S. mutans in caries was reinforced by culture-based research [22], which demonstrated the presence of this bacteria in carious lesions in humans. The development of genomic methods has enabled culture-independent identification of bacteria through amplification of the phylogenetically informative 16S rRNA gene, which is present in all bacteria. The 16S approach in combination with Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) has revealed the oral microbiome contains a huge diversity of bacteria, with over 1000 species of which more than 60% are uncultured phenotypes [23]. This finding of greater diversity than previously known in the oral microbiome has been accompanied by an expanding diversity of bacteria being associated with caries. NGS studies of dental caries have revealed there is a gradual shift in the composition of the oral microbiome between health and caries [24], with no ‘caries-specific’ bacteria found that were completely absent in health. Instead, shifts in the abundance of bacteria, particularly Prevotella [24], Lactobacillus [25] and Bifidobacterium [26] species, have been observed between health and caries. Currently, there is little consensus regarding the bacterial species enriched in caries, potentially as a result of differing study design. Microbial composition varies with age of participants [27] and by laboratory method, including DNA extraction technique [28] and region of 16S sequenced [29]. In particular, the sample type appears to influence composition. While S. mutans was associated with caries when using saliva [20], studies using oral biofilm or dental plaque often found less of a connection between this bacteria and the disease [25]. Given that caries is a biofilm mediated disease, the species makeup of dental plaque is probably more reflective of the disease process than saliva.

The ecological model of caries, with microbiome-wide species change has been primarily based on assessment of the composition and not function of the oral microbiome. The 16S approach, while inexpensive and straight forward, only provides low-level resolution, at the genus to species level, of the taxonomic makeup of a sample. If caries is caused by microbiome-wide changes, this is likely to be reflected in changes in the bacterial diversity at a strain level and functional modifications, particularly in metabolism of the bacterial populations. Metagenomic sequencing enables assessment, if done in enough depth, of the totality of genomes of all microbiota [30]. Through assembly of the sequence data and identification of genes, detailed information of bacterial strains and the function of the microbiome as a whole can be predicted. In comparison to the number of 16S-based studies assessing the caries oral microbiome in childhood, to date there have been substantially fewer studies using metagenomics to assess the microbiome in caries [31-34]. All of these studies have a small sample size (e.g. n < 50), and many have used saliva [32,33] as opposed to the more clinically relevant biofilm sample. However, these studies have revealed that within species or strain level bacterial diversity and function varies with caries development [31-33]. While bacterial species within a strain may share a ‘core’ genome, they can contain many unique genes which confer virulence to particular strains and hence result in strain level differences within a disease [35]. Metagenomic sequencing of plaque samples from children with caries (n = 30) has revealed that strains belonging to the same species had a differential association with caries [14]. For example, S. mitis bv 2 str SK95 showed an association with the caries-affected group, the sister strain showed an association with the caries-free group and there was no association with either health state at the species level. In addition to metagenomic sequencing revealing the role of within species genomic diversity in caries, this method has also revealed that caries was associated with metabolic changes in the oral microbiome. Caries was found to be associated with an enrichment of genes for sugar metabolism, such as the glucose transferase gene (GTF) and increased abundance of pathways for sugar breakdown, including glycolysis and gluconeogenesis . Additionally, caries affected individuals have been found to have an upregulation of genes encoding polyamine production, which is important for biofilm formation [14]. The sole contributors to polyamine synthesis were found to be V. parvula and Veillonella sp. 612 [14]. In caries-free compared to caries-affected individuals, there was an increase in abundance of genes encoding enzyme classes; arginine [34], threonine, and dCTP deiminases [14], which are involved in the release of ammonium, which can neutralise acids and prevent enamel demineralisation. The species linked to these ammonium producing enzymes included Neisseria [34] and Actinomyces species (A. naeslundii, A. massiliensis, A. johnsonii and A. oris), in addition to S. mitis. In addition, similar to observations of reduced species diversity in caries [25], the functional diversity [34] of the oral microbiome was also found to decline.

To date the microbiome-wide assessment of caries has been bacterio-centric, given that bacteria dominate the oral environment. If caries is mediated by overall shifts in composition and function of bacteria, these changes would likely impact other members of the oral microbiome, such as fungi and archaea. Fungi are thought to play a role in caries, given the high levels of Candida albicans found in children with early childhood caries from culture-based studies [36-39], and the high acid tolerance of this fungi and ability to excrete organic acid further reducing the oral cavity’s pH [40]. NGS studies of the oral mycobiome have supported culture-based findings that C. albicans is the dominant fungi in the oral environment, however its role in caries has not been consistently observed [41,42]. Interestingly, studies did find a reduced diversity of fungi in caries [41,42]. In comparison, the role of the hard to culture archaea in caries has been scarcely studied. NGS of caries biofilms have found methanogen archaea to be present [43]. Methanogens were identified in combination with lactobacilli and are known to be able to oxidise acids and alcohols produced by these fermenting bacteria. This small-scale study highlights the interconnectedness of microbial populations within the oral biofilm.

Early life is a critical period for the assembly of the oral microbiome and establishing caries risk

While a microbial model for caries is yet to be resolved, the preceding of microbial changes before the clinical presentation of caries is generally accepted. NGS studies have revealed microbial changes up to 12 months before the clinical presentation of caries in three year old’s [44] and potentially even before the emergence of teeth, based on presence of the acidogenic and aciduric S. mutans, a species traditionally associated with caries [45]. As such, the development of the oral microbiome in early life and influence of environmental factors during this time has been postulated to be critical for the development of caries in childhood.

Microbial diversity is acquired within the first hours after birth, predominantly shaped by maternal sources, and evolves over time in response to environmental factors, becoming relatively stable in adulthood [46]. The influence of the first 1000 days of life (conception – 2 years) on the human microbiome has primarily focused on the assemblage of microbes in the gastrointestinal tract. From the handful of genomic (non-cultivation), longitudinal studies, the assembly of the oral microbiome makeup appears to follow an ordered pattern [47], which is influenced by birth mode, early feeding practices and antibiotic exposure [18]. Relevant aspects of the oral microbiome trajectory are summarized in Figure 1.

Figure 1:

Figure 1:

Key aspects and factors effecting the oral microbiome trajectory. Relative abundance plot derived from Dzidic et al.[18]

The womb is a sterile environment [48] (unless infection) so the infant oral microbiome is first exposed to microbes through contact with the vagina or uterus during delivery [49]. However, it is primarily inoculated during the first 6 months with early feeding [18,50] and has a narrow diversity dominated by Streptococcus, Veillonella and Lactobacillus species [18]. Diet is a major factor in the microbiome trajectory with breastfed infants having higher abundances of Streptococcus and Veillonella species compared to formula fed infants [18,51]. From 6 months to 2 years the emergence of teeth provides a non-shedding surface for biofilm maturation and consumption of solid foods increases the variety of nutrients for the microbial community, resulting in increased microbiome diversity [52,53]. This enables other species, such as Gemella, Granulicatella, Haemophilus and Rothia, which were present at low abundance from 3 months of age to increase in abundance with time [18]. Later childhood (>2 years) sees further enrichment and increased abundance of bacterial species, including Porphymonas, Actinomyces and Neisseria [18], in addition to Fusobacterium nucleatum [27]. However, how this assembly relates to health outcomes or functional development of the oral microbiome remains unresolved.

The importance of the environment in modifying the developing oral microbiome to influence caries risk was first identified through strong epidemiological data demonstrating that childhood caries is influenced by population level environmental factors. These factors include poor oral hygiene [54], a diet containing excess sugar and frequent snacking [55,56] and passive exposure to parental cigarette smoke [57]. In addition, low socioeconomic (SES) status is associated with high paediatric caries risk, due to the correlation between low SES and poor oral hygiene, education and diet. Few studies have evaluated the impact of these factors on the entire oral microbiome, instead focusing on specific bacteria [58]. From the few NGS studies assessing the impact of environmental factors of importance to caries, these have focused on compositional change through analysis of the 16S gene and used this to predict functional shifts. Smoking [57] and excess sugar intake [59] were found to alter the overall predicted function of the oral microbiome, with both displaying microbiome changes similar to caries. This included decreased aerobic respiration and increased anaerobic respiration to enable oxygen independent carbohydrate metabolism [57,59]. Interestingly, the influence of diet on the oral microbiome may be bidirectional, with the composition of the oral microbiome found to influence taste preference and eating habits [60]. To date, studies have yet to interrogate the three-way relationship between environmental factors, the oral microbiome and clinical caries presentation. While reduction of dietary sugar intake and improved oral hygiene are important strategies in preventing caries [56], these are not the only risk factors [61]. The development of effective prevention strategies for caries requires a better understanding of the complex interactions between multiple risk factors, including other environmental exposures.

Changing paradigms: Environmental exposures influence the oral microbiome trajectory and pediatric dental caries risk

Past studies of broad environmental effects on the oral microbiome have not reflected the reality of the exposome, which involves complex combinations of multiple exposures over time. In addition, while assembly of the oral microbiota occurs soon after birth, this fact has erroneously been interpreted to mean that only environmental exposures at or after birth can impact the oral microbiome. In fact, there is emerging evidence that prenatal exposures are associated with microbiome composition in childhood [62] and prevalence of caries [63]. Early life exposure to environmental chemical mixtures likely affect the oral microbiome and act in concert to modify caries risk.

The microbiome is vulnerable to environmental exposures.

There is increasing evidence that environmental chemicals interact with the gut microbiome through several pathways that effect composition and function of the microbiota [64]. Several animal studies have demonstrated that exposure to heavy metals (arsenic, cadmium, lead), persistent organic pollutants (polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)), pesticides (diazinon, carbendazim), bisphenol A (BPA) or phthalates, is associated with gut microbiota dysbiosis, leading to adverse disorders of metabolism, nutrient absorption and immune system function [64-66]. Air pollutants like O3 and NO2 are shown to alter compositional and functional profile of gut microbiome [67] while air quality index is shown to affect skin microbiome in healthy women [68]. While there is some overlap between the oral and gut microbiome [69], interactions between the environment and the gut microbiome are not necessarily directly transferrable to the oral microbiome [70].

Despite epidemiological evidence showing an association between toxic metal exposures and oral microbiome-mediated diseases, including dental caries [71-73] and gingival diseases [74], very few studies have investigated the interaction between environmental exposures and the oral microbiome. One such study found that toxic metals antimony, arsenic and mercury in saliva were associated with the oral microbiome composition [75]. Caries was associated with an increased level of antimony and increased abundance of lactobacilli species. Although the impact of smoking on the oral microbiome has been investigated in a handful of studies, results have been largely inconsistent due to differences in study design and small sample sizes [76,77]. In a large study that combined data from two US national cohorts, current smokers showed a significant depletion of Proteobacteria, and enrichment of Firmicutes and Actinobacteria, compared with never smokers [76]. Early studies of the impact of e-cigarette smoking on the oral microbiome suggest a marked difference to cigarette smoking, which may be driven by the different environmental exposures, such as glycerol and propylene glycol, associated with each source [78].

Studies of how exposure to environmental chemicals in early life effect the assembly and evolution of the oral microbiome are severely lacking. The oral microbiome is the first to come into contact with environmental chemicals via oral exposure. Depletion of pathways involved in the biodegradation of chemicals associated with smoking was observed in smokers compared to non-smokers [79]. Oral bacteria may therefore play an important role in degrading chemicals and thus alter their systemic toxicity. In addition, vulnerability to environmental exposures is heightened during the early life period due to hand-to-mouth activities, greater absorption, underdeveloped mechanisms to metabolize chemicals and subtle disruptions that alter subsequent developmental trajectories [80]. Therefore, the early life period is absolutely critical to study the interaction of environmental exposures and the developing oral microbiome.

Emerging evidence supports the role of environmental exposures in pediatric dental caries

Just as there is evidence that environmental exposures impact the oral microbiome trajectory, there is also evidence that toxic environmental exposures can increase the risk of dental caries. Since the caries-protective effect of fluoride was first discovered, the role of other trace elements in tooth mineralization and tooth decay have been studied. Several metals, including lead (Pb), cadmium (Cd), copper (Cu), boron (B), molybdenum (Mo) and strontium (Sr) have been linked to caries [81-87]. Importantly, animal studies have shown that exposure to Pb and Cd during tooth development is associated with a greater risk of caries [81,88,89]. Exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) has also been associated with pediatric caries [90]. Associations between environmental exposures and caries are more consistently reported for deciduous teeth than permanent teeth [72,86,90,91] which indicates deciduous dentitions may be particularly susceptible, possibly due to the evolution of the microbiome which is more stable in adulthood. Possible mechanisms through which environmental exposures could enhance susceptibility to caries on their own include salivary gland function, enamel formation, and interference with saliva formation or oral bacteria [86,87,90]. However, environmental exposures may also alter the acquisition and maturation of the oral microbiome. Therefore, studies of the interaction of the microbiome and environmental factors are critical to understanding how these factors separately and jointly contribute to caries risk. This is because the oral microbiome and environmental factors may act along independent pathways, as well as interact, to modify risk, depending on the different species of these complex mixtures. Importantly, many metals and other environmental chemicals interact and therefore it is vital that studies of the role of environmental exposures encompass multiple exposures and analyze the whole mixture, rather than individual chemicals.

Host genetics interacts with the environment and oral health

While the environment is a known major modulator of the oral microbiome, host genetics have been shown to significantly influence the composition of select bacterial species from cross-sectional twin studies in later childhood [46]. Host genetics and sex specific differences have also been demonstrated for microbiota changes associated with environmental exposures [92-95]. Furthermore, while exposure to heavy metals has been repeatedly associated with changes in the composition of the gut microbiome in multiple species, the bacterial changes vary across studies. This may be explained by interactions between host genes, environment and the microbiome (G x E x M) [65]. This interaction may also explain the variability observed between studies examining the caries microbiome, given that heritability for this phenotype is estimated to range from 30% - 60% [96,97]. Putative roles for the host genome in mediating environmental influences on the developing microbiome include both direct factors (e.g. immunological; salivary flow, composition and buffering capacity; anatomical variation of the teeth) and indirect factors (e.g. dietary preference; manual dexterity in oral hygiene practices). Environmental factors are shown to affect the host epigenetics which indirectly affect the oral microbiome and oral health status. More light has been shed by studies on twins who despite similar genetic background showed different caries risk [98], and a possible discordance correlated with methylation profile [99].

In order to examine the role of the environment in the acquisition and development of the oral microbiome, studies that are nested within a population structure designed to also control for or measure the influence of the host genome are significantly more powerful than those from randomly ascertained population probands. Such studies include traditional twin designs, parent-offspring dyads, and other genetically informative structures.

Future Perspectives: Overcoming technological challenges to study microbiome x environment determinants of dental caries

We hypothesise that environmental exposures during early life alter the acquisition and maturation of the oral microbiome, and in the background of genetic risk, mediate oral health outcomes in childhood. To address this hypothesis and overcome past limitations, studies should assess the developing oral microbiome through metagenomic analysis in longitudinal human studies and combine this data with direct measures of the fetal and early postnatal exposome. Given that the technology to study the exposome is not yet available, early life exposures can be measured through direct assessment of environmental chemicals (external environment) and the metabolome (internal environment). Statistical methods are required that account for the multivariate nature of the data and enable integration of the microbiome, and exposome data, to identify microbiome and environmental features which influence caries, either in synergy or isolation and how these modulate over time in childhood.

Microbiome data and study design

Resolution of both the microbial cause of caries and disease prediction, through understanding the assembly of the oral microbiome in childhood, requires assessment of the oral microbiome in a longitudinal study design. Repeated assessment of an individual’s oral microbiome from birth through to early childhood at regular intervals, preferably using oral biofilm samples, would enable assessment of major life transitions, including tooth emergence, introduction of solids and diet development. While 16S data provides valuable taxonomic information, only metagenomic data can provide the following key pieces of information about the oral microbiome: (1) strain level taxonomic data, (2) functional information, such as metabolic pathways, in addition to (3) other genes, such as those causing antibiotic resistance, and (4) information about the whole microbiome, including bacteria, fungi, archaea and viruses. Importantly, to interrogate the relationship between the microbiome and oral health, clinical assessment of caries is required using validated and widely used methods, such as the Decayed Missing and Filled teeth (DMFT) index or the International Caries Detection and Assessment System (ICDAS II), full code format.

Direct measures of early life environmental exposures

Undertaking comprehensive studies of the impact of the environment on the assembly and evolution of the oral microbiome and its relation to caries has been limited by: (1) the lack of biomarkers that directly measure fetal (vs maternal) and childhood environmental exposures across specific developmental periods; (2) the expense and time needed to conduct prospective studies of prenatal exposure and oral health; (3) the expense of conducting large metagenomic studies; and (4) the need for statistical approaches that can handle the high dimensional data generated by ‘-omic’ technologies to study the separate and joint effects on health outcomes. Much of the caries risk is believed to be due to the joint action of environmental factors and the microbiome. It is likely that environmental exposures as early as fetal development, when the primary dentition is developing, may determine the risk of childhood caries. However, no epidemiologic study has undertaken a direct assessment of fetal exposures. Some studies have relied on maternal blood and urine assays, but maternal biomarkers are not always an accurate reflection of fetal exposure due to placental regulation of many environmental chemicals. For postnatal exposures, questionnaires are relied upon, which cannot accurately measure chemical exposures and suffer from misclassification, reporting bias, and recall bias.

Teeth are increasingly used to reconstruct histories of environmental exposure in individuals by measuring biomarkers of chemical exposure, stress, diet and climate [100-105]. Human primary teeth can provide a direct measure of the timing and intensity of chemical exposure from approximately the 14th gestational week to early childhood. The method exploits the normal growth pattern of teeth, which is analogous to rings in a tree, and utilizes micro-spatial sampling to measure chemicals archived within growth rings that correspond to specific critical developmental windows. For decades teeth have been used to assay cumulative exposure to metals. In these studies, whole teeth or large fragments were digested and toxicant concentrations reported as a cumulative exposure [106-108]. This type of analysis destroys the temporal information unique to tooth development which provide fine-scale information on timing of exposure. Relevant aspects of tooth development and mineralization are summarized in Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Figure 2.

A. At 14 – 19 weeks in utero, enamel and dentine begin to mineralize at the future dentine-enamel junction (DEJ) on the cusp tip. Subsequently, enamel and dentine deposition occurs in a rhythmic manner forming incremental lines—akin to growth rings in a tree—in both enamel and dentine [109]. At birth, an accentuated incremental line, the neonatal line, is formed due to disturbances in the secretory cells during matrix deposition [110]. After birth, teeth continue to manifest daily growth lines, which reflect chronological ages at various positions within the tooth. B. Due to a change in crystal orientation and density, the neonatal line is a clear histological landmark that demarcates pre- and postnatally formed parts of teeth. The neonatal line forms regardless of the type of delivery (C-section vs vaginal).

The application of laser ablation technology to teeth has enabled the generation of weekly metal exposure profiles over the pre- and postnatal periods [111-114]. This method has been validated against other biomarkers and environmental measures at specific time points [111,112,114,115]. Similar to work on metals, several studies have measured organic compounds in whole teeth or tooth fragments [116,117]. Garcia-Algar et al.[116] undertook early studies to measure cotinine in teeth and showed that children of smoking mothers had higher tooth cotinine levels compared with children whose mothers did not smoke. New innovations in novel high-dimensional analytical methods that combine histological and chemical analyses will move this field beyond metals to sampling of numerous additional markers in tooth growth rings to isolate exposures with serial measurements at precise time points.

The paradigm shift towards the exposome, necessitates technologies and study designs that can measure multiple environmental chemicals and their metabolites (biological response). The field must move past single chemical studies that do not reflect the reality of environmental exposures. No individual is exposed to a single environmental factor in isolation of all other exposures. However, due to technological limitations, very few studies have examined the impact on the microbiome from two or more environmental exposures [118-120]. Furthermore, it is also important to study the metabolites of external exposures to comprehensively model their health impacts.

Traditionally, studies have either examined organic or inorganic chemical exposures but rarely both concurrently. This separation of scientific inquiry does not reflect the reality that humans are simultaneously exposed to both organics and inorganics from our environment. An important example is tobacco smoke, which contains many chemicals from both these classes [121]. It is not only that metals and organics share common exposure pathways, but they also share common biochemical pathways once they enter the human body. For example, phthalates are known for their endocrine disrupting effects and also influence inflammatory pathways [122]. Metals, including Pb, also affect these pathways [122,123]. This is just one of many examples where organics and inorganics can disrupt the homeostasis of the same physiological process. Given the improvements in exposure biology and statistical methods, it is now an appropriate time to jointly study organic and inorganic exposures.

Teeth offer a unique matrix to reconstruct an individual’s history of environmental exposure during critical windows of development. In addition, naturally shed primary teeth can be collected around the time of clinical assessment of caries. This enables more cost-effective study designs to be used as participants do not need to be followed prospectively to collect early life exposure measures, significantly reducing the expense and time of studies. The high dimensional data generated from tooth analysis (multiple environmental measures over multiple time points) require novel statistical approaches to investigate associations with the microbiome and oral health outcomes.

New statistical methods are needed to understand the dynamics of the microbiome and its interaction with the environment

Detection of environmental influences on the oral microbiome and their relationship to caries has proved difficult when using either 16S or metagenomic data. This may be due to the high level of noise within oral microbiome data sets, having great inter-individual variation, the general statistical problems of analysing sparsely distributed microbiome datasets and the lack of methods which identify the influence of factors, both in isolation and their interactions on the oral microbiome. In the oral microbiome field, both univariate and multivariate methods have been applied to examine the relationship of the oral microbiome to caries and other factors, as detailed in Table 1.

Table 1:

Statistical methods applied in the oral microbiome field on Next Generation Sequencing produced data.

Statistic/Tool Description Statistical
model
Multivariable
association
Variables
assessed on the
oral microbiome
References
Mann-Whitney U test, Kruskal-Wallis test, Wilcoxon signed-rank test Tests overall differences between groups based on individual taxa/features or summary statistics, such as alpha diversity metrics Non-parametric No Caries, smoking [14,18,33,34,76]
Permutational Multivariate Analysis of Variance (PERMANOVA) Analysis of variance using distance matrices to examine variation in overall microbiome composition Non-parametric Yes Age, breast/formula feeding, caries, delivery mode, electronic cigarettes, education background, height, smoking and sex [18,33,76,78]
DESeq2 Tests for differentially abundant features using normalized counts between one or more predetermined groups Negative binomial Yes Age, caries, smoking and sex [41,76]
Linear discriminant analysis effect size analysis (LEfSe) Identifies differentially abundant features and their importance to describing differences between two or more predetermined groups. Combines standard statistical tests with linear discriminant analysis. Non-parametric No Caries [14,18]
Partial Least Square Discriminant Analysis (sPLS-DA) Identifies in a multiclass framework differentially abundant features and their importance to describing differences between two or more predetermined groups Non-parametric No Caries [20]
Analysis of similarities (ANOISM) Tests for similarities between groups based on distances matrices Non-parametric Yes Caries, Electronic cigarettes [33,78]
DEICODE Links features with groupings observed in distance matrixes, such as those generated from beta diversity analyses Non-parametric Yes Caries [34]
Random Forest Machine learning algorithm to identify features and their importance to discriminating between two or more groups Non-parametric Yes Electronic cigarettes [78]

Microbiome data analysis currently faces analytical challenges because of the inherent characteristics of the data that are sparse, compositional and multivariate [124]. Existing analyses have mostly been limited to univariate methods, correlation analyses and non-parametric tests. While univariate methods are limited in their interpretation (since they test each taxon independently), multivariate methods including PERMANOVA, or ANOSIM only give limited insight on differences between sample groups, rather than particular group of taxa that drive these differences [125]. These methods have been widely used in the oral microbiome field and have highlighted overall compositional differences in the oral microbiome related to caries and early life events [18], and e-cigarette usage [78]. Emerging multivariate non-parametric methods based on linear discriminant models, such as sparse PLS-DA [126] might be more suitable for analysis and efficient for high-throughput data. This method revealed that the most discriminatory species for caries, from 16S analysis of saliva, was S. mutans [20]. However, the latest developments in this area currently do not adjust for covariates or confounders such as gender, medication history, disease activity, sample site, ethnicity, diet, gender or BMI, to list a few [127]. Accounting for the compositionality nature of the data also poses challenges in data analysis [128]. Methods such as ANCOM and variants [129,130], Aldex [131] or such as PLS-DA use the logratio transformation techniques to convert microbiome data and remove compositionality constraints for better suited analyses. More recent developments have been focusing on ratios of taxa or penalised regression models allowing to identify microbial signatures [132]. These signatures enable to capture interrelated changes of microbial compositions that would be ignored if bacteria are considered independently in the analysis. However, further causal inference models for longitudinal data are needed to fully understand the dynamics of microbiome.

Data integration of the microbiome with the exposome and other data types can provide a holistic and more complete picture of the oral microbiome compared to the analysis of single ‘omics data. As such, this represents a radical paradigm change from the traditional analysis of single microbial markers, or single omics signatures. Analytical challenges include the heterogeneity between data sets which differ in nature and scale and a high risk of overfitting as the number of features is much greater than the number of individuals. In addition, the high correlation structure within a dataset contributes to a decrease in statistical power, especially if one is interested in identifying discriminatory signatures. Different types of data integration methods have been proposed based on dimension reduction using matrix factorisation [133,134], network based analyses [135], machine learning techniques or Bayesian approaches to identify multi-omics signatures associated with a phenotypic outcome. However, most approaches have not been designed for microbiome data specifically and require further developments [136,137]. One of the great challenges in data integration is to distinguish causal from correlated changes in the context of disease. Prospective multi-omics as well as time-course studies with novel statistical developments will help address this challenge and refine biomarker candidates.

Conclusion

While there have been decades of research into the microbial and environmental causes of dental caries in childhood, we are still yet to resolve the disease etiology, the interaction between these two major factors in the disease, and how these factors may change during childhood development in their contribution to caries. This inability to elucidate the microbial causes of caries may relate to the diseases complex, polymicrobial nature, which is only during the last decade being revealed with the development of next generation sequencing and metagenomic approaches. Our lack of knowledge of the early environments’ effects on the microbiome and how this relates to caries outcomes in childhood has been hampered by our inability to directly assess the fetal and early postnatal environment. However, ‘exposome’ analysis of deciduous teeth may provide a direct window into this early life period. This in-depth approach to describing both the microbial and environmental factors in childhood will only be useful to understanding these factors’ role in caries if a multivariate, data integration approach is applied. New methods are required that integrate information about the microbiome, chemicals and metabolome data, to enable identification of microbiome and environmental features which influence caries, either in synergy or isolation and how these modulate over time in childhood. This data integration approach, which is nuanced in relation to the environment and microbiome, is likely to lead to a new model of caries development. This approach and the development of a new model of disease, can be translated into actionable and more targeted interventions to reduce caries prevalence, and with further research building upon these findings for other oral diseases.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by funding (1R01DE029838-01) from the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research, National Institutes of Health (US).

Footnotes

Conflicts of Interest

No competing interests are declared.

References

  • 1.Chen T, Dewhirst F. 2015. Human Oral Microbiome Database (HOMD). Encyclopedia of Metagenomics: Genes, Genomes and Metagenomes: Basics, Methods, Databases and Tools: 271–91. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Dewhirst FE, Chen T, Izard J, Paster BJ, et al. 2010. The human oral microbiome. J Bacteriol 192: 5002–17. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Yang F, Zeng X, Ning K, Liu K-L, et al. 2012. Saliva microbiomes distinguish caries-active from healthy human populations. ISME J 6: 1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Liu B, Faller LL, Klitgord N, Mazumdar V, et al. 2012. Deep sequencing of the oral microbiome reveals signatures of periodontal disease. PLoS One 7: e37919. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Griffen AL, Beall CJ, Campbell JH, Firestone ND, et al. 2012. Distinct and complex bacterial profiles in human periodontitis and health revealed by 16S pyrosequencing. ISME J 6: 1176. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Vos T, Abajobir AA, Abate KH, Abbafati C, et al. 2017. Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 328 diseases and injuries for 195 countries, 1990–2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. The Lancet 390: 1211–59. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Dominy SS, Lynch C, Ermini F, Benedyk M, et al. 2019. Porphyromonas gingivalis in Alzheimer's disease brains: Evidence for disease causation and treatment with small-molecule inhibitors. Sci Adv 5: eaau3333. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Xiao E, Mattos M, Vieira GHA, Chen S, et al. 2017. Diabetes enhances IL-17 expression and alters the oral microbiome to increase its pathogenicity. Cell Host Microbe 22: 120–8. e4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Simpson CA, Adler C, du Plessis MR, Landau ER, et al. 2020. Oral microbiome composition, but not diversity, is associated with adolescent anxiety and depression symptoms. Physiol Behav 226: 113126. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Gao L, Xu T, Huang G, Jiang S, et al. 2018. Oral microbiomes: more and more importance in oral cavity and whole body. Protein Cell: 1–13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Scully C. 2000. Oral health in America: a report of the surgeon general. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Kidd E, Fejerskov O. 2013. Changing concepts in cariology: forty years on. Dent Update 40: 277–8, 80-2, 85-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Takahashi N, Nyvad B. 2011. The role of bacteria in the caries process: ecological perspectives. J Dent Res 90: 294–303. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Al-Hebshi NN, Baraniya D, Chen T, Hill J, et al. 2019. Metagenome sequencing-based strain-level and functional characterization of supragingival microbiome associated with dental caries in children. J Oral Microbiol 11: 1557986. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Wild CP. 2005. Complementing the Genome with an “Exposome”: The Outstanding Challenge of Environmental Exposure Measurement in Molecular Epidemiology. Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention 14: 1847–50. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Wild CP. 2012. The exposome: from concept to utility. International Journal of Epidemiology 41: 24–32. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Selevan SG, Kimmel CA, Mendola P. 2000. Identifying critical windows of exposure for children's health. Environmental Health Perspectives 108: 451–5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Dzidic M, Collado MC, Abrahamsson T, Artacho A, et al. 2018. Oral microbiome development during childhood: an ecological succession influenced by postnatal factors and associated with tooth decay. ISME J 12: 2292–306. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Cornejo OE, Lefebure T, Bitar PD, Lang P, et al. 2013. Evolutionary and population genomics of the cavity causing bacteria Streptococcus mutans. Mol Biol Evol 30: 881–93. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Dashper SG, Mitchell HL, Le Cao KA, Carpenter L, et al. 2019. Temporal development of the oral microbiome and prediction of early childhood caries. Sci Rep 9: 19732. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Michalek SM, McGhee JR, Navia JM. 1975. Virulence of Streptococcus mutans: a sensitive method for evaluating cariogenicity in young gnotobiotic rats. Infect Immun 12: 69–75. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Loesche WJ. 1986. Role of Streptococcus mutans in human dental decay. Microbiol Rev 50: 353–80. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Dewhirst FE, Chen T, Izard J, Paster BJ, et al. 2010. The human oral microbiome. J Bacteriol 192: 5002–17. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Yang F, Zeng X, Ning K, Liu KL, et al. 2012. Saliva microbiomes distinguish caries-active from healthy human populations. ISME J 6: 1–10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Kianoush N, Adler CJ, Nguyen KA, Browne GV, et al. 2014. Bacterial profile of dentine caries and the impact of pH on bacterial population diversity. PloS one 9: e92940. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Aas JA, Griffen AL, Dardis SR, Lee AM, et al. 2008. Bacteria of dental caries in primary and permanent teeth in children and young adults. J Clin Microbiol 46: 1407–17. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Kahharova D, Brandt BW, Buijs MJ, Peters M, et al. 2020. Maturation of the Oral Microbiome in Caries-Free Toddlers: A Longitudinal Study. J Dent Res 99: 159–67. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Zhou X, Nanayakkara S, Gao JL, Nguyen KA, et al. 2019. Storage media and not extraction method has the biggest impact on recovery of bacteria from the oral microbiome. Sci Rep 9: 14968. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Soergel DA, Dey N, Knight R, Brenner SE. 2012. Selection of primers for optimal taxonomic classification of environmental 16S rRNA gene sequences. ISME J 6: 1440–4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Sukumar S, Roberts AP, Martin FE, Adler CJ. 2016. Metagenomic Insights into Transferable Antibiotic Resistance in Oral Bacteria. Journal of Dental Research. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Belda-Ferre P, Alcaraz LD, Cabrera-Rubio R, Romero H, et al. 2012. The oral metagenome in health and disease. ISME J 6: 46–56. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Yang F, Ning K, Zeng X, Zhou Q, et al. 2016. Characterization of saliva microbiota's functional feature based on metagenomic sequencing. Springerplus 5: 2098. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Wang Y, Wang S, Wu C, Chen X, et al. 2019. Oral Microbiome Alterations Associated with Early Childhood Caries Highlight the Importance of Carbohydrate Metabolic Activities. mSystems 4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Baker JL, Morton JT, Dinis M, Alvarez R, et al. 2021. Deep metagenomics examines the oral microbiome during dental caries, revealing novel taxa and co-occurrences with host molecules. Genome Res 31: 64–74. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Kilian M, Frandsen EV, Haubek D, Poulsen K. 2006. The etiology of periodontal disease revisited by population genetic analysis. Periodontol 2000 42: 158–79. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.de Carvalho FG, Silva DS, Hebling J, Spolidorio LC, et al. 2006. Presence of mutans streptococci and Candida spp. in dental plaque/dentine of carious teeth and early childhood caries. Archives of oral biology 51: 1024–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Signoretto C, Burlacchini G, Faccioni F, Zanderigo M, et al. 2009. Support for the role of Candida spp. in extensive caries lesions of children. New Microbiol 32: 101–7. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Raja M, Hannan A, Ali K. 2010. Association of oral candidal carriage with dental caries in children. Caries research 44: 272–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Yang XQ, Zhang Q, Lu LY, Yang R, et al. 2012. Genotypic distribution of Candida Albicans in dental biofilm of Chinese children associated with severe early childhood caries. Archives of Oral Biology 57: 1048–53. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Klinke T, Kneist S, de Soet JJ, Kuhlisch E, et al. 2009. Acid production by oral strains of Candida albicans and lactobacilli. Caries research 43: 83–91. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Fechney JM, Browne GV, Prabhu N, Irinyi L, et al. 2019. Preliminary study of the oral mycobiome of children with and without dental caries. Journal of Oral Microbiology 11: 1536182. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.O'Connell LM, Santos R, Springer G, Burne RA, et al. 2020. Site-specific profiling of the dental mycobiome reveals strong taxonomic shifts during progression of early-childhood caries. Appl Environ Microbiol 86. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Dame-Teixeira N, de Cena JA, Cortes DA, Belmok A, et al. 2020. Presence of Archaea in dental caries biofilms. Archives of oral biology 110: 104606. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Xu H, Tian J, Hao W, Zhang Q, et al. 2018. Oral microbiome shifts from caries-free to caries-affected status in 3-year-old Chinese children: A longitudinal study. Front Microbiol 9: 2009. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Bockmann MR, Harris AV, Bennett CN, Odeh R, et al. 2011. Timing of colonization of caries-producing bacteria: an approach based on studying monozygotic twin pairs. Int J Dent 2011: 571573. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Gomez A, Espinoza JL, Harkins DM, Leong P, et al. 2017. Host genetic control of the oral microbiome in health and disease. Cell Host Microbe 22: 269–78 e3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Zaura E, Nicu EA, Krom BP, Keijser BJ. 2014. Acquiring and maintaining a normal oral microbiome: current perspective. Front Cell Infect Microbiol 4: 85. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.de Goffau MC, Lager S, Sovio U, Gaccioli F, et al. 2019. Human placenta has no microbiome but can contain potential pathogens. Nature 572: 329–34. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Dominguez-Bello MG, Costello EK, Contreras M, Magris M, et al. 2010. Delivery mode shapes the acquisition and structure of the initial microbiota across multiple body habitats in newborns. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 107: 11971–5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Ruiz L, Bacigalupe R, Garcia-Carral C, Boix-Amoros A, et al. 2019. Microbiota of human precolostrum and its potential role as a source of bacteria to the infant mouth. Sci Rep 9: 8435. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Holgerson PL, Vestman NR, Claesson R, Ohman C, et al. 2013. Oral microbial profile discriminates breast-fed from formula-fed infants. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 56: 127–36. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Sulyanto RM, Thompson ZA, Beall CJ, Leys EJ, et al. 2019. The predominant oral microbiota is acquired early in an organized pattern. Scientific Reports 9: 10550. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Cephas KD, Kim J, Mathai RA, Barry KA, et al. 2011. Comparative analysis of salivary bacterial microbiome diversity in edentulous infants and their mothers or primary care givers using pyrosequencing. PloS one 6: e23503. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Alaluusua S, Malmivirta R. 1994. Early plaque accumulation—a sign for caries risk in young children. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 22: 273–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Arola L, Bonet ML, Delzenne N, Duggal M, et al. 2009. Summary and general conclusions/outcomes on the role and fate of sugars in human nutrition and health. Obes Rev 10: 55–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Moynihan P, Kelly S. 2014. Effect on caries of restricting sugars intake: systematic review to inform WHO guidelines. J Dent Res 93: 8–18. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Wu J, Li M, Huang R. 2019. The effect of smoking on caries-related microorganisms. Tob Induc Dis 17: 32. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Huang R, Li M, Gregory RL. 2012. Effect of nicotine on growth and metabolism of Streptococcus mutans. European journal of oral sciences 120: 319–25. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Esberg A, Haworth S, Hasslof P, Lif Holgerson P, et al. 2020. Oral microbiota profile associates with sugar intake and taste preference genes. Nutrients 12. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Cattaneo C, Gargari G, Koirala R, Laureati M, et al. 2019. New insights into the relationship between taste perception and oral microbiota composition. Sci Rep 9: 3549. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Burt B, Pai S. 2001. Sugar consumption and caries risk: a systematic review. Journal of dental education 65: 1017–23. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Sitarik AR, Arora M, Austin C, Bielak LF, et al. 2020. Fetal and early postnatal lead exposure measured in teeth associates with infant gut microbiota. Environment International 144: 106062. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Wu Y, Jansen E, Peterson K, Foxman B, et al. 2019. The associations between lead exposure at multiple sensitive life periods and dental caries risks in permanent teeth. Science of The Total Environment 654: 1048–55. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Jin Y, Wu S, Zeng Z, Fu Z. 2017. Effects of environmental pollutants on gut microbiota. Environmental Pollution 222: 1–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Rosenfeld CS. 2017. Gut dysbiosis in animals due to environmental chemical exposures. Front Cell Infect Mi 7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Velmurugan G, Ramprasath T, Gilles M, Swaminathan K, et al. 2017. Gut microbiota, endocrine-disrupting chemicals, and the diabetes epidemic. Trends Endocrinol Metab 28: 612–25. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Fouladi F, Bailey MJ, Patterson WB, Sioda M, et al. 2020. Air pollution exposure is associated with the gut microbiome as revealed by shotgun metagenomic sequencing. Environ Int 138. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Wu YH, Wang ZJ, Zhang Y, Ruan LM, et al. 2020. Microbiome in healthy women between two districts with different air quality index. Frontiers in Microbiology 11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Segata N, Haake SK, Mannon P, Lemon KP, et al. 2012. Composition of the adult digestive tract bacterial microbiome based on seven mouth surfaces, tonsils, throat and stool samples. Genome Biol 13: R42. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Kato I, Vasquez A, Moyerbrailean G, Land S, et al. 2017. Nutritional correlates of human oral microbiome. J Am Coll Nutr 36: 88–98. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Gemmel A, Tavares M, Alperin S, Soncini J, et al. 2002. Blood lead level and dental caries in school-age children. Environ Health Perspect 110: A625–30. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Youravong N, Chongsuvivatwong V, Geater AF, Dahlen G, et al. 2006. Lead associated caries development in children living in a lead contaminated area, Thailand. Sci Total Environ 361: 88–96. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Arora M, Weuve J, Schwartz J, Wright RO. 2008. Association of environmental cadmium exposure with pediatric dental caries. Environ Health Perspect 116: 821–5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Tort B, Choi YH, Kim EK, Jung YS, et al. 2018. Lead exposure may affect gingival health in children. Bmc Oral Health 18. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Davis E, Bakulski KM, Goodrich JM, Peterson KE, et al. 2020. Low levels of salivary metals, oral microbiome composition and dental decay. Sci Rep 10: 14640. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Wu J, Peters BA, Dominianni C, Zhang Y, et al. 2016. Cigarette smoking and the oral microbiome in a large study of American adults. ISME J 10: 2435–46. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Mason MR, Preshaw PM, Nagaraja HN, Dabdoub SM, et al. 2015. The subgingival microbiome of clinically healthy current and never smokers. ISME J 9: 268–72. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Ganesan SM, Dabdoub SM, Nagaraja HN, Scott ML, et al. 2020. Adverse effects of electronic cigarettes on the disease-naive oral microbiome. Sci Adv 6: eaaz0108. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Wu J, Peters BA, Dominianni C, Zhang Y, et al. 2016. Cigarette smoking and the oral microbiome in a large study of American adults. The Isme Journal 10: 2435. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Landrigan PJ, Kimmel CA, Correa A, Eskenazi B. 2004. Children’s health and the environment: public health issues and challenges for risk assessment. Environmental Health Perspectives 112: 257–65. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Watson GE, Davis BA, Raubertas RF, Pearson SK, et al. 1997. Influence of maternal lead ingestion on caries in rat pups. Nature Medicine 3: 1024–5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Bowen WH. 2001. Exposure to metal ions and susceptibility to dental caries. Journal of dental education 65: 1046–53. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Moss ME, Lanphear BP, Auinger P. 1999. Association of dental caries and blood lead levels. JAMA 281: 2294–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Wiener RC, Long DL, Jurevic RJ. 2015. Blood levels of the heavy metal, lead, and caries in children aged 24-72 months: NHANES III. Caries research 49: 26–33. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Hunt CE, Navia JM. 1975. Pre-eruptive effects of Mo, B, Sr and F on dental caries in the rat. Archives of Oral Biology 20: 497–501. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 86.Arora M, Weuve J, Schwartz J, Wright RO. 2008. Association of environmental cadmium exposure with pediatric dental caries. Environmental Health Perspectives 116: 821–5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 87.Youravong N 2011. Lead Exposure and Caries in Children. In Nriagu JO, ed; Encyclopedia of Environmental Health. Burlington: Elsevier. p 421–9. [Google Scholar]
  • 88.Shearer TR, Britton JL, DeSart DJ. 1980. Influence of post-developmental cadmium on caries and cariostasis by fluoride. Environ Health Perspect 34: 219–21. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 89.Shearer TR, Britton JL, DeSart DJ, Johnson JR. 1980. Influence of cadmium on caries and the cariostatic properties of fluoride in rats. Archives of Environmental Health: An International Journal 35: 176–80. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 90.Aligne CA, Moss ME, Auinger P, Weitzman M. 2003. Association of pediatric dental caries with passive smoking. JAMA 289: 1258–64. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 91.Gemmel A, Tavares M, Alperin S, Soncini J, et al. 2002. Blood lead level and dental caries in school-age children. Environmental health perspectives 110: A625–A30. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 92.Lu K, Mahbub R, Cable PH, Ru H, et al. 2014. Gut microbiome phenotypes driven by host genetics affect arsenic metabolism. Chem Res Toxicol 27: 172–4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 93.Chi L, Bian X, Gao B, Ru H, et al. 2016. Sex-specific effects of arsenic exposure on the trajectory and function of the gut microbiome. Chem Res Toxicol 29: 949–51. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 94.Chen L, Hu C, Lok-Shun Lai N, Zhang W, et al. 2018. Acute exposure to PBDEs at an environmentally realistic concentration causes abrupt changes in the gut microbiota and host health of zebrafish. Environ Pollut 240: 17–26. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 95.Wu J, Wen XW, Faulk C, Boehnke K, et al. 2016. Perinatal lead exposure alters gut microbiota composition and results in sex-specific bodyweight increases in adult mice. Toxicological Sciences 151: 324–33. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 96.Boraas JC, Messer LB, Till MJ. 1988. A genetic contribution to dental caries, occlusion, and morphology as demonstrated by twins reared apart. J Dent Res 67: 1150–5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 97.Wang X, Shaffer JR, Weyant RJ, Cuenco KT, et al. 2010. Genes and their effects on dental caries may differ between primary and permanent dentitions. Caries research 44: 277–84. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 98.Silva MJ, Kilpatrick NM, Craig JM, Manton DJ, et al. 2019. Genetic and early-life environmental influences on dental caries risk: A twin study. Pediatrics 143. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 99.Hughes T. 2021. Epigenetics in Oral Health. Oral Epidemiology: Springer. p 367–78. [Google Scholar]
  • 100.Arora M, Austin C. 2013. Teeth as a biomarker of past chemical exposure. Current Opinion in Pediatrics 25: 261–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 101.Andra SS, Austin C, Arora M. 2016. The tooth exposome in children's health research. Current Opinion in Pediatrics 28: 221–7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 102.Lorentz KO, Lemmers SAM, Chrysostomou C, Dirks W, et al. 2019. Use of dental microstructure to investigate the role of prenatal and early life physiological stress in age at death. Journal of Archaeological Science 104: 85–96. [Google Scholar]
  • 103.Austin C, Smith TM, Farahani RMZ, Hinde K, et al. 2016. Uncovering system-specific stress signatures in primate teeth with multimodal imaging. Scientific Reports 6: 18802. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 104.Tsutaya T, Yoneda M. 2015. Reconstruction of breastfeeding and weaning practices using stable isotope and trace element analyses: A review. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 156: 2–21. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 105.Smith TM, Austin C, Green DR, Joannes-Boyau R, et al. 2018. Wintertime stress, nursing, and lead exposure in Neanderthal children. Science Advances 4: eaau9483. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 106.Bellinger D, Hu H, Titlebaum L, Needleman HL. 1994. Attentional correlates of dentin and bone lead levels in adolescents. Archives of environmental health 49: 98–105. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 107.Kim R, Hu H, Rotnitzky A, Bellinger D, et al. 1995. A longitudinal study of chronic lead exposure and physical growth in Boston children. Environ Health Perspect 103: 952–7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 108.Gulson B, Wilson D. 1994. History of lead exposure in children revealed from isotopic analyses of teeth. Arch Environ Health 49: 279–83. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 109.Berkovitz BKB GH, Moxham BJ. 2009. Oral Anatomy, Histology and Embryology: Elsevier, London. [Google Scholar]
  • 110.Sabel N, Johansson C, Kuhnisch J, Robertson A, et al. 2008. Neonatal lines in the enamel of primary teeth--a morphological and scanning electron microscopic investigation. Arch Oral Biol 53: 954–63. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 111.Arora M, Austin C, Sarrafpour B, Hernandez-Avila M, et al. 2014. Determining prenatal, early childhood and cumulative long-term lead exposure using micro-spatial deciduous dentine levels. PLoS One 9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 112.Arora M, Bradman A, Austin C, Vedar M, et al. 2012. Determining fetal manganese exposure from mantle dentine of deciduous teeth. Environmental Science & Technology 46: 5118–25. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 113.Arora M, Reichenberg A, Willfors C, Austin C, et al. 2017. Fetal and postnatal metal dysregulation in autism. Nature Communications 8: 15493. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 114.Austin C, Smith TM, Bradman A, Hinde K, et al. 2013. Barium distributions in teeth reveal early-life dietary transitions in primates. Nature 498: 216–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 115.Austin C, Richardson C, Smith D, Arora M. 2017. Tooth manganese as a biomarker of exposure and body burden in rats. Environ Res 155: 373–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 116.Garcia-Algar O, Vall O, Segura J, Pascual JA, et al. 2003. Nicotine concentrations in deciduous teeth and cumulative exposure to tobacco smoke during childhood. The Journal of the American Medical Association 290: 196–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 117.Jan J, Vrecl M, Pogacnik A, Gaspersic D. 2001. Bioconcentration of lipophilic organochlorines in ovine dentine. Archives of Oral Biology 46: 1111–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 118.Guo X, Liu S, Wang Z, Zhang XX, et al. 2014. Metagenomic profiles and antibiotic resistance genes in gut microbiota of mice exposed to arsenic and iron. Chemosphere 112: 1–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 119.Zhang W, Guo R, Yang Y, Ding J, et al. 2016. Long-term effect of heavy-metal pollution on diversity of gastrointestinal microbial community of Bufo raddei. Toxicol Lett 258: 192–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 120.Hu J, Raikhel V, Gopalakrishnan K, Fernandez-Hernandez H, et al. 2016. Effect of postnatal low-dose exposure to environmental chemicals on the gut microbiome in a rodent model. Microbiome 4: 26. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 121.Haussmann HJ. 2012. Use of hazard indices for a theoretical evaluation of cigarette smoke composition. Chem Res Toxicol 25: 794–810. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 122.Yang O, Kim HL, Weon JI, Seo YR. 2015. Endocrine-disrupting chemicals: Review of toxicological mechanisms using molecular pathway analysis. J Cancer Prev 20: 12–24. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 123.Rattan S, Zhou C, Chiang C, Mahalingam S, et al. 2017. Exposure to endocrine disruptors during adulthood: consequences for female fertility. J Endocrinol 233: R109–R29. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 124.Wang Y, LeCao KA. 2019. Managing batch effects in microbiome data. Brief Bioinform. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 125.Anderson MJ, Walsh DCI. 2013. PERMANOVA, ANOSIM, and the Mantel test in the face of heterogeneous dispersions: What null hypothesis are you testing? Ecol Monogr 83: 557–74. [Google Scholar]
  • 126.Le Cao KA, Costello ME, Lakis VA, Bartolo F, et al. 2016. MixMC: A Multivariate Statistical Framework to Gain Insight into Microbial Communities. PloS one 11: e0160169. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 127.Wang Y, Lê Cao KA. 2020. A multivariate method to correct for batch effects in microbiome data. bioRxiv. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 128.Gloor GB, Macklaim JM, Pawlowsky-Glahn V, Egozcue JJ. 2017. Microbiome datasets are compositional: and this is not optional. Front Microbiol 8: 2224. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 129.Mandal S, Van Treuren W, White RA, Eggesbo M, et al. 2015. Analysis of composition of microbiomes: a novel method for studying microbial composition. Microb Ecol Health Dis 26: 27663. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 130.Lin H, Peddada SD. 2020. Analysis of compositions of microbiomes with bias correction. Nat Commun 11: 3514. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 131.Fernandes AD, Macklaim JM, Linn TG, Reid G, et al. 2013. ANOVA-like differential expression (ALDEx) analysis for mixed population RNA-Seq. PloS one 8: e67019. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 132.Susin A, Wang Y, Lê Cao KA, Luz Calle M. 2020. Variable selection in microbiome compositional data analysis. NAR Genomics and Bioinformatics 2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 133.Argelaguet R, Velten B, Arnol D, Dietrich S, et al. 2018. Multi-Omics Factor Analysis-a framework for unsupervised integration of multi-omics data sets. Mol Syst Biol 14: e8124. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 134.Singh A, Shannon CP, Gautier B, Rohart F, et al. 2019. DIABLO: an integrative approach for identifying key molecular drivers from multi-omics assays. Bioinformatics 35: 3055–62. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 135.Xia J, Gill EE, Hancock RE. 2015. NetworkAnalyst for statistical, visual and network-based meta-analysis of gene expression data. Nat Protoc 10: 823–44. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 136.Ghaemi MS, DiGiulio DB, Contrepois K, Callahan B, et al. 2019. Multiomics modeling of the immunome, transcriptome, microbiome, proteome and metabolome adaptations during human pregnancy. Bioinformatics 35: 95–103. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 137.Starr AE, Deeke SA, Li L, Zhang X, et al. 2018. Proteomic and metaproteomic approaches to understand host-microbe interactions. Anal Chem 90: 86–109. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES