Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24529162›Full record

ArticleMicrobiome2014

Comparison of brush and biopsy sampling methods of the ileal pouch for assessment of mucosa-associated microbiota of human subjects.

Susan M Huse, Vincent B Young, Hilary G Morrison, Dionysios A Antonopoulos, John Kwon, Sushila Dalal, Rose Arrieta, Nathaniel A Hubert, Lici Shen, Joseph H Vineis and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Microbiome, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 71 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
71citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

71 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Bile acid fitness determinants of abioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2023
    Article
  14. Ethical Considerations of Using ChatGPT in Health Care.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

11 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Susan M HuseDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Brown University, Providence, RI, USA. susan_huse@brown.edu.
Vincent B Young
Hilary G Morrison
Dionysios A Antonopoulos
John Kwon
Sushila Dalal
Rose Arrieta
Nathaniel A Hubert
Lici Shen
Joseph H Vineis
Jason C Koval
Mitchell L Sogin
Eugene B Chang
Laura E Raffals

Funding

PILOT AND FEASIBILTY PROGRAMP30DK084567 · NIDDK · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI GREGORY J. GORES · 2009 to 2026
$22.2M
The Role of the Gut Microbiota in Ulcerative ColitisUH3DK083993 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI CHANG, EUGENE B, MEYER, FOLKER · 2010 to 2012
$8.2M
NIDDK NIH HHS P30 DK084567
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMucosal biopsy is the most common sampling technique used to assess microbial communities associated with the intestinal mucosa. Biopsies disrupt the epithelium and can be associated with complications such as bleeding. Biopsies sample a limited area of the mucosa, which can lead to potential sampling bias. In contrast to the mucosal biopsy, the mucosal brush technique is less invasive and provides greater mucosal coverage, and if it can provide equivalent microbial community data, it would be preferable to mucosal biopsies.

resultsWe compared microbial samples collected from the intestinal mucosa using either a cytology brush or mucosal biopsy forceps. We collected paired samples from patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) who had previously undergone colectomy and ileal pouch anal anastomosis (IPAA), and profiled the microbial communities of the samples by sequencing V4-V6 or V4-V5 16S rRNA-encoding gene amplicons. Comparisons of 177 taxa in 16 brush-biopsy sample pairs had a mean R2 of 0.94. We found no taxa that varied significantly between the brush and biopsy samples after adjusting for multiple comparisons (false discovery rate ≤0.05). We also tested the reproducibility of DNA amplification and sequencing in 25 replicate pairs and found negligible variation (mean R2 = 0.99). A qPCR analysis of the two methods showed that the relative yields of bacterial DNA to human DNA were several-fold higher in the brush samples than in the biopsies.

conclusionsMucosal brushing is preferred to mucosal biopsy for sampling the epithelial-associated microbiota. Although both techniques provide similar assessments of the microbial community composition, the brush sampling method has relatively more bacterial to host DNA, covers a larger surface area, and is less traumatic to the epithelium than the mucosal biopsy.

Identifiers

PMID24529162
PMCPMC3931571

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.