Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24603888›Full record

ArticlePloS one2014

Analysis of the intestinal lumen microbiota in an animal model of colorectal cancer.

Qingchao Zhu, Zhiming Jin, Wen Wu, Renyuan Gao, Bomin Guo, Zhiguang Gao, Yongzhi Yang, Huanlong Qin

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 121 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
121citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
8.0field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

121 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 215 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. World journal of gastroenterology · 2017
    Pooled it
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. The Critical Period Microbiota Shape Brain Plasticity.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

61 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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Qingchao ZhuDepartment of Surgery, The Sixth People's Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.
Zhiming JinDepartment of Surgery, The Sixth People's Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.
Wen WuDepartment of Surgery, The Sixth People's Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.
Renyuan GaoDepartment of Surgery, The Sixth People's Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.
Bomin GuoDepartment of Surgery, The Sixth People's Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.
Zhiguang GaoDepartment of Surgery, The Sixth People's Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.
Yongzhi YangDepartment of Surgery, The Sixth People's Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.
Huanlong QinDepartment of Surgery, The Sixth People's Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.
Shanghai Jiao Tong University · CNShanghai Sixth People's Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recent reports have suggested that multiple factors such as host genetics, environment and diet can promote the progression of healthy mucosa towards sporadic colorectal carcinoma. Accumulating evidence has additionally associated intestinal bacteria with disease initiation and progression. In order to examine and analyze the composition of gut microbiota in the absence of confounding influences, we have established an animal model of 1, 2-dimethylhydrazine (DMH)-induced colon cancer. Using this model, we have performed pyrosequencing of the V3 region of the 16S rRNA genes in this study to determine the diversity and breadth of the intestinal microbial species. Our findings indicate that the microbial composition of the intestinal lumen differs significantly between control and tumor groups. The abundance of Firmicutes was elevated whereas the abundance of Bacteroidetes and Spirochetes was reduced in the lumen of CRC rats. Fusobacteria was not detected in any of the healthy rats and there was no significant difference in observed Proteobacteria species when comparing the bacterial communities between our two groups. Interestingly, the abundance of Proteobacteria was higher in CRC rats. At the genus level, Bacteroides exhibited a relatively higher abundance in CRC rats compared to controls (14.92% vs. 9.22%, p<0.001). Meanwhile, Prevotella (55.22% vs. 26.19%), Lactobacillus (3.71% vs. 2.32%) and Treponema (3.04% vs. 2.43%), were found to be significantly more abundant in healthy rats than CRC rats (p<0.001, respectively). We also demonstrate a significant reduction of butyrate-producing bacteria such as Roseburia and Eubacterium in the gut microbiota of CRC rats. Furthermore, a significant increase in Desulfovibrio, Erysipelotrichaceae and Fusobacterium was also observed in the tumor group. A decrease in probiotic species such as Ruminococcus and Lactobacillus was likewise observed in the tumor group. Collectively, we can conclude that a significant difference in intestinal bacterial flora exists between healthy rats and CRC rats.

Indexed as

MicrobiotaAnimalsBacteroidesColonColorectal NeoplasmsGenes, BacterialLactobacillusMaleMolecular TypingPrevotellaProteobacteriaRats, WistarSequence Analysis, DNATreponema

Identifiers

PMID24603888
PMCPMC3946251
OpenAlexW2020597244

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.