ArticleGenome biology2015
Inter-individual differences in the gene content of human gut bacterial species.
Article in Genome biology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 116 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
116 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Meta-Analysis Reveals Compositional and Functional Microbial Changes Associated with Osteoporosis.Microbiology spectrum · 2023Pooled it
- The Landscape of Genetic Content in the Gut and Oral Human Microbiome.Cell host & microbe · 2019Pooled it
- Trial
- Cardiovascular function during supine rest in endurance-trained males with New Zealand blackcurrant: a dose-response study.European journal of applied physiology · 2017Trial
- Insights into toxin-antitoxin systems in the genusApplied and environmental microbiology · 2025Review
- Microbiome-derived bile acid signatures in early life and their association with islet autoimmunity.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Gut Virome: What's the Role in Irritable Bowel Syndrome?Reviews in medical virology · 2025Review
- Emerging multifaceted roles of the microbiome in cancer susceptibility.World journal of clinical oncology · 2025Review
- Hydrogels Modulating the Microbiome: Therapies for Tissue Regeneration with Infection Control.Gels (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Metagenomic whole genome shotgun analysis of the airway microbiome in laryngotracheal stenosis: a pilot study.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Investigating the gut bacteria structure and function of hibernating bats through 16S rRNA high-throughput sequencing and culturomics.mSystems · 2025Article
- Cytokines Meet Phages: A Revolutionary Pathway to Modulating Immunity and Microbial Balance.Biomedicines · 2025Review
- Host-encoded DNA methyltransferases modify the epigenome and host tropism of invading phages.iScience · 2025Article
- A Bacteroides thetaiotaomicron genetic locus encodes activities consistent with mucin O-glycoprotein processing and N-acetylgalactosamine metabolism.Nature communications · 2025Article
- The Microbiome and Metabolic Dysfunction-Associated Steatotic Liver Disease.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Article
- Infection with the entomopathogenic nematodes Steinernema alters the Drosophila melanogaster larval microbiome.PloS one · 2025Article
- The role of lycopene in alleviating soybean meal-induced intestinal injury in an early-weaned piglet model.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2025Article
- Effects of Various Natural Diets on Gonad Development, Roe Quality, and Intestinal Microbiota of the Purple Sea Urchin (Aquaculture nutrition · 2025Article
- Sequencing-based analysis of microbiomes.Nature reviews. Genetics · 2024Review
56 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundGene content differences in human gut microbes can lead to inter-individual phenotypic variations such as digestive capacity. It is unclear whether gene content variation is caused by differences in microbial species composition or by the presence of different strains of the same species; the extent of gene content variation in the latter is unknown. Unlike pan-genome studies of cultivable strains, the use of metagenomic data can provide an unbiased view of structural variation of gut bacterial strains by measuring them in their natural habitats, the gut of each individual in this case, representing native boundaries between gut bacterial populations. We analyzed publicly available metagenomic data from fecal samples to characterize inter-individual variation in gut bacterial species.
resultsA comparison of 11 abundant gut bacterial species showed that the gene content of strains from the same species differed, on average, by 13% between individuals. This number is based on gene deletions only and represents a lower limit, yet the variation is already in a similar range as observed between completely sequenced strains of cultivable species. We show that accessory genes that differ considerably between individuals can encode important functions, such as polysaccharide utilization and capsular polysaccharide synthesis loci.
conclusionMetagenomics can yield insights into gene content variation of strains in complex communities, which cannot be predicted by phylogenetic marker genes alone. The large degree of inter-individual variability in gene content implies that strain resolution must be considered in order to fully assess the functional potential of an individual's human gut microbiome.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.