Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26120470›Full record

ArticleMicrobiome2015

16S rRNA gene-based profiling of the human infant gut microbiota is strongly influenced by sample processing and PCR primer choice.

Alan W Walker, Jennifer C Martin, Paul Scott, Julian Parkhill, Harry J Flint, Karen P Scott

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Microbiome, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 153 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
153citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

153 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Effects ofCell reports. Medicine · 2021
    Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Seasonal dynamics of the gut microbiota inFrontiers in insect science · 2026
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

93 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

6 authors.

Alan W WalkerMicrobiology Group, Rowett Institute of Nutrition and Health, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, AB21 9SB UK ; Pathogen Genomics Group, Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Wellcome Trust Genome Campus, Hinxton, Cambridgeshire CB10 1SA UK.
Jennifer C MartinMicrobiology Group, Rowett Institute of Nutrition and Health, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, AB21 9SB UK.
Paul ScottPathogen Genomics Group, Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Wellcome Trust Genome Campus, Hinxton, Cambridgeshire CB10 1SA UK.
Julian ParkhillPathogen Genomics Group, Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Wellcome Trust Genome Campus, Hinxton, Cambridgeshire CB10 1SA UK.
Harry J FlintMicrobiology Group, Rowett Institute of Nutrition and Health, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, AB21 9SB UK.
Karen P ScottMicrobiology Group, Rowett Institute of Nutrition and Health, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, AB21 9SB UK.

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCharacterisation of the bacterial composition of the gut microbiota is increasingly carried out with a view to establish the role of different bacterial species in causation or prevention of disease. It is thus essential that the methods used to determine the microbial composition are robust. Here, several widely used molecular techniques were compared to establish the optimal methods to assess the bacterial composition in faecal samples from babies, before weaning.

resultsThe bacterial community profile detected in the faeces of infants is highly dependent on the methodology used. Bifidobacteria were the most abundant bacteria detected at 6 weeks in faeces from two initially breast-fed babies using fluorescent in situ hybridisation (FISH), in agreement with data from previous culture-based studies. Using the 16S rRNA gene sequencing approach, however, we found that the detection of bifidobacteria in particular crucially depended on the optimisation of the DNA extraction method, and the choice of primers used to amplify the V1-V3 regions of 16S rRNA genes prior to subsequent sequence analysis. Bifidobacteria were only well represented among amplified 16S rRNA gene sequences when mechanical disruption (bead-beating) procedures for DNA extraction were employed together with optimised "universal" PCR primers. These primers incorporate degenerate bases at positions where mismatches to bifidobacteria and other bacterial taxa occur. The use of a DNA extraction kit with no bead-beating step resulted in a complete absence of bifidobacteria in the sequence data, even when using the optimised primers.

conclusionsThis work emphasises the importance of sample processing methodology to downstream sequencing results and illustrates the value of employing multiple approaches for determining microbiota composition.

Indexed as

16S rRNA gene sequencingBifidobacteriaFISHInfantIntestinal microbiota

Identifiers

PMID26120470
PMCPMC4482049

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.