Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26419531›Full record

ArticleMicrobiome2015

Cultivation of stable, reproducible microbial communities from different fecal donors using minibioreactor arrays (MBRAs).

Jennifer M Auchtung, Catherine D Robinson, Robert A Britton

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 91 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
91citing 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

91 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Gut microbes · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Strengths and limitations ofGut microbes reports · 2026
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Present and future of microbiome-targeting therapeutics.The Journal of clinical investigation · 2025
    Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Gut · 2025
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. mSphere · 2025
    Article

31 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

3 authors.

Jennifer M AuchtungCenter for Metagenomics and Microbiome Research, Department of Molecular Virology and Microbiology, Baylor College of Medicine, One Baylor Plaza, Houston, TX, 77030, USA. Jennifer.Auchtung@bcm.edu.
Catherine D RobinsonDepartment of Microbiology and Molecular Genetics, Michigan State University, 567 Wilson Rd, East Lansing, MI, 48823, USA. pohlcath@uoregon.edu.
Robert A BrittonCenter for Metagenomics and Microbiome Research, Department of Molecular Virology and Microbiology, Baylor College of Medicine, One Baylor Plaza, Houston, TX, 77030, USA. Robert.Britton@bcm.edu.

Funding

Tissue Analysis & Molecular Imaging CoreP30DK056338 · NIDDK · BAYLOR COLLEGE OF MEDICINE · PI FASIHA KANWAL · 2001 to 2026
$28.3M
The Impact of Microbiome Composition, Diversity, and Function on Enteric DiseaseU19AI090872 · NIAID · MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY · PI MANSFIELD, LINDA S. · 2010 to 2014
$7.1M
NIAID NIH HHS 5U19AI090872-02NIAID NIH HHS U19 AI090872NIDDK NIH HHS P30 DK056338
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundContinuous-flow culture models are one tool for studying complex interactions between members of human fecal microbiotas because they allow studies to be completed during an extended period of time under conditions where pH, nutrient availability, and washout of waste products and dead cells can be controlled. Because many of the existing well-validated continuous-flow models are large and complex, we were interested in developing a simpler continuous-flow system that would allow microbial community dynamics to be examined in higher throughput while still maintaining complex microbial communities. To this end, we developed minibioreactor arrays (MBRAs), small volume bioreactors (15 ml) that allow simultaneous cultivation of up to 48 microbial communities in a single anaerobic chamber.

resultsWe used MBRA to characterize the microbial community dynamics of replicate reactors inoculated from three different human fecal donors and reactors seeded with feces pooled from these three donors. We found that MBRA could be used to efficiently cultivate complex microbial communities that were a subset of the initial fecal inoculum (15-25 % of fecal OTUs initially observed). After an initial acclimation period of approximately 1 week, communities in each reactor stabilized and exhibited day-to-day variation similar to that observed in stable mouse fecal communities. Replicate reactors were predominately populated by shared core microbial communities; variation between replicate reactors was primarily driven by shifts in abundance of shared operational taxonomic units (OTUs). Consistent with differences between fecal donors, MBRA communities present in reactors seeded with different fecal samples had distinct composition and structure.

conclusionsFrom these analyses, we conclude that MBRAs can be used to cultivate communities that recapitulate key features of human fecal communities and are a useful tool to facilitate higher-throughput studies of the dynamics of these communities.

Indexed as

BioreactorsMicrobiotaAnimalsBiodiversityCluster AnalysisFecesGastrointestinal MicrobiomeHumansMiceReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID26419531
PMCPMC4588258

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.