Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27279212›Full record

ArticleNature2016

Accounting for reciprocal host-microbiome interactions in experimental science.

Thaddeus S Stappenbeck, Herbert W Virgin

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Nature, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 149 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
149citing 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

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

  1. Guiding Principles: Reporting Elements for Gastrointestinal Organoid Research.Cellular and molecular gastroenterology and hepatology · 2026
    Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. The Gut Microbiota Regulates Motor Deficits via Butyrate in a GnalAdvanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Mammary Gland Microbiota in Benign Breast Diseases.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Infection and immunity · 2025
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

89 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

2 authors.

Thaddeus S StappenbeckDepartment of Pathology and Immunology, Washington University School of Medicine, Campus Box 8118, 660 South Euclid Avenue, St Louis, Missouri 63110, USA.
Herbert W VirginDepartment of Pathology and Immunology, Washington University School of Medicine, Campus Box 8118, 660 South Euclid Avenue, St Louis, Missouri 63110, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Mammals are defined by their metagenome, a combination of host and microbiome genes. This knowledge presents opportunities to further basic biology with translation to human diseases. However, the now-documented influence of the metagenome on experimental results and the reproducibility of in vivo mammalian models present new challenges. Here we provide the scientific basis for calling on all investigators, editors and funding agencies to embrace changes that will enhance reproducible and interpretable experiments by accounting for metagenomic effects. Implementation of new reporting and experimental design principles will improve experimental work, speed discovery and translation, and properly use substantial investments in biomedical research.

Indexed as

Research DesignAnimalsBiomedical ResearchFecal Microbiota TransplantationFemaleHumansMaleMetagenomeMiceMicrobiotaModels, AnimalPhenotypeReference StandardsReproducibility of ResultsSequence Analysis, DNA

Identifiers

PMID27279212

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.