ArticleOncotarget2016
Could gut microbiota serve as prognostic biomarker associated with colorectal cancer patients' survival? A pilot study on relevant mechanism.
Article in Oncotarget, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 117 papers, 9 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
117 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Impact of Gut Microbiota on the Clinical Course and Treatment Outcomes of Colorectal Cancer-A Systematic Review.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Pooled it
- Systematic review: The gut microbiota as a link between colorectal cancer and obesity.Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity · 2025Pooled it
- Prognostic impact of oral microbiome on survival of malignancies: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Cystic Fibrosis-Related Gut Dysbiosis: A Systematic Review.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2023Pooled it
- Fusobacterium Nucleatum Is a Risk Factor for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.Current medical science · 2022Pooled it
- A systematic review of microbial markers for risk prediction of colorectal neoplasia.British journal of cancer · 2022Pooled it
- The effect of periodontal bacteria infection on incidence and prognosis of cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Medicine · 2020Pooled it
- Role of the intestinal microbiome in colorectal cancer surgery outcomes.World journal of surgical oncology · 2019Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Effects of a high-fiber, high-fruit and high-vegetable, low-fat dietary intervention on the rectal tissue microbiome.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2025Trial
- Regulatory effects of Lactobacillus plantarum HY7714 on skin health by improving intestinal condition.PloS one · 2020Trial
- Site- and age-dependent associations between Fusobacterium nucleatum and colorectal cancer mortality.Cancer · 2026Article
- Microbiomics: Novel Biomarkers of Colorectal Cancer Diagnosis and Prognosis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Article
- Gut microbial metabolites targeting JUN in renal cell carcinoma via IL-17 signaling pathway: network pharmacology approach.Molecular diversity · 2026Article
- Primary tumor microbiomes predict distant metastasis of colorectal cancer.NPJ precision oncology · 2025Article
- The microbiome in cancer.iMeta · 2025Review
- Review
- The gut microbiome is associated with disease-free survival in stage I-III colorectal cancer patients.International journal of cancer · 2025Article
- Bacteria and Carcinogenesis and the Management of Cancer: A Narrative Review.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
57 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Evidences have shown that dysbiosis could promote the progression of colorectal cancer (CRC). However, the association of dysbiosis and prognosis of CRC is barely investigated. Therefore, we used 16S rRNA gene sequencing approach to determine differences in microbiota among tumor tissues of different prognosis and found that Fusobacterium nucleatum and Bacteroides fragilis were more abundant in worse prognosis groups, while Faecalibacterium prausnitzii displayed higher abundance in survival group. To further explore the prognostic value of the found bacteria, Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional regression analyses were used and the results exhibited that high abundance of F. nucleatum and B. fragilis were independent indicators of poor patient's survival. Besides, the expression of major inflammatory mediator were analyzed using PCR and western blot methods, and it turned out that high abundance of F. nucleatum was associated with increased expression of TNF-α, β-catenin and NF-κB, while COX-2, MMP-9 and NF-κB were positively related with high B. fragilis level, and high level of F. prausnitzii showed lower expression of β-catenin, MMP-9 and NF-κB. Moreover, immunohistochemical analysis indicated that KRAS and BRAF expression were prominent in F. nucleatum and B. fragilis high abundance group, while MLH1 showed lower expression. In conclusion, F. nucleatum, B. fragilis and F. prausnitzii can be identified as useful prognostic biomarkers for CRC, and dysbiosis might worsen the patients' prognosis by up-regulating gut inflammation level.
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.