Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27619640›Full record

ReviewClinical microbiology and infection : the official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases2016

Therapeutic manipulation of the microbiota: past, present, and considerations for the future.

V B Young

Open access · greenAbstract readHistorical ArticleReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical microbiology and infection : the official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.1field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 49 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Understanding the intricate interactions between microbiota and host.World journal of experimental medicine · 2025
    Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Kin selection explains the evolution of cooperation in the gut microbiota.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2021
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Antibiotic Resistance: One Health One World Outlook.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2021
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Harnessing the microbiota to treat neurological diseases
.Dialogues in clinical neuroscience · 2019
    Review
  20. Article
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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

V B YoungDepartment of Internal Medicine/Infectious Diseases Division, Department of Microbiology & Immunology, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. Electronic address: youngvi@umich.edu.
University of Michigan · US

Funding

Systems biology of Clostridium difficile infectionU01AI124255 · NIAID · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI SCHLOSS, PATRICK DAVID, YOUNG, VINCENT B · 2016 to 2020
$9.8M
The Interplay Between Host Immunity and Clostridium difficile PathogenesisU19AI090871 · NIAID · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI YOUNG, VINCENT B · 2010 to 2014
$7.5M
NIAID NIH HHS U01 AI124255NIAID NIH HHS U19 AI090871
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe growing appreciation of the potential role of indigenous microbiota in disease has resulted in a concomitant interest in manipulating the microbiome for therapeutic effect. The most successful example of microbiota manipulation for treatment of a disease is in recurrent infection with the bacterial pathogen Clostridium difficile.

aimsThis review provides historic perspectives on development of microbiota transplantation and reviews evidence for its use in recurrent C. difficile infection. SOURCES: A PubMed search of the terms ([fecal transplant OR fecal transplantation] AND difficile) to 9 June 2016 yielded 415 articles. CONTENT: Recent work has pointed to potential mechanisms by which microbiota restoration in the form of faecal transplantation has been efficacious. This includes studies of microorganisms associated with successful faecal transplantation in human and animal studies and a focus on bacterial bile acid metabolism as a mechanism that mediates colonization resistance against the pathogen. The potential use of microbiota manipulation for other diseases such as inflammatory bowel diseases and metabolic disorders will be discussed. The case will be made that the lessons learned from treatment of recurrent C. difficile infection may not necessarily translate to use of faecal transplantation or other methods to alter the microbiome for the treatment of other diseases. IMPLICATIONS: A key conclusion that can be drawn is that understanding of the precise role of the microbiota in the pathogenesis of a specific disease is necessary prior to determining if microbiota manipulation represents a novel treatment therapy.

Indexed as

MicrobiotaAnimalsClostridioides difficileClostridium InfectionsDisease Models, AnimalFecal Microbiota TransplantationFecesHistory, 20th CenturyHumansInflammatory Bowel DiseasesClostridium difficileColonization resistanceFaecal microbiota transplantMicrobiomeMicrobiota

Identifiers

PMID27619640
PMCPMC5125820
OpenAlexW2518893368

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.