Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27922070›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2016

Deep sequencing of the 16S ribosomal RNA of the neonatal oral microbiome: a comparison of breast-fed and formula-fed infants.

S S Al-Shehri, E L Sweeney, D M Cowley, H G Liley, P D Ranasinghe, B G Charles, P N Shaw, D Vagenas, J A Duley, C L Knox

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

44 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Exploring Oral Microbiome in Healthy Infants and Children: A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. The Antimicrobial Potential of the Hop (Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

10 authors.

S S Al-ShehriSchool of Pharmacy, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, 4102, Australia.
E L SweeneyThe Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, Faculty of Health, School of Biomedical Sciences, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, 4059, Australia.
D M CowleyMater Research Institute, The University of Queensland, Woolloongabba, 4102, Australia.
H G LileyMater Research Institute, The University of Queensland, Woolloongabba, 4102, Australia.
P D RanasingheQueensland University of Technology, Science and Engineering Faculty, School of Earth, Environmental and Biological Sciences, 4001, Australia.
B G CharlesSchool of Pharmacy, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, 4102, Australia.
P N ShawSchool of Pharmacy, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, 4102, Australia.
D VagenasThe Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, Faculty of Health, School of Biomedical Sciences, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, 4059, Australia.
J A DuleySchool of Pharmacy, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, 4102, Australia.
C L KnoxThe Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, Faculty of Health, School of Biomedical Sciences, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, 4059, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In utero and upon delivery, neonates are exposed to a wide array of microorganisms from various sources, including maternal bacteria. Prior studies have proposed that the mode of feeding shapes the gut microbiota and, subsequently the child's health. However, the effect of the mode of feeding and its influence on the development of the neonatal oral microbiota in early infancy has not yet been reported. The aim of this study was to compare the oral microbiota of healthy infants that were exclusively breast-fed or formula-fed using 16S-rRNA gene sequencing. We demonstrated that the oral bacterial communities were dominated by the phylum Firmicutes, in both groups. There was a higher prevalence of the phylum Bacteroidetes in the mouths of formula-fed infants than in breast-fed infants (p = 0.01), but in contrast Actinobacteria were more prevalent in breast-fed babies; Proteobacteria was more prevalent in saliva of breast-fed babies than in formula-fed neonates (p = 0.04). We also found evidence suggesting that the oral microbiota composition changed over time, particularly Streptococcus species, which had an increasing trend between 4-8 weeks in both groups. This study findings confirmed that the mode of feeding influences the development of oral microbiota, and this may have implications for long-term human health.

Indexed as

Breast FeedingActinobacteriaBacillotaBacteroidetesFemaleGestational AgeHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansInfantInfant FormulaInfant, NewbornMaleMicrobiotaMilk, HumanMouthPhylogenyRNA, Ribosomal, 16S

Identifiers

PMID27922070
PMCPMC5138828

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.