Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30189859›Full record

ArticleBMC microbiology2018

Reliability of a participant-friendly fecal collection method for microbiome analyses: a step towards large sample size investigation.

Joanna W Szopinska, Raphaële Gresse, Saskia van der Marel, Jos Boekhorst, Sabina Lukovac, Iris van Swam, Barbara Franke, Harro Timmerman, Clara Belzer, Alejandro Arias Vasquez

Open access · goldAbstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC microbiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Fecal Carriage of Multidrug-ResistantBioMed research international · 2025
    Article
  8. Omnigene-GutAMB Express · 2024
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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 at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Joanna W SzopinskaDepartment of Psychiatry, Radboudumc, Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, P.O. Box 9101 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Raphaële GresseUMR 454 MEDIS UCA-INRA, Université Clermont Auvergne, F-63000, Clermont-Ferrand, France.
Saskia van der MarelDepartment of Human Genetics, Radboudumc, Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, P.O. Box 9101 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Jos BoekhorstNIZO Food Research BV, P.O. Box 20, 6710 BA, Ede, The Netherlands.
Sabina LukovacNIZO Food Research BV, P.O. Box 20, 6710 BA, Ede, The Netherlands.
Iris van SwamNIZO Food Research BV, P.O. Box 20, 6710 BA, Ede, The Netherlands.
Barbara FrankeDepartment of Psychiatry, Radboudumc, Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, P.O. Box 9101 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Harro TimmermanNIZO Food Research BV, P.O. Box 20, 6710 BA, Ede, The Netherlands.
Clara BelzerLaboratory of Microbiology, Wageningen University, Stippeneng 4, 6708 WE, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Alejandro Arias VasquezDepartment of Psychiatry, Radboudumc, Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, P.O. Box 9101 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Alejandro.AriasVasquez@radboudumc.nl.ORCID 0000-0001-8608-5081
Nederlands Instituut Voor Zuivel Oonderzoek · NLRadboud University Nijmegen · NLUniversité Clermont Auvergne · FRWageningen University & Research · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe effects of gut microbiota on human traits are expected to be small to moderate and adding the complexity of the human diseases, microbiome research demands big sample sizes. Fecal samples for such studies are mostly self-collected by participants at home. This imposes an extra level of complexity as sample collection and storage can be challenging. Effective, low-burden collection and storage methods allowing fecal samples to be transported properly and ensuring optimal quality and quantity of bacterial DNA for upstream analyses are necessary. Moreover, accurate assessment of the microbiome composition also depends on bacterial DNA extraction method. The aim of this study was to evaluate the reliability and efficiency of the OMNIgene•GUT kit as a participant-fecal friendly collection method (storage at room temperature for 24 h (O24h) or 7 days (O7d)) in comparison to the standard collection method (Fresh, storage at 4 °C for less than 24 h) in terms of amount of variability and information content accounting for two common DNA extraction methods.

resultsFourteen fecal samples were collected from healthy individuals (7 males, 7 females). Collection and storage methods did not differ significantly in terms of DNA concentration and Shannon diversity index. Phylum relative abundance showed significant differences for Bacteroidetes, Actinobacteria and Cyanobacteria. The differences were observed between control (Fresh) and O24h methods, but not between Fresh and O7d. These differences were not seen when performing bacterial DNA quantification based on three bacterial groups: Bacteroides spp., Bifidobacterium spp. and Clostridium cluster IV, which represent three major phyla: Bacteroidetes, Actinobacteria and Firmicutes respectively. The two DNA extraction methods differ in terms of DNA quantity, quality, bacterial diversity and bacterial relative abundance. Furthermore, principal component analysis revealed differences in microbial structure, which are driven by the DNA extraction methods more than the collection/storage methods.

conclusionOur results have highlighted the potential of using the OMNIgene•GUT kit for collection and storage at ambient temperature, which is convenient for studies aiming to collect large samples by giving participants the possibility to send samples by post. Importantly, we revealed that the choice of DNA extraction method have an impact on the microbiome profiling.

Indexed as

Gastrointestinal MicrobiomeBacteriaDNA, BacterialFecesFemaleHumansMaleRNA, Ribosomal, 16SSample SizeSpecimen HandlingDNA, BacterialRNA, Ribosomal, 16SBacterial DNA extractionFecal collection and storage methodMicrobiomeNext generation sequencingOMNIgene•GUT

Identifiers

PMID30189859
PMCPMC6127955
OpenAlexW2890500666

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.