ArticleFrontiers in microbiology2018
A Comparison of Homogenization vs. Enzymatic Lysis for Microbiome Profiling in Clinical Endoscopic Biopsy Tissue Samples.
Article in Frontiers in microbiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Multicenter Phase II Study of Cabazitaxel in Advanced Gastroesophageal Cancer: Association of HER2 Expression and M2-Like Tumor-Associated Macrophages with Patient Outcome.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2020Trial
- Biological Characteristics and Comparative Genomic Analysis ofMicroorganisms · 2026Article
- Shining Light on Oral Biofilm Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization (FISH): Probing the Accuracy of In Situ Biogeography Studies.Molecular oral microbiology · 2025Article
- Elucidating the zinc-binding proteome of Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. lycopersici with particular emphasis on zinc-binding effector proteins.Archives of microbiology · 2023Article
- Computational identification of putative copper-binding proteins in pomegranate bacterial blight pathogen Xanthomonas citri pv. punicae.Archives of microbiology · 2022Article
- Low-Abundant Microorganisms: The Human Microbiome's Dark Matter, a Scoping Review.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2021Article
- Review of current diagnostic methods and advances inWorld journal of gastroenterology · 2019Review
- Correlation between Jejunal Microbial Diversity and Muscle Fatty Acids Deposition in Broilers Reared at Different Ambient Temperatures.Scientific reports · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Identification of the human microbiome has proven to be of utmost importance with the emerging role of bacteria in various physiological and pathological processes. High throughput sequencing strategies have evolved to assess the composition of the microbiome. To identify possible bias that may exist in the processing of tissue for whole genome sequencing (WGS), it is important to evaluate the extraction method on the overall microbial content and composition. Here we compare two different methods of extraction, homogenization vs. enzymatic lysis, on gastric, esophageal and colorectal biopsies and survey the microbial content and composition using WGS and quantitative PCR (qPCR). We examined total bacterial content using universal 16S rDNA qPCR as well as the abundance of three phyla (
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.