Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31188837›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

Gut microbiome analysis by post: Evaluation of the optimal method to collect stool samples from infants within a national cohort study.

Georgina M Williams, Sam D Leary, Nadim J Ajami, Saranna Chipper Keating, Joseph F Petrosin, Julian P Hamilton-Shield, Kathleen M Gillespie

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Human Stool Preservation Impacts Taxonomic Profiles in 16S Metagenomics Studies.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2022
    Article
  9. Review
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

7 authors.

Georgina M WilliamsThe NIHR Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, Nutrition Theme, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.
Sam D LearyThe NIHR Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, Nutrition Theme, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.
Nadim J AjamiAlkek Center for Metagenomics and Microbiome Research, Department of Molecular Virology and Microbiology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, United States of America.
Saranna Chipper KeatingDiabetes and Metabolism, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.
Joseph F PetrosinAlkek Center for Metagenomics and Microbiome Research, Department of Molecular Virology and Microbiology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, United States of America.
Julian P Hamilton-ShieldThe NIHR Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, Nutrition Theme, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.
Kathleen M GillespieDiabetes and Metabolism, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-3009-8032

Funding

Department of Health
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUnderstanding the role of the gut microbiome is pivotal for the future development of therapies for the prevention and management of autoimmune conditions such as type 1 diabetes when sampling during early life may be particularly important. The current standard methods for collecting gut microbiome samples for research is to extract fresh samples or freeze samples immediately after collection. This is often impractical however for population-based studies. The aim of this study was to determine the optimal method for the stabilization of stool bacterial DNA obtained from nappies and transported by post in ambient conditions to the research centre for a national birth cohort study.

methodsFour methods to collect samples were compared to immediate freezing of samples: 1) collecting faeces onto a swab which was immediately frozen, 2) using a commercially available kit with stabilisation solution (OMNIgene•GUT kit) at ambient temperature, 3) collecting onto a swab and 4) collecting into a sterile plain tube. Samples 3) and 4) were returned to the laboratory by post at ambient temperatures. A Bland Altman analysis was used to assess the agreement between the different methods and the frozen standard.

resultsStool samples were collected by parents. For samples transported in ambient conditions, the limits of agreement showed that the OMNIgene•GUT kit had the narrowest 95% limits of agreement with the frozen standard as measured by the number of operational taxonomic units and the Shannon diversity index.

conclusionsAll methods assessed for preserving samples collected from nappies at a distance and delivered by post for gut microbiome analysis showed variation / disagreement from the frozen standard. Overall, the OMNIgene•GUT kit preserved the samples with minimal changes compared to other methods and was practical for parents to use.

Indexed as

BacteriaCohort StudiesDNA, BacterialDNA, RibosomalFecesFemaleGastrointestinal MicrobiomeHumansInfantMaleParentsRNA, Ribosomal, 16SSpecimen HandlingDNA, BacterialDNA, RibosomalRNA, Ribosomal, 16S

Identifiers

PMID31188837
PMCPMC6561628

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.