Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31253096›Full record

ArticleBMC microbiology2019

Assessment of the impact of different fecal storage protocols on the microbiota diversity and composition: a pilot study.

Shirin Moossavi, Phillip A Engen, Reza Ghanbari, Stefan J Green, Ankur Naqib, Faraz Bishehsari, Shahin Merat, Hossein Poustchi, Ali Keshavarzian, Reza Malekzadeh

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC microbiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Reduced abundance ofFrontiers in microbiomes · 2023
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Storage of soil microbiome for application in sustainable agriculture: prospects and challenges.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2022
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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.

Shirin MoossaviDigestive Oncology Research Center, Digestive Disease Research Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Phillip A EngenDepartment of Internal Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA.
Reza GhanbariDigestive Oncology Research Center, Digestive Disease Research Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Stefan J GreenSequencing Core, Research Resources Center, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.
Ankur NaqibSequencing Core, Research Resources Center, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.
Faraz BishehsariDepartment of Internal Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA.
Shahin MeratDigestive Oncology Research Center, Digestive Disease Research Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Hossein PoustchiLiver and Pancreatobiliary Diseases Research Center, Digestive Disease Research Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Shariati Hospital, Kargar Shomali Avenue, Tehran, Iran.
Ali KeshavarzianDepartment of Internal Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA.
Reza MalekzadehDigestive Oncology Research Center, Digestive Disease Research Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. malek@tums.ac.ir.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFecal samples are currently the most commonly studied proxy for gut microbiota. The gold standard of sample handling and storage for microbiota analysis is maintaining the cold chain during sample transfer and immediate storage at - 80 °C. Gut microbiota studies in large-scale, population-based cohorts require a feasible sample collection protocol. We compared the effect of three different storage methods and mock shipment: immediate freezing at - 80 °C, in 95% ethanol stored at room temperature (RT) for 48 h, and on blood collection card stored at RT for 48 h, on the measured composition of fecal microbiota of eight healthy, female volunteers by sequencing the V4 region of the 16S rRNA gene on an Illumina MiSeq.

resultsShared operational taxonomic units (OTUs) between different methods were 68 and 3% for OTUs > 0.01 and < 0.01% mean relative abundance within each group, respectively. α and β-diversity measures were not significantly impacted by different storage methods. With the exception of Actinobacteria, fecal microbiota profiles at the phylum level were not significantly affected by the storage method. Actinobacteria was significantly higher in samples collected on card compared to immediate freezing (1.6 ± 1.1% vs. 0.4 ± 0.2%, p = 0.005) mainly driven by expansion of Actinobacteria relative abundance in fecal samples stored on card in two individuals. There was no statistically significant difference at lower taxonomic levels tested.

conclusionConsistent results of the microbiota composition and structure for different storage methods were observed. Fecal collection on card could be a suitable alternative to immediate freezing for fecal microbiota analysis using 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing.

Indexed as

BiodiversityGastrointestinal MicrobiomeBacteriaCohort StudiesFecesFemaleFreezingHumansPilot ProjectsRNA, Ribosomal, 16SSpecimen HandlingRNA, Ribosomal, 16SCardCohort studyFecal storageGut microbiotaMock shipment

Identifiers

PMID31253096
PMCPMC6599303

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.