Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31697779›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

Evaluating rectal swab collection method for gut microbiome analysis in the common marmoset (Callithrix jacchus).

Stephen C Artim, Alexander Sheh, Monika A Burns, James G Fox

Open access · goldAbstract 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 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 25% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Fecal bacterial communities of wild black capuchin monkeys (Current research in microbial sciences · 2021
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Prevalence of Vancomycin-ResistantAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021
    Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Stephen C ArtimDivision of Comparative Medicine, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-4503-9024
Alexander ShehDivision of Comparative Medicine, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Monika A BurnsDivision of Comparative Medicine, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States of America.
James G FoxDivision of Comparative Medicine, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology · US

Funding

TOXICOLOGY CORE UNITP30ES002109 · NIEHS · MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY · PI LEVINE, STUART S · 1985 to 2020
$25.6M
Biomedical Research Training for Veterinary ScientistsT32OD010978 · OD · MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY · PI FOX, JAMES G · 2012 to 2017
$2.2M
NIEHS NIH HHS P30 ES002109NIH HHS T32 OD010978
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The common marmoset (Callithrix jacchus) is increasingly used as an animal model for biomedical research; however, gastrointestinal diseases causing significant morbidity are endemic in many captive marmoset colonies. Establishing gut microbiome patterns in a marmoset colony may aid in clinical decision-making and model reproducibility. A standardized method of sample collection and storage is essential for proper interpretation of microbiome data. While microbiome studies commonly utilize fecal samples, the goal of this study was to determine whether the microbiome profile from a rectal swab performed on a sedated animal was comparable to the microbiome profile from a fecal sample. During routine physical exams, paired fecal and rectal swab samples were collected from each of 23 marmosets. DNA was extracted from all fecal and rectal swab samples and 16S ribosomal RNA gene sequences were amplified and analyzed. Initial comparison of the relative abundance of bacterial phyla between paired samples had a r2 value of 0.70 with S of 0.08 with no significant differences in α and β diversity metrics between fecal and rectal samples. Initial analysis however, revealed 5 discordant fecal-rectal pairs which corresponded only with the 5 rectal swabs that were classified as free of visible fecal matter during collection. Exclusion of these 5 pairs resulted in an optimized fit of the data as evidenced by a r2 value of 0.91 with S of 0.05. These results demonstrate that rectal swabs are a reliable method for profiling the fecal microbiome in the marmoset since the bacterial composition from a rectal swab with visible fecal contents correlated well with the bacterial composition from a fecal sample from the same marmoset. This study highlights the importance of standardized sample collection methods and exclusion of inappropriate samples.

Indexed as

Gastrointestinal MicrobiomeAnimalsBacteriaCallithrixFecesFemaleMaleRectumSpecimen Handling

Identifiers

PMID31697779
PMCPMC6837755
OpenAlexW2985132963

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.