ArticlePloS one2020
Esophageal microbiome signature in patients with Barrett's esophagus and esophageal adenocarcinoma.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 53 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
53 citing papers in PubMed, 85 citations in OpenAlex.
- A fermented milk drink containingiScience · 2026Article
- Community assembly modeling of the microbiome within Barrett's esophagus and esophageal adenocarcinoma.BMC genomics · 2026Article
- Cross-organ microbes modulate host upper gastrointestinal health and disease via the oral-gastric microbiome axis.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Review
- Translational approaches in microbiome research: from functional mechanisms to next-generation therapeutics.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Review
- Intestinal and esophageal microbiota in esophageal cancer development and treatment.Gut microbes · 2025Review
- Review
- The Involvement of Oral Pathogenic Bacteria,Gastro hep advances · 2025Article
- Microbiota profiling in esophageal diseases: Novel insights into molecular staining and clinical outcomes.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2024Review
- Sjögren's Disease and Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease: What Is Their Evidence-Based Link?Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Review
- Impact of Esophageal Motility on Microbiome Alterations in Symptomatic Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Patients With Negative Endoscopy: Exploring the Role of Ineffective Esophageal Motility and Contraction Reserve.Journal of neurogastroenterology and motility · 2024Article
- Investigating the causal role of the gut microbiota in esophageal cancer and its subtypes: a two-sample Mendelian randomization study.BMC cancer · 2024Article
- Co-enrichment of cancer-associated bacterial taxa is correlated with immune cell infiltrates in esophageal tumor tissue.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Biomarkers of lymph node metastasis in esophageal cancer.Frontiers in immunology · 2024Review
- Oral microbiota: the overlooked catalyst in cancer initiation and progression.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2024Review
- Unraveling the pathogenesis of Barrett's esophagus and esophageal adenocarcinoma: the "omics" era.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Review
- Gut microbiota and immunotherapy of renal cell carcinoma.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2023Review
- Review
- 16S rRNA gene primer choice impacts off-target amplification in human gastrointestinal tract biopsies and microbiome profiling.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Preliminary studies suggested a possible correlation of microbiota with Barrett's esophagus (BE) and esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), where the need for tools to ameliorate its poor prognosis is mandatory. We explored the potential signature of esophageal microbiota and its predicted functional profile along the continuous spectrum from BE to EAC. We analyzed through 16S-based amplicon sequencing the mucosal microbiota and the microbiota-related functional predictions in 10 BE and 6 EAC patients compared with 10 controls, exploring also potential differences between the metaplastic mucosa (BEM) and the adjacent normal areas of BE patients (BEU). BEM and EAC showed a higher level of α and β-diversity. BEM evidenced a decrease of Streptococcus and an increase of Prevotella, Actinobacillus, Veillonella, and Leptotrichia. EAC displayed a striking reduction of Streptococcus, with an increase of Prevotella, Veillonella and Leptotrichia. LefSe analysis identified Leptotrichia as the main taxa distinguishing EAC. BEM showed a decreased α-diversity compared with BEU and a reduction of Bacteroidetes, Prevotella and Fusobacterium. Functional predictions identified peculiar profiles for each group with a high potential for replication and repair in BEM; an upregulated energy, replication and signaling metabolisms, with the fatty-acids biosynthesis and nitrogen and D-alanine pathways down-regulated in EAC. Our pilot study identifies a unique microbial structure and function profile for BE and EAC, as well as for metaplastic and near-normal areas. It proposes a new concept for BE, which could be intended not only as the histological, but, also, as the microbial closest precursor of EAC. This requires further larger follow-up studies, but opens intriguing horizons towards innovative diagnostic and therapeutic options for EAC.
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.