Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32448997›Full record

ArticleApplied microbiology and biotechnology2020

Mentholation triggers brand-specific shifts in the bacterial microbiota of commercial cigarette products.

Leena Malayil, Suhana Chattopadhyay, Prachi Kulkarni, Lauren Hittle, Pamela I Clark, Emmanuel F Mongodin, Amy R Sapkota

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Applied microbiology and biotechnology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 29% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Viable, Multi-Drug-Resistant Bacteria Recovered from E-Liquids Used with Commercial Electronic Cigarettes.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Leena MalayilMaryland Institute for Applied Environmental Health, School of Public Health, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, 20742, USA.
Suhana ChattopadhyayMaryland Institute for Applied Environmental Health, School of Public Health, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, 20742, USA.
Prachi KulkarniMaryland Institute for Applied Environmental Health, School of Public Health, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, 20742, USA.
Lauren HittleInstitute for Genome Sciences, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Pamela I ClarkDepartment of Behavioral and Community Health, University of Maryland School of Public Health, College Park, MD, USA.
Emmanuel F MongodinInstitute for Genome Sciences, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Amy R SapkotaMaryland Institute for Applied Environmental Health, School of Public Health, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, 20742, USA. ars@umd.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8666-6978
University of Maryland, College Park · USUniversity of Maryland, Baltimore · US

Funding

Rapid Response Characterization of New and Manipulated Tobacco ProductsP50CA180523 · NCI · UNIV OF MARYLAND, COLLEGE PARK · PI CLARK, PAMELA I · 2013 to 2017
$19.0M
National Cancer Institute (US) P50CA180523
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Bacterial communities are integral constituents of tobacco products. They originate from tobacco plants and are acquired during manufacturing processes, where they play a role in the production of tobacco-specific nitrosamines. In addition, tobacco bacterial constituents may play an important role in the development of infectious and chronic diseases among users. Nevertheless, tobacco bacterial communities have been largely unexplored, and the influence of tobacco flavor additives such as menthol (a natural antimicrobial) on tobacco bacterial communities is unclear. To bridge this knowledge gap, time series experiments including 5 mentholated and non-mentholated commercially available cigarettes-Marlboro red (non-menthol), Marlboro menthol, Newport menthol box, Newport menthol gold, and Newport non-menthol-were conducted. Each brand was stored under three different temperature and relative humidity conditions. To characterize bacterial communities, total DNA was extracted on days 0 and 14. Resulting DNA was purified and subjected to PCR of the V3V4 region of the 16S rRNA gene, followed by sequencing on the Illumina HiSeq platform and analysis using the QIIME, phyloseq, metagenomeSeq, and DESeq software packages. Ordination analyses showed that the bacterial community composition of Marlboro cigarettes was different from that of Newport cigarettes. Additionally, bacterial profiles significantly differed between mentholated and non-mentholated Newports. Independently of storage conditions, tobacco brands were dominated by Proteobacteria, with the most dominant bacterial genera being Pseudomonas, unclassified Enterobacteriaceae, Bacillus, Erwinia, Sphingomonas, Acinetobacter, Agrobacterium, Staphylococcus, and Terribacillus. These data suggest that the bacterial communities of tobacco products differ across brands and that mentholation of tobacco can alter bacterial community composition of select brands. KEY POINTS: • Bacterial composition differed between the two brands of cigarettes. • Mentholation impacts cigarette microbiota. • Pseudomonas and Bacillus dominated the commercial cigarettes. Graphical abstract.

Indexed as

BacteriaBiodiversityFlavoring AgentsMentholMicrobiotaRNA, Ribosomal, 16STobacco ProductsFlavoring AgentsMentholRNA, Ribosomal, 16SBacterial microbiotaCommercial cigarettesMenthol

Identifiers

PMID32448997
OpenAlexW3026058992

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.