ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2020
Multimodal Approach to Assessment of Fecal Microbiota Donors based on Three Complementary Methods.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Standardized freeze-dried FMT: is the ideal protectant out there?Frontiers in microbiology · 2025Article
- Human microbiota-associated animal models: a review.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2025Review
- Evaluating Bacterial Viability in Faecal Microbiota Transplantation: A Comparative Analysis of In Vitro Cultivation and Membrane Integrity Methods.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2024Article
- The Role of Fecal Microbiota Transplantation (FMT) in the Management of Metabolic Diseases in Humans: A Narrative Review.Biomedicines · 2024Review
- From-Toilet-to-Freezer: A Review on Requirements for an Automatic Protocol to Collect and Store Human Fecal Samples for Research Purposes.Biomedicines · 2023Review
- Fresh Versus Frozen Stool for Fecal Microbiota Transplantation-Assessment by Multimethod Approach Combining Culturing, Flow Cytometry, and Next-Generation Sequencing.Frontiers in microbiology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Methods of stool assessment are mostly focused on next-generation sequencing (NGS) or classical culturing, but only rarely both. We conducted a series of experiments using a multi-method approach to trace the stability of gut microbiota in various donors over time, to find the best method for the proper selection of fecal donors and to find "super-donor" indicators. Ten consecutive stools donated by each of three donors were used for the experiments (30 stools in total). The experiments assessed bacterial viability measured by flow cytometry, stool culturing on different media and in various conditions, and NGS (90 samples in total). There were no statistically significant differences between live and dead cell numbers; however, we found a group of cells classified as not-dead-not-alive, which may be possibly important in selection of "good" donors. Donor C, being a regular stool donor, was characterized by the largest number of cultivable species (64). Cultivable core microbiota (shared by all donors) was composed of only 16 species. ANCOM analysis of NGS data highlighted particular genera to be more abundant in one donor vs. the others. There was a correlation between the not-dead-not-alive group found in flow cytometry and
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.