ArticleScientific reports2020
The wasted chewing gum bacteriome.
Article in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- Randomized Clinical Trial to Evaluate the Effect of Probiotic Intake on Androgenic Alopecia.Nutrients · 2024Trial
- Development of a New Bioadhesive Gel in the Prevention of Bacterial Biofilms on Dental Implants: An In Vitro Study.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2026Article
- Characterization of the intestinal microbial profile in mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer's disease.Dementia & neuropsychologia · 2026Article
- Article
- Characterization of challenging forensic DNA traces using advanced molecular technologies.International journal of legal medicine · 2025Article
- Microbial ecology of selected traditional Ethiopian fermented products.Frontiers in microbiology · 2025Article
- Illumina Sequencing in Conjunction with Propidium Monoazide to Identify Live Bacteria After Antiseptic Treatment in a Complex Oral Biofilm: A Study Using an Ex Vivo Supragingival Biofilm Model.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Multivariate comparison of taxonomic, chemical and operational data from 80 different full-scale anaerobic digester-related systems.Biotechnology for biofuels and bioproducts · 2024Article
- The microwave bacteriome: biodiversity of domestic and laboratory microwave ovens.Frontiers in microbiology · 2024Article
- A laboratory ice machine as a cold oligotrophic artificial microbial niche for biodiscovery.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- The Microbiome of Things: Appliances, Machines, and Devices Hosting Artificial Niche-Adapted Microbial Communities.Microorganisms · 2023Review
- 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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Here we show the bacteriome of wasted chewing gums from five different countries and the microbial successions on wasted gums during three months of outdoors exposure. In addition, a collection of bacterial strains from wasted gums was set, and the biodegradation capability of different gum ingredients by the isolates was tested. Our results reveal that the oral microbiota present in gums after being chewed, characterised by the presence of species such as Streptococcus spp. or Corynebacterium spp., evolves in a few weeks to an environmental bacteriome characterised by the presence of Acinetobacter spp., Sphingomonas spp. and Pseudomonas spp. Wasted chewing gums collected worldwide contain a typical sub-aerial biofilm bacteriome, characterised by species such as Sphingomonas spp., Kocuria spp., Deinococcus spp. and Blastococcus spp. Our findings have implications for a wide range of disciplines, including forensics, contagious disease control, or bioremediation of wasted chewing gum residues.
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.