Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33083452›Full record

ArticleBioMed research international2020

The Relationship between Urinary Stones and Gut Microbiomeby 16S Sequencing.

Chenhao Zhou, Kai Li, Lun Zhao, Wei Li, Zongbao Guo, Jingyao Xu, Xiaofei Qi, Hexing Yuan

RetractedOpen access · hybridAbstract readRetracted Publication
In one paragraph

Article in BioMed research international, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It has been retracted, and should not be counted. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 32% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Chenhao ZhouDepartment of Urology Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Soochow, China.
Kai LiDepartment of Urology Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Soochow, China.
Lun ZhaoDepartment of Urology Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Soochow, China.
Wei LiDepartment of Urology Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Soochow, China.
Zongbao GuoDepartment of Urology Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Soochow, China.
Jingyao XuDepartment of Urology Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Soochow, China.
Xiaofei QiDepartment of Urology Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Soochow, China.
Hexing YuanDepartment of Urology Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Soochow, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1779-8747
Soochow University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo understand the relationship between urinary stones and the gut microbiome and to screen for microbial species that may be involved in stone formation.

methodsStool samples were collected from patients with urolithiasis and healthy patients between March and December 2017. The samples were analyzed by 16S sequencing to determine differences in the microbiome profiles between the two groups. The mouse model was established and was divided into two groups. Fecal samples were collected from the mice before gavage and three weeks postgavage for microbiome analysis. The microbial population of each group was analyzed to screen for microbial species that may affect the formation of urinary stones. Differences in the number of crystals in the renal tubules of the mice were examined by necropsy.

resultsThe microbial composition was different between urolithiasis patients and healthy controls. The urolithiasis patients had significantly reduced microbial abundance; however, increased proportions of Bacteroidetes and Actinobacteria were detected compared to healthy controls. Furthermore, the abundance of Alistipesindistinctus and Odoribactersplanchnicus was significantly increased in the urolithiasis patients compared to the healthy controls. In addition, the incidence of urolithiasis was much higher in the experimental mouse group (stone solution + urolithiasis patient stool) than in the control mouse group. However, the microbial abundance before gavage was not significantly different from that seen three weeks postgavage.

conclusionTheurolithiasis patients in this study had a different gut microbiome when compared with that of healthy individuals. The altered microbiome increased the rate of crystal formation in renal tubules and accelerated urinary stone formation in the mouse model of urolithiasis.

Indexed as

ActinobacteriaAnimalsBacteroidetesFecesFemaleGastrointestinal MicrobiomeHumansKidney TubulesMaleMiceUrinary CalculiUrolithiasis

Identifiers

PMID33083452
PMCPMC7556066
OpenAlexW3092255047

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.