Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33085024›Full record

ArticleApplied microbiology and biotechnology2020

Comparative methods for fecal sample storage to preserve gut microbial structure and function in an in vitro model of the human colon.

Charlotte Deschamps, Elora Fournier, Ophélie Uriot, Frédérique Lajoie, Cécile Verdier, Sophie Comtet-Marre, Muriel Thomas, Nathalie Kapel, Claire Cherbuy, Monique Alric and 3 more

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 32 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

32 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 84 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Gut microbes · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

13 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Charlotte DeschampsUniversité Clermont Auvergne, INRAe, UMR 454 MEDIS, 28 place Henri Dunant, F-63000, Clermont-Ferrand, France.
Elora FournierUniversité Clermont Auvergne, INRAe, UMR 454 MEDIS, 28 place Henri Dunant, F-63000, Clermont-Ferrand, France.
Ophélie UriotUniversité Clermont Auvergne, INRAe, UMR 454 MEDIS, 28 place Henri Dunant, F-63000, Clermont-Ferrand, France.
Frédérique LajoieDépartement de Pharmacologie et Physiologie, Faculté de Médecine, Université de Montréal, Montréal, QC, Canada.
Cécile VerdierUniversité Clermont Auvergne, INRAe, UMR 454 MEDIS, 28 place Henri Dunant, F-63000, Clermont-Ferrand, France.
Sophie Comtet-MarreUniversité Clermont Auvergne, INRAe, UMR 454 MEDIS, 28 place Henri Dunant, F-63000, Clermont-Ferrand, France.
Muriel ThomasMicalis Institute, INRAe, AgroParisTech, Université Paris-Saclay, 78350, Jouy-en-Josas, France.
Nathalie KapelLaboratoire de Coprologie Fonctionnelle, Hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière, 75013, Paris, France.
Claire CherbuyMicalis Institute, INRAe, AgroParisTech, Université Paris-Saclay, 78350, Jouy-en-Josas, France.
Monique AlricUniversité Clermont Auvergne, INRAe, UMR 454 MEDIS, 28 place Henri Dunant, F-63000, Clermont-Ferrand, France.
Mathieu AlmeidaMetaGénoPolis, INRAe, Université Paris-Saclay, Jouy-en-Josas, France.
Lucie Etienne-MesminUniversité Clermont Auvergne, INRAe, UMR 454 MEDIS, 28 place Henri Dunant, F-63000, Clermont-Ferrand, France.
Stéphanie Blanquet-DiotUniversité Clermont Auvergne, INRAe, UMR 454 MEDIS, 28 place Henri Dunant, F-63000, Clermont-Ferrand, France. stephanie.blanquet@uca.fr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0692-8726
Université Clermont Auvergne · FRAgroParisTech · FRInserm · FRUniversité de Montréal · CAUniversité Paris-Saclay · FRUniversity of Clermont Auvergne · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In vitro gut models, such as the mucosal artificial colon (M-ARCOL), provide timely and cost-efficient alternatives to in vivo assays allowing mechanistic studies to better understand the role of human microbiome in health and disease. Using such models inoculated with human fecal samples may require a critical step of stool storage. The effects of preservation methods on microbial structure and function in in vitro gut models have been poorly investigated. This study aimed to assess the impact of three commonly used preserving methods, compared with fresh fecal samples used as a control, on the kinetics of lumen and mucus-associated microbiota colonization in the M-ARCOL model. Feces from two healthy donors were frozen 48 h at - 80 °C with or without cryoprotectant (10% glycerol) or lyophilized with maltodextrin and trehalose prior to inoculation of four parallel bioreactors (e.g., fresh stool, raw stool stored at - 80 °C, stool stored at - 80 °C with glycerol and lyophilized stool). Microbiota composition and diversity (qPCR and 16S metabarcoding) as well as metabolic activity (gases and short chain fatty acids) were monitored throughout the fermentation process (9 days). All the preservative treatments allowed the maintaining inside the M-ARCOL of a complex and functional microbiota, but considering stabilization time of microbial profiles and activities (and not technical constraints associated with the supply of frozen material), our results highlighted 48 h freezing at - 80 °C without cryoprotectant as the most efficient method. These results will help scientists to determine the most accurate method for fecal storage prior to inoculation of in vitro gut microbiome models. KEY POINTS: • In vitro ARCOL model reproduces luminal and mucosal human microbiome. • Short-term storage of fecal sample influences microbial stabilization and activity. • 48 h freezing at - 80°C: most efficient method to preserve microbial ecosystem. • Scientific and technical requirements: influencers of preservation method.

Indexed as

Gastrointestinal MicrobiomeColonFecesHumansRNA, Ribosomal, 16SSpecimen HandlingRNA, Ribosomal, 16SFecal sampleHuman gut microbiotaIn vitro M-ARCOL modelPreservation method

Identifiers

PMID33085024
OpenAlexW3093575765

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.