ArticleFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology2021
Comparison of Two Approaches for the Metataxonomic Analysis of the Human Milk Microbiome.
Article in Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02670278 (Evolutionary and Sociocultural Aspects of Human Milk Composition), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 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.
Evolutionary and Sociocultural Aspects of Human Milk Composition
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- The human milk bacteriome and mycobiome and their inter-kingdom interactions viewed across geography.Frontiers in nutrition · 2025Article
- Utility of dairy microbiome as a tool for authentication and traceability.Open life sciences · 2024Review
- Altered Faecal Microbiota Composition and Structure of Ghanaian Children with Acute Gastroenteritis.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Article
- Article
- Novel methods of microbiome analysis in the food industry.International microbiology : the official journal of the Spanish Society for Microbiology · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
21 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Recent work has demonstrated the existence of large inter-individual and inter-population variability in the microbiota of human milk from healthy women living across variable geographical and socio-cultural settings. However, no studies have evaluated the impact that variable sequencing approaches targeting different 16S rRNA variable regions may have on the human milk microbiota profiling results. This hampers our ability to make meaningful comparisons across studies. In this context, the main purpose of the present study was to re-process and re-sequence the microbiome in a large set of human milk samples (n = 412) collected from healthy women living at diverse international sites (Spain, Sweden, Peru, United States, Ethiopia, Gambia, Ghana and Kenya), by targeting a different 16S rRNA variable region and reaching a larger sequencing depth. Despite some differences between the results obtained from both sequencing approaches were notable (especially regarding alpha and beta diversities and Proteobacteria representation), results indicate that both sequencing approaches revealed a relatively consistent microbiota configurations in the studied cohorts. Our data expand upon the milk microbiota results we previously reported from the INSPIRE cohort and provide, for the first time across globally diverse populations, evidence of the impact that different DNA processing and sequencing approaches have on the microbiota profiles obtained for human milk samples. Overall, our results corroborate some similarities regarding the microbial communities previously reported for the INSPIRE cohort, but some differences were also detected. Understanding the impact of different sequencing approaches on human milk microbiota profiles is essential to enable meaningful comparisons across studies. Clinical Trial Registration: www.clinicaltrials.gov, identifier NCT02670278.
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.