ArticlePloS one2021
Evaluating extraction methods to study canine urine microbiota.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cystitis in guinea pigs (Cavia porcellus): Clinical findings and treatment outcomes.The Veterinary record · 2026Article
- Impact of sample processing method and volume on 16 S rRNA profiling of the urobiome.BMC microbiology · 2026Article
- Development of the Urogenital Microbiota in Healthy Beagle Puppies: A Longitudinal Comparison with the Dam.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- A rapid ionic liquid-based DNA extraction method for molecular diagnostics of urinary tract infections.Microbiology spectrum · 2026Article
- Methodological bias shapes the interpretation of the urinary microbiome in low-biomass systems.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Review
- Evaluating urine volume and host depletion methods to enable genome-resolved metagenomics of the urobiome.Microbiome · 2025Article
- Culture and amplification-free nanopore sequencing for rapid detection of pathogens and antimicrobial resistance genes from urine.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2024Article
- Evaluation of the vaginal and urinary microbiota of healthy cycling bitches.BMC veterinary research · 2024Article
- Dietary Features Are Associated with Differences in the Urinary Microbiome in Clinically Healthy Adult Dogs.Veterinary sciences · 2024Article
- Gut and Urinary Microbiota in Cats with Kidney Stones.Microorganisms · 2024Article
- Synthesis of current pediatric urinary microbiome research.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2024Review
- The impact of urine collection method on canine urinary microbiota detection: a cross-sectional study.BMC microbiology · 2023Article
- Characterization of the urogenital microbiome in Miniature Schnauzers with and without calcium oxalate urolithiasis.Journal of veterinary internal medicine · 2022Article
- Determination of the Optimal Bacterial DNA Extraction Method to Explore the Urinary Microbiota.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Article
- Longitudinal examination of urine pH, specific gravity, protein, culture, and antimicrobial resistance profiles in healthy dogs.Journal of veterinary internal medicineArticle
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The urinary microbiota is the collection of microbes present in urine that may play a role in host health. Studies of urine microbiota have traditionally relied upon culturing methods aimed at identifying pathogens. However, recent culture-free sequencing studies of the urine microbiota have determined that a diverse array of microbes is present in health and disease. To study these microbes and their potential role in diseases like bladder cancer or interstitial cystitis, consistent extraction and detection of bacterial DNA from urine is critical. However, urine is a low biomass substrate, requiring sensitive methods to capture DNA and making the risk of contamination high. To address this challenge, we collected urine samples from ten healthy dogs and extracted DNA from each sample using five different commercially available extraction methods. Extraction methods were compared based on total and bacterial DNA concentrations and bacterial community composition and diversity assessed through 16S rRNA gene sequencing. Significant differences in the urinary microbiota were observed by dog and sex but not extraction method. The Bacteremia Kit yielded the highest total DNA concentrations (Kruskal-Wallis, p = 0.165, not significant) and the highest bacterial DNA concentrations (Kruskal-Wallis, p = 0.044). Bacteremia also extracted bacterial DNA from the greatest number of samples. Taken together, these results suggest that the Bacteremia kit is an effective option for studying the urine microbiota. This work lays the foundation to study the urine microbiome in a wide range of urogenital diseases in dogs and other species.
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.