Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34907711›Full record

ArticleJournal of applied biomedicine2021

Gut microbial dysbiosis and its association with esophageal cancer.

Hafiz Muhammad Ishaq, Imran Shair Mohammad, Kiran Sher Muhammad, Huan Li, Rao Zahid Abbas, Zia Ud Din Sindhu, Shakir Ullah, Yang Fan, Abbas Sadiq, Muhammad Asif Raza and 9 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of applied biomedicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Harnessing biomarkers to guide immunotherapy in esophageal cancer: toward precision oncology.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
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

19 authors at 8 institutions in 2 countries.

Hafiz Muhammad IshaqUniversity of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Department of Clinical Sciences, Section of Epidemiology and public Health, Lahore Sub-campus Jhang, Pakistan.
Imran Shair MohammadSun Yat-sen University, University Town, School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Guangzhou 510006, China.
Kiran Sher MuhammadUniversity of Agriculture, Department of Zoology Wild-life and Fisheries, Faisalabad, Pakistan.
Huan LiXi'an Mental Health Centre, Xi'an, China.
Rao Zahid AbbasUniversity of Agriculture Faisalabad-38040, Department of Parasitology, Faisalabad, Pakistan.
Zia Ud Din SindhuUniversity of Agriculture Faisalabad-38040, Department of Parasitology, Faisalabad, Pakistan.
Shakir UllahUniversity of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Department of Clinical Sciences, Section of Epidemiology and public Health, Lahore Sub-campus Jhang, Pakistan.
Yang FanXinxiang Medical University, School of Basic Medical Science, Department of Microbiology, Xinxiang, China.
Abbas SadiqFaculty of Veterinary and Animal Sciences Lahore, Department of Pathology, Lahore, Pakistan.
Muhammad Asif RazaMuhammad Nawaz Shareef University of Agriculture Multan, Department of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Multan, Pakistan.
Riaz HussainIslamia University of Bahawalpur-63100, Faculty of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Department of Pathology, Bahawalpur, Pakistan.
Hafiz Muhammad Arshad
Iahtasham Khan
Muhammad Umair WaqasMuhammad Nawaz Shareef University of Agriculture Multan, Department of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Multan, Pakistan.
Aziz Ul-RahmanMuhammad Nawaz Shareef University of Agriculture Multan, Department of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Multan, Pakistan.
Riffat YasinMuhammad Nawaz Shareef University of Agriculture Multan, Department of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Multan, Pakistan.
Atif RehmanMuhammad Nawaz Shareef University of Agriculture Multan, Department of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Multan, Pakistan.
Rana Waseem AkhtarMuhammad Nawaz Shareef University of Agriculture Multan, Department of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Multan, Pakistan.
Jiru XuUniversity of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Department of Clinical Sciences, Section of Epidemiology and public Health, Lahore Sub-campus Jhang, Pakistan.
Xi'an Jiaotong University · CNUniversity of Veterinary and Animal Sciences · PKMuhammad Nawaz Shareef University of Agriculture · PKUniversity of Agriculture Faisalabad · PKBahauddin Zakariya University · PKIslamia University of Bahawalpur · PKSun Yat-sen University · CNXinxiang Medical University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Due to its aggressive nature and low survival rate, esophageal cancer is one of the deadliest cancer. While the intestinal microbiome significantly influences human health and disease. This research aimed to investigate and characterize the relative abundance of intestinal bacterial composition in esophageal cancer patients. The fecal samples were collected from esophageal cancer patients (n = 15) and healthy volunteers (n = 10). The PCR-DGGE was carried out by focusing on the V3 region of the 16S rRNA gene, and qPCR was performed for Bacteroides vulgatus, Escherichia coli, Bifidobacterium, Clostridium leptum and Lactobacillus. High-throughput sequencing of the 16S rRNA gene targeting the V3+V4 region was performed on 20 randomly selected samples. PCR-DGGE and High-throughput diversity results showed a significant alteration of gut bacterial composition between the experimental and control groups, which indicates the gut microbial dysbiosis in esophageal cancer patients. At the phylum level, there was significant enrichment of Bacteroidetes, while a non-significant decrease of Firmicutes in the experimental group. At family statistics, a significantly higher level of Bacteroidaceae and Enterobacteriaceae, while a significantly lower abundance of Prevotellaceae and Veillonellaceae were observed. There was a significantly high prevalence of genera Bacteroides, Escherichia-Shigella, while a significantly lower abundance of Prevotella_9 and Dialister in the experimental group as compared to the control group. Furthermore, the species analysis also showed significantly raised level of Bacteroides vulgatus and Escherichia coli in the experimental group. These findings revealed a significant gut microbial dysbiosis in esophageal cancer patients. So, the current study can be used for the understanding of esophageal cancer treatment, disease pathway, mechanism, and probiotic development.

Indexed as

Esophageal NeoplasmsGastrointestinal MicrobiomeBacteroidesBacteroidetesCase-Control StudiesDysbiosisEscherichia coliHumansRNA, Ribosomal, 16SRNA, Ribosomal, 16SDGGEEsophageal cancerHigh-throughput sequencingIntestinal dysbiosisMicrobiome

Identifiers

PMID34907711
OpenAlexW3127895013

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.