Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34985847›Full record

ArticleNursing research

Comparing Published Gut Microbiome Taxonomic Data Across Multinational Studies.

Brianna K Meeks, Katherine A Maki, Nancy J Ames, Jennifer J Barb

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nursing research. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Funding

Intramural NIH HHS Z99 CT999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNurse researchers are well poised to study the connection of the microbiome to health and disease. Evaluating published microbiome results can assist with study design and hypothesis generation.

objectivesThis article aims to present and define important analysis considerations in microbiome study planning and to identify genera shared across studies despite methodological differences. This methods article will highlight a workflow that the nurse scientist can use to combine and evaluate taxonomy tables for microbiome study or research proposal planning.

methodsWe compiled taxonomy tables from 13 published gut microbiome studies that had used Ion Torrent sequencing technology. We searched for studies that had amplified multiple hypervariable (V) regions of the 16S rRNA gene when sequencing the bacteria from healthy gut samples.

resultsWe obtained 15 taxonomy tables from the 13 studies, comprised of samples from four continents and eight V regions. Methodology among studies was highly variable, including differences in V regions amplified, geographic location, and population demographics. Nevertheless, of the 354 total genera identified from the 15 data sets, 25 were shared in all V regions and the four continents. When relative abundance differences across the V regions were compared, Dorea and Roseburia were statistically different. Taxonomy tables from Asian subjects had increased average abundances of Prevotella and lowered abundances of Bacteroides compared with the European, North American, and South American study subjects. DISCUSSION: Evaluating taxonomy tables from previously published literature is essential for study planning. The genera found from different V regions and continents highlight geography and V region as important variables to consider in microbiome study design. The 25 shared genera across the various studies may represent genera commonly found in healthy gut microbiomes. Understanding the factors that may affect the results from a variety of microbiome studies will allow nurse scientists to plan research proposals in an informed manner. This work presents a valuable framework for future cross-study comparisons conducted across the globe.

Indexed as

ClassificationGastrointestinal MicrobiomeGlobal HealthHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansSequence Analysis, DNA

Identifiers

PMID34985847
PMCPMC8740627

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.