Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35644616›Full record

ArticleMicrobiome2022

Effect of cryopreservation medium conditions on growth and isolation of gut anaerobes from human faecal samples.

Anaïs Biclot, Geert R B Huys, Rodrigo Bacigalupe, Kevin D'hoe, Doris Vandeputte, Gwen Falony, Raul Y Tito, Jeroen Raes

Open access · goldAbstract readVideo-Audio Media
In one paragraph

Article in Microbiome, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Water-Insoluble Polysaccharide Extracted fromFoods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Anaïs BiclotLaboratory of Molecular Bacteriology, Department of Microbiology and Immunology, Rega Institute, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0003-1029-843X
Geert R B HuysLaboratory of Molecular Bacteriology, Department of Microbiology and Immunology, Rega Institute, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-7092-4837
Rodrigo BacigalupeLaboratory of Molecular Bacteriology, Department of Microbiology and Immunology, Rega Institute, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Kevin D'hoeLaboratory of Molecular Bacteriology, Department of Microbiology and Immunology, Rega Institute, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Doris VandeputteLaboratory of Molecular Bacteriology, Department of Microbiology and Immunology, Rega Institute, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Gwen FalonyLaboratory of Molecular Bacteriology, Department of Microbiology and Immunology, Rega Institute, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Raul Y TitoLaboratory of Molecular Bacteriology, Department of Microbiology and Immunology, Rega Institute, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Jeroen RaesLaboratory of Molecular Bacteriology, Department of Microbiology and Immunology, Rega Institute, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. jeroen.raes@kuleuven.be.ORCID 0000-0002-1337-041X
Rega Institute for Medical Research · BEVrije Universiteit Brussel · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNovel strategies for anaerobic bacterial isolations from human faecal samples and various initiatives to generate culture collections of gut-derived bacteria have instigated considerable interest for the development of novel microbiota-based treatments. Early in the process of building a culture collection, optimal faecal sample preservation is essential to safeguard the viability of the broadest taxonomic diversity range possible. In contrast to the much more established faecal storage conditions for meta-omics applications, the impact of stool sample preservation conditions on bacterial growth recovery and isolation remains largely unexplored. In this study, aliquoted faecal samples from eleven healthy human volunteers selected based on a range of physicochemical and microbiological gradients were cryopreserved at - 80 °C either without the addition of any medium (dry condition) or in different Cary-Blair medium conditions with or without a cryoprotectant, i.e. 20% (v/v) glycerol or 5% (v/v) DMSO. Faecal aliquots were subjected to bulk 16S rRNA gene sequencing as well as dilution plating on modified Gifu Anaerobic Medium after preservation for culturable fraction profiling and generation of bacterial culture collections.

resultsAnalyses of compositional variation showed that cryopreservation medium conditions affected quantitative recovery but not the overall community composition of cultured fractions. Post-preservation sample dilution and richness of the uncultured source samples were the major drivers of the cultured fraction richness at genus level. However, preservation conditions differentially affected recovery of specific genera. Presence-absence analysis indicated that twenty-two of the 45 most abundant common genera (>0.01% abundance, dilution 10

conclusionOur results demonstrate that preservation methods partly determine richness and taxonomic diversity of gut anaerobes recovered from faecal samples. Complementing the current standard practice of cryopreserving stool samples in dry conditions with other preservation conditions, such as Cary-Blair medium with DMSO, could increase the species diversity of gut-associated culture collections. Video abstract.

Indexed as

CryopreservationDimethyl SulfoxideCulture MediaFecesHumansRNA, Ribosomal, 16SCulture MediaDimethyl SulfoxideRNA, Ribosomal, 16S

Identifiers

PMID35644616
PMCPMC9150342
OpenAlexW4281672289

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.