Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35741831›Full record

ArticleGenes2022

Variability in the Pre-Analytical Stages Influences Microbiome Laboratory Analyses.

Aditi Kumar, Kristin Gravdal, Jonathan P Segal, Helen Steed, Matthew J Brookes, Hafid O Al-Hassi

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genes, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 45% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
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

6 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Aditi KumarDepartment of Gastroenterology, The Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust, Wolverhampton WV10 0QP, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1026-3173
Kristin GravdalGenetic Analysis AS, Kabelgata 8, 0580 Oslo, Norway.
Jonathan P SegalDepartment of Gastroenterology, Northern Hospital, Melbourne, VIC 3076, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-9668-0316
Helen SteedDepartment of Gastroenterology, The Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust, Wolverhampton WV10 0QP, UK.
Matthew J BrookesDepartment of Gastroenterology, The Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust, Wolverhampton WV10 0QP, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8782-0292
Hafid O Al-HassiResearch Institute in Healthcare Science, Faculty of Science and Engineering, University of Wolverhampton, Wolverhampton WV1 1LY, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5119-7793
University of Wolverhampton · GBGenetic Analysis (Norway) · NONorthern Hospital · AUThe Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: There are numerous confounding variables in the pre-analytical steps in the analysis of gut microbial composition that affect data consistency and reproducibility. This study compared two DNA extraction methods from the same faecal samples to analyse differences in microbial composition. Methods: DNA was extracted from 20 faecal samples using either (A) chemical/enzymatic heat lysis (lysis buffer, proteinase K, 95 °C + 70 °C) or (B) mechanical and chemical/enzymatic heat lysis (bead-beating, lysis buffer, proteinase K, 65 °C). Gut microbiota was mapped through the 16S rRNA gene (V3−V9) using a set of pre-selected DNA probes targeting >300 bacteria on different taxonomic levels. Apart from the pre-analytical DNA extraction technique, all other parameters including microbial analysis remained the same. Bacterial abundance and deviations in the microbiome were compared between the two methods. Results: Significant variation in bacterial abundance was seen between the different DNA extraction techniques, with a higher yield of species noted in the combined mechanical and heat lysis technique (B). The five predominant bacteria seen in both (A) and (B) were Bacteroidota spp. and Prevotella spp. (p = NS), followed by Bacillota (p = 0.005), Lachhnospiraceae (p = 0.0001), Veillonella spp. (p < 0.0001) and Clostridioides (p < 0.0001). Conclusion: As microbial testing becomes more easily and commercially accessible, a unified international consensus for optimal sampling and DNA isolation procedures must be implemented for robustness and reproducibility of the results.

Indexed as

MicrobiotaBacteriaDNADNA, BacterialEndopeptidase KReproducibility of ResultsRNA, Ribosomal, 16SDNADNA, BacterialEndopeptidase KRNA, Ribosomal, 16S16S rRNADNAmicrobiomepre-analysis

Identifiers

PMID35741831
PMCPMC9223004
OpenAlexW4282960166

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.