ArticleFrontiers in microbiology2022
Diversity-scaling analysis of human breast milk microbiomes from population perspective.
Article in Frontiers in microbiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The intratumoral microbiome: a review of the tumor microenvironment's fourth axis shaping anti-tumor immunity, cancer prognosis, and therapeutic response.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
- Dynamics and drivers of the human breast milk microbiome across lactation stages.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Article
- Assessing Diversity Scaling in Lung Cancer Microbiome Across Individuals and Tissue Types.MicrobiologyOpen · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Quantitative measuring the population-level diversity-scaling of human microbiomes is different from conventional approach to traditional individual-level diversity analysis, and it is of obvious significance. For example, it is well known that individuals are of significant heterogeneity with their microbiome diversities, and the population-level analysis can effectively capture such kind of individual differences. Here we reanalyze a dozen datasets of 2,115 human breast milk microbiome (BMM) samples with diversity-area relationship (DAR) to tackle the previous questions. Our focus on BMM is aimed to offer insights for supplementing the gut microbiome research from nutritional perspective. DAR is an extension to classic species-area relationship, which was discovered in the 19th century and established as one of a handful fundamental laws in community ecology. Our DAR modeling revealed the following numbers, all approximately: (i) The population-level potential diversity of BMM is 1,108 in terms of species richness (number of total species), and 67 in terms of typical species. (ii) On average, an individual carry 17% of population-level diversity in terms of species richness, and 61% in terms of typical species. (iii) The similarity (overlap) between individuals according to pair-wise diversity overlap (PDO) should be approximately 76% in terms of total species, and 92% in terms of typical species, which symbolizes the inter-individual heterogeneity. (iv) The average individual (alpha-) diversity of BMM is approximately 188 (total-species) and 37 (typical-species). (v) To deal with the potential difference among 12 BMM datasets, we conducted DAR modeling separately for each dataset, and then performed permutation tests for DAR parameters. It was found that the DAR scaling parameter that measures inter-individual heterogeneity in diversity is invariant (constant), but the population potential diversity is different among 30% of the pair-wise comparison between 12 BMM datasets. These results offer comprehensive biodiversity analyses of the BMM from host individual, inter-individual, and population level perspectives.
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.