Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36242064›Full record

ArticleMicrobiome2022

Comparison of microbial signatures between paired faecal and rectal biopsy samples from healthy volunteers using next-generation sequencing and culturomics.

Indrani Mukhopadhya, Jennifer C Martin, Sophie Shaw, Aileen J McKinley, Silvia W Gratz, Karen P Scott

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 27 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 43 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Antibiotic-perturbed microbiota and the role of probiotics.Nature reviews. Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2025
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. TwoInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2024
    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 2 institutions in 1 country.

Indrani MukhopadhyaGut Health Group, Rowett Institute, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK. indrani.mukhopadhya@abdn.ac.uk.
Jennifer C MartinGut Health Group, Rowett Institute, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
Sophie ShawCentre for Genome Enabled Biology and Medicine, University of Aberdeen, Old Aberdeen, UK.
Aileen J McKinleyDepartment of Surgery, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary Foresterhill, Aberdeen, UK.
Silvia W GratzGut Health Group, Rowett Institute, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
Karen P ScottGut Health Group, Rowett Institute, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK. k.scott@abdn.ac.uk.
University of Aberdeen · GBAberdeen Royal Infirmary · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFaecal samples are frequently used to characterise the gut microbiota in health and disease, yet there is considerable debate about how representative faecal bacterial profiles are of the overall gut community. A particular concern is whether bacterial populations associated with the gut mucosa are properly represented in faecal samples, since these communities are considered critical in the aetiology of gastrointestinal diseases. In this study we compared the profiles of the faecal and mucosal microbiota from ten healthy volunteers using bacterial culturing (culturomics) and next-generation sequencing targeting the 16S ribosomal nucleic acid (rRNA) gene. Paired fresh rectal biopsies and faecal samples were processed under stringent anaerobic conditions to maintain the viability of the bacteria. Four different sample types were analysed: faecal (F), faecal homogenised (FHg), biopsy tissue (B) and biopsy wash (BW) samples. 

resultsThere were no significant statistical differences in either bacterial richness or diversity between biopsy washes (BW) and faecal (F) or faecal homogenised (FHg) samples. Principal coordinates analysis of a Bray-Curtis distance matrix generated from sequence variant tables did not show distinct clustering between these samples (PERMANOVA; p = 0.972) but showed strong clustering of samples from individual donors. However, the rectal biopsy tissue (B) samples had a significantly altered bacterial signature with greater abundance of Proteobacteria and Acidobacteria compared to faecal (F) and faecal homogenised (FHg) samples. A total of 528 bacteria encompassing 92 distinct bacterial species were isolated and cultured from a subset of six volunteer samples (biopsy washes and faeces). This included isolation of 22 novel bacterial species. There was significant similarity between the bacterial species grown in anaerobic culture and those identified by 16S rRNA gene sequencing (Spearman correlation; rho = 0.548, p = 0.001).

conclusionThis study showed that the bacterial profiles of paired faecal and rectal biopsy wash samples were very similar, validating the use of faecal samples as a convenient surrogate for rectal biopsy-associated microbiota. Anaerobic bacterial culture results showed similar taxonomic patterns to the amplicon sequence analysis disproving the dogma that culture-based methods do not reflect findings of molecular assessments of gut bacterial composition. Video abstract.

Indexed as

BacteriaHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingBiopsyFecesHealthy VolunteersHumansRNA, Ribosomal, 16SRNA, Ribosomal, 16SAnaerobic bacteriaCultureFaecal microbiotaMicrobiome analysisMucosa-associated microbiotaNext-generation sequencingSCFA

Identifiers

PMID36242064
PMCPMC9563177
OpenAlexW4306166013

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.