Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36284112›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2022

Natural and after colon washing fecal samples: the two sides of the coin for investigating the human gut microbiome.

Elisabetta Piancone, Bruno Fosso, Marinella Marzano, Mariangela De Robertis, Elisabetta Notario, Annarita Oranger, Caterina Manzari, Silvia Bruno, Grazia Visci, Giuseppe Defazio and 7 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Effect of Chemotherapy onIndian journal of microbiology · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

17 authors.

Elisabetta Piancone *Department of Biosciences, Biotechnology and Biopharmaceutics, University of Bari 'Aldo Moro', 70126, Bari, Italy.
Bruno Fosso *Department of Biosciences, Biotechnology and Biopharmaceutics, University of Bari 'Aldo Moro', 70126, Bari, Italy.
Marinella Marzano *Institute of Biomembranes, Bioenergetics and Molecular Biotechnologies, Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, 70126, Bari, Italy.
Mariangela De RobertisDepartment of Biosciences, Biotechnology and Biopharmaceutics, University of Bari 'Aldo Moro', 70126, Bari, Italy.
Elisabetta NotarioDepartment of Biosciences, Biotechnology and Biopharmaceutics, University of Bari 'Aldo Moro', 70126, Bari, Italy.
Annarita OrangerDepartment of Biosciences, Biotechnology and Biopharmaceutics, University of Bari 'Aldo Moro', 70126, Bari, Italy.
Caterina ManzariDepartment of Biosciences, Biotechnology and Biopharmaceutics, University of Bari 'Aldo Moro', 70126, Bari, Italy.
Silvia BrunoDepartment of Biosciences, Biotechnology and Biopharmaceutics, University of Bari 'Aldo Moro', 70126, Bari, Italy.
Grazia VisciInstitute of Biomembranes, Bioenergetics and Molecular Biotechnologies, Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, 70126, Bari, Italy.
Giuseppe DefazioDepartment of Biosciences, Biotechnology and Biopharmaceutics, University of Bari 'Aldo Moro', 70126, Bari, Italy.
Anna Maria D'ErchiaDepartment of Biosciences, Biotechnology and Biopharmaceutics, University of Bari 'Aldo Moro', 70126, Bari, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-4627-0626
Ermes FilomenaDepartment of Biosciences, Biotechnology and Biopharmaceutics, University of Bari 'Aldo Moro', 70126, Bari, Italy.
Dominga MaioSpecialistic Allergic Unit & Immunological Pathologies, PoliSmail Network, 73100, Lecce, Italy.
Martina MinelliSpecialistic Allergic Unit & Immunological Pathologies, PoliSmail Network, 73100, Lecce, Italy.
Ilaria VergalloSpecialistic Allergic Unit & Immunological Pathologies, PoliSmail Network, 73100, Lecce, Italy.
Mauro MinelliSpecialistic Allergic Unit & Immunological Pathologies, PoliSmail Network, 73100, Lecce, Italy.
Graziano PesoleDepartment of Biosciences, Biotechnology and Biopharmaceutics, University of Bari 'Aldo Moro', 70126, Bari, Italy. graziano.pesole@uniba.it.ORCID 0000-0003-3663-0859

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To date several studies address the important role of gut microbiome and its interplay with the human host in the health and disease status. However, the selection of a universal sampling matrix representative of the microbial biodiversity associated with the gastrointestinal (GI) tract, is still challenging. Here we present a study in which, through a deep metabarcoding analysis of the 16S rRNA gene, we compared two sampling matrices, feces (F) and colon washing feces (CWF), in order to evaluate their relative effectiveness and accuracy in representing the complexity of the human gut microbiome. A cohort of 30 volunteers was recruited and paired F and CWF samples were collected from each subject. Alpha diversity analysis confirmed a slightly higher biodiversity of CWF compared to F matched samples. Likewise, beta diversity analysis proved that paired F and CWF microbiomes were quite similar in the same individual, but remarkable inter-individual variability occurred among the microbiomes of all participants. Taxonomic analysis in matched samples was carried out to investigate the intra and inter individual/s variability. Firmicutes, Bacteroidota, Proteobacteria and Actinobacteriota were the main phyla in both F and CWF samples. At genus level, Bacteirodetes was the most abundant in F and CWF samples, followed by Faecalibacterium, Blautia and Escherichia-Shigella. Our study highlights an inter-individual variability greater than intra-individual variability for paired F and CWF samples. Indeed, an overall higher similarity was observed across matched F and CWF samples, suggesting, as expected, a remarkable overlap between the microbiomes inferred using the matched F and CWF samples. Notably, absolute quantification of total 16S rDNA by droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) revealed comparable overall microbial load between paired F and CWF samples. We report here the first comparative study on fecal and colon washing fecal samples for investigating the human gut microbiome and show that both types of samples may be used equally for the study of the gut microbiome. The presented results suggest that the combined use of both types of sampling matrices could represent a suitable choice to obtain a more complete overview of the human gut microbiota for addressing different biological and clinical questions.

Indexed as

Gastrointestinal MicrobiomeMicrobiotaColonDNA, RibosomalFecesHumansRNA, Ribosomal, 16SDNA, RibosomalRNA, Ribosomal, 16S

Identifiers

PMID36284112
PMCPMC9596478

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.