ArticleScientific reports2022
Natural and after colon washing fecal samples: the two sides of the coin for investigating the human gut microbiome.
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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mitogenome-Informed Metabarcoding for Non-Invasive Identification of Sympatric Flamingos in Northern Chile.Biology · 2026Article
- Machine learning-based assessment of the healthy human gut mycobiota landscape using ITS1 DNA metabarcoding data.BioData mining · 2026Article
- The Interplay Between Lifestyle and Oral/Faecal Microbial Profiles Among Periodontal Disease Patients: A Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of clinical periodontology · 2026Article
- Digital Droplet PCR (ddPCR) for Absolute Quantification of 16S rRNA Copy Number in Metagenomic Data.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2026Article
- Effect of Chemotherapy onIndian journal of microbiology · 2024Article
- Benchmarking low- and high-throughput protein cleanup and digestion methods for human fecal metaproteomics.mSystems · 2024Article
- Gut microbiota in women: The secret of psychological and physical well-being.World journal of gastroenterology · 2023Article
- Article
- Patterns and determinants of the global herbivorous mycobiome.Nature communications · 2023Article
- The Effect of Encapsulating a Prebiotic-Based Biopolymer Delivery System for Enhanced Probiotic Survival.Polymers · 2023Article
- Diversity of the microbiota communities found in the various regions of the intestinal tract in healthy individuals and inflammatory bowel diseases.Frontiers in immunology · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.