ArticleScientific reports2022
Differential analysis of microbiomes in mucus and tissues obtained from colorectal cancer patients.
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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Spatial niches of the colorectal cancer microbiome: differences, interrelationships, and clinical implications of fecal, mucosal, and intratumoral microbiota.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Review
- Investigating the correlation between gut microbiota and prostate cancer through a two-sample Mendelian randomization analysis.Medicine · 2025Article
- Novel microbiotaFrontiers in microbiology · 2024Article
- Identifying and ranking causal microbial biomarkers for colorectal cancer at different cancer subsites and stages: a Mendelian randomization study.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
- The role of microbiomes in gastrointestinal cancers: new insights.Frontiers in oncology · 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
16 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The outer mucus layer of the colorectal epithelium is easily removable and colonized by commensal microbiota, while the inner mucus layer is firmly attached to the epithelium and devoid of bacteria. Although the specific bacteria penetrating the inner mucus layer can contact epithelial cells and trigger cancer development, most studies ignore the degree of mucus adhesion at sampling. Therefore, we evaluated whether bacteria adhering to tissues could be identified by removing the outer mucus layer. Our 16S rRNA gene sequencing analysis of 18 surgical specimens of human colorectal cancer revealed that Sutterella (P = 0.045) and Enterobacteriaceae (P = 0.045) were significantly enriched in the mucus covering the mucosa relative to the mucosa. Rikenellaceae (P = 0.026) was significantly enriched in the mucus covering cancer tissues compared with those same cancer tissues. Ruminococcaceae (P = 0.015), Enterobacteriaceae (P = 0.030), and Erysipelotrichaceae (P = 0.028) were significantly enriched in the mucus covering the mucosa compared with the mucus covering cancers. Fusobacterium (P = 0.038) was significantly enriched in the mucus covering cancers compared with the mucus covering the mucosa. Comparing the microbiomes of mucus and tissues with mucus removed may facilitate identifying bacteria that genuinely invade tissues and affect tumorigenesis.
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.