Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36456554›Full record

ArticleNature communications2022

Strong pathogen competition in neonatal gut colonisation.

Tommi Mäklin, Harry A Thorpe, Anna K Pöntinen, Rebecca A Gladstone, Yan Shao, Maiju Pesonen, Alan McNally, Pål J Johnsen, Ørjan Samuelsen, Trevor D Lawley and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nature communications, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.2field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 54 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

12 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.

Tommi MäklinHelsinki Institute for Information Technology HIIT, Department of Computer Science, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland. tommi.maklin@helsinki.fi.ORCID 0000-0003-0970-3514
Harry A ThorpeDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.ORCID 0000-0001-5895-3232
Anna K PöntinenDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-3160-2042
Rebecca A GladstoneDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Yan ShaoParasites and Microbes, Wellcome Sanger Institute, Hinxton, Cambridgeshire, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8662-0504
Maiju PesonenDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-3399-2136
Alan McNallyInstitute of Microbiology and Infection, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3099-630X
Pål J JohnsenDepartment of Pharmacy, Faculty of Health Sciences, UiT The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-6455-6433
Ørjan SamuelsenNorwegian National Advisory Unit on Detection of Antimicrobial Resistance, Department of Microbiology and Infection Control, University Hospital of North Norway, Tromsø, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-5525-2614
Trevor D LawleyParasites and Microbes, Wellcome Sanger Institute, Hinxton, Cambridgeshire, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4805-621X
Antti HonkelaHelsinki Institute for Information Technology HIIT, Department of Computer Science, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.ORCID 0000-0001-9193-8093
Jukka CoranderDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway. jukka.corander@medisin.uio.no.ORCID 0000-0002-7752-1942
University of Helsinki · FIUniversity of Oslo · NOUniversity Hospital of North Norway · NOWellcome Sanger Institute · GBUiT The Arctic University of Norway · NOUniversity of Birmingham · GB

Funding

Wellcome Trust 108413/A/15/D
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Opportunistic bacterial pathogen species and their strains that colonise the human gut are generally understood to compete against both each other and the commensal species colonising this ecosystem. Currently we are lacking a population-wide quantification of strain-level colonisation dynamics and the relationship of colonisation potential to prevalence in disease, and how ecological factors might be modulating these. Here, using a combination of latest high-resolution metagenomics and strain-level genomic epidemiology methods we performed a characterisation of the competition and colonisation dynamics for a longitudinal cohort of neonatal gut microbiomes. We found strong inter- and intra-species competition dynamics in the gut colonisation process, but also a number of synergistic relationships among several species belonging to genus Klebsiella, which includes the prominent human pathogen Klebsiella pneumoniae. No evidence of preferential colonisation by hospital-adapted pathogen lineages in either vaginal or caesarean section birth groups was detected. Our analysis further enabled unbiased assessment of strain-level colonisation potential of extra-intestinal pathogenic Escherichia coli (ExPEC) in comparison with their propensity to cause bloodstream infections. Our study highlights the importance of systematic surveillance of bacterial gut pathogens, not only from disease but also from carriage state, to better inform therapies and preventive medicine in the future.

Indexed as

Cesarean SectionEcosystemEscherichia coliFemaleHumansInfant, NewbornKlebsiellaMetagenomicsParturitionPregnancy

Identifiers

PMID36456554
PMCPMC9715557
OpenAlexW4310699959

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.