ArticleFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology2023
Porcine fungal mock community analyses: Implications for mycobiome investigations.
Article in Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Genomic structures of rDNA clusters in Eimeria acervulina.BMC genomics · 2026Article
- Fungi in the Gut Microbiota: Interactions, Homeostasis, and Host Physiology.Microorganisms · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The gut microbiome is an integral partner in host health and plays a role in immune development, altered nutrition, and pathogen prevention. The mycobiome (fungal microbiome) is considered part of the rare biosphere but is still a critical component in health. Next generation sequencing has improved our understanding of fungi in the gut, but methodological challenges remain. Biases are introduced during DNA isolation, primer design and choice, polymerase selection, sequencing platform selection, and data analyses, as fungal reference databases are often incomplete or contain erroneous sequences. Methods: Here, we compared the accuracy of taxonomic identifications and abundances from mycobiome analyses which vary among three commonly selected target gene regions (18S, ITS1, or ITS2) and the reference database (UNITE - ITS1, ITS2 and SILVA - 18S). We analyze multiple communities including individual fungal isolates, a mixed mock community created from five common fungal isolates found in weanling piglet feces, a purchased commercial fungal mock community, and piglet fecal samples. In addition, we calculated gene copy numbers for the 18S, ITS1, and ITS2 regions of each of the five isolates from the piglet fecal mock community to determine whether copy number affects abundance estimates. Finally, we determined the abundance of taxa from several iterations of our in-house fecal community to assess the effects of community composition on taxon abundance. Results: Overall, no marker-database combination consistently outperformed the others. Internal transcribed space markers were slightly superior to 18S in the identification of species in tested communities, but Discussion: This study underscores the importance of preliminary studies to assess primer combinations and database choice for the mycobiome sample of interest and raises questions regarding the validity of fungal abundance estimates.
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.