Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37323911›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in microbiology2023

Comparison of gut microbiome composition in colonic biopsies, endoscopically-collected and at-home-collected stool samples.

Christina Nowicki, Lucille Ray, Philip Engen, Andrea Madrigrano, Thomas Witt, Thomas Lad, Melody Cobleigh, Ece A Mutlu

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in microbiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Antibiotic-perturbed microbiota and the role of probiotics.Nature reviews. Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2025
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. 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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Christina NowickiDepartment of Internal Medicine, Division of Digestive Diseases and Nutrition, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, United States.
Lucille RayDepartment of Internal Medicine, Division of Digestive Diseases and Nutrition, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, United States.
Philip EngenRush Center for Integrated Microbiome and Chronobiology Research, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, United States.
Andrea MadrigranoDepartment of Surgery, Rush Medical College, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, United States.
Thomas WittDepartment of Surgery, Rush Medical College, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, United States.
Thomas LadDepartment of Oncology, Cook County Health and Hospital Systems, Chicago, IL, United States.
Melody CobleighDepartment of Internal Medicine, Division of Hematology, Oncology, and Cell Therapy, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, United States.
Ece A MutluDepartment of Internal Medicine, Division of Digestive Diseases and Nutrition, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, United States.
Rush University Medical Center · USUniversity of Illinois Chicago · USCook County Health and Hospitals System · US

Funding

Pilot Program CoreP30ES027792 · NIEHS · UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO · PI Gokhan M. Mutlu, Gail S Prins · 2017 to 2026
$13.6M
Gut Microbiome and Steroid HormonesR21TR003105 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO · PI BULUN, SERDAR E., MUTLU, ECE A. · 2020 to 2021
$446k
NCATS NIH HHS R21 TR003105NIEHS NIH HHS P30 ES027792
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Aim: The goal of this study is to compare microbiome composition in three different sample types in women, namely stool brought from home vs. solid stool samples obtained at the time of an unprepped sigmoidoscopy vs. biopsies of the colonic mucosa at the time of an unprepped sigmoidoscopy, using alpha- and beta-diversity metrics following bacterial 16S rRNA sequencing. The findings may have relevance to health and disease states in which bacterial metabolism has a significant impact on molecules/metabolites that are recirculated between the gut lumen and mucosa and systemic circulation, such as estrogens (as in breast cancer) or bile acids. Methods: Concomitant at-home-collected stool, endoscopically-collected stool, and colonic biopsy samples were collected from 48 subjects (24 breast cancer, 24 control.) After 16S rRNA sequencing, an amplicon sequence variant (ASV) based approach was used to analyze the data. Alpha diversity metrics (Chao1, Pielou's Evenness, Faith PD, Shannon, and Simpson) and beta diversity metrics (Bray-Curtis, Weighted and Unweighted Unifrac) were calculated. LEfSe was used to analyze differences in the abundance of various taxa between sample types. Results: Alpha and beta diversity metrics were significantly different between the three sample types. Biopsy samples were different than stool samples in all metrics. The highest variation in microbiome diversity was noted in the colonic biopsy samples. At-home and endoscopically-collected stool showed more similarities in count-based and weighted beta diversity metrics. There were significant differences in rare taxa and phylogenetically-diverse taxa between the two types of stool samples. Generally, there were higher levels of Proteobacteria in biopsy samples, with significantly more Actinobacteria and Firmicutes in stool (all Conclusion: Our data shows that different sampling methods can impact results when looking at the composition of the gut microbiome using ASV-based approaches.

Indexed as

16S rRNA genebacteriahuman microbiomeintestinal microbiomelumenmicrobiome samplingmucosal biopsymucosal microbiome

Identifiers

PMID37323911
PMCPMC10264612
OpenAlexW4378909091

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.