Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37398124›Full record

ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2023

Processing and Storage Methods Affect Oral and Gut Microbiome Composition.

Dorothy K Superdock, Wei Zhang, Angela C Poole

Open access · greenAbstract readPreprint
In one paragraph

Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Dorothy K SuperdockORCID 0000-0001-5348-3307
Wei Zhang
Cornell University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Across microbiome studies, fecal and oral samples are stored and processed in different ways, which could affect the observed microbiome composition. Here, we compared treatment methods, which included both storage conditions and processing methods, applied to samples prior to DNA extraction to determine how each affects microbial community diversity as assessed by 16S rRNA gene sequencing. We collected dental swab, saliva, and fecal samples from 10 individuals, with three technical replicates per treatment method. We assessed four methods of processing fecal samples prior to DNA extraction. We also compared different fractions of frozen saliva and dental samples to fresh samples. We found that lyophilized fecal samples, fresh whole saliva samples, and the supernatant fraction of thawed dental samples retained the highest levels of alpha diversity in samples. The supernatant fraction of thawed saliva samples had the second highest alpha diversity compared to fresh. Then we investigated the differences in microbes between different treatments at the domain and phylum levels as well as identified the amplicon sequence variants (ASVs) that were significantly different between the methods producing the highest alpha diversity and the other treatment methods. Lyophilized fecal samples had a greater prevalence of Archaea as well as a greater ratio of Firmicutes to Bacteroidetes compared to the other treatment methods. Our results provide practical considerations, not only for selection of processing method, but also for comparing results across studies that use these methods. Our findings also indicate differences in treatment method could be a confounding factor influencing the presence, absence, or differential abundance of microbes reported in conflicting studies.

Identifiers

PMID37398124
PMCPMC10312680
OpenAlexW4380608131

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.