ArticlePloS one2023
Integrating current analyses of the breast cancer microbiome.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Guideline for designing microbiome studies in neoplastic diseases.GeroScience · 2024Guideline
- Nipple aspirate fluid as a proximal breast liquid biopsy platform: advancing precision risk management in breast cancer.Clinical proteomics · 2026Review
- Race-related host and microbe transcriptomic signatures in triple-negative breast cancer.NPJ breast cancer · 2025Article
- Therapeutic potential of microbiome modulation in reproductive cancers.Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England) · 2025Review
- A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 16S rRNA and Cancer Microbiome Atlas Datasets to Characterize Microbiota Signatures in Normal Breast, Mastitis, and Breast Cancer.Microorganisms · 2025Review
- A landscape review with novel criteria to evaluate microbial drivers for cancer: priorities for innovative research targeting excessive cancer mortality in sub-Saharan Africa.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2025Review
- Gut microbiota in women: The secret of psychological and physical well-being.World journal of gastroenterology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Many cancer types have significant associations with their resident microbial communities-emerging evidence suggests that breast cancers also interact with the local tissue-associated microbiota. Microbiome research advances rapidly and analysis pipelines and databases are updated frequently. This dynamic environment makes comparative evaluations challenging. Here, we have integrated all publicly available studies related to breast cancer and the mammary microbiome in light of advances in this rapidly progressing field. Based on alpha diversity, beta diversity, proportional abundance, and statistical analyses, we observed differences between our modern analytical approaches and the original findings. We were able to classify and identify additional taxa across samples through abundance analyses and identify previously unidentified statistically significant taxa. In our updated analyses there were more taxa identified as statistically significant in comparison to the original studies' results. In the re-analysis for The Microbiome of Aseptically Collected Human Breast Tissue in Benign and Malignant Disease by Hieken et al., there were twelve statistically significant differentially abundant taxa identified in breast tissue microbiota in benign and invasive cancer disease states. In the re-analysis for The Microbiota of Breast Tissue and Its Association with Breast Cancer by Urbaniak et al., there were 18 taxa identified as statistically significant. In the re-analysis for Characterization of the microbiome of nipple aspirate fluid of breast cancer survivors by Chan et al., there were three genera identified as statistically significant in the skin and fluid samples. Our work has discovered that reanalyses are necessary for microbiome studies, especially older 16S studies. Through our re-analysis, we classified and identified more phyla and genera across studies, which supports the notion that reanalyses provide new insights to the microbiome field and help to assess robusticity of previously published findings by using new and updated tools and databases.
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.