ArticlePloS one2024
Impact of fecal sample preservation and handling techniques on the canine fecal microbiota profile.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Analytic attributes of the 16S rRNA gene sequencing methodology for human gut microbiota characterization.Applied microbiology and biotechnology · 2026Article
- Towards standardization in pig microbiome research based on a comprehensive twenty-year review.Animal microbiome · 2026Review
- Comparison of the fecal microbiota of adult healthy dogs fed a plant-based (vegan) or an animal-based diet.Frontiers in microbiology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Canine fecal microbiota profiling provides insight into host health and disease. Standardization of methods for fecal sample storage for microbiomics is currently inconclusive, however. This study investigated the effects of homogenization, the preservative RNAlater, room temperature exposure duration, and short-term storage in the fridge prior to freezing on the canine fecal microbiota profile. Within 15 minutes after voiding, samples were left non-homogenized or homogenized and aliquoted, then kept at room temperature (20-22°C) for 0.5, 4, 8, or 24 hours. Homogenized aliquots then had RNAlater added or not. Following room temperature exposure, all aliquots were stored in the fridge (4°C) for 24 hours prior to storing in the freezer (-20°C), or stored directly in the freezer. DNA extraction, PCR amplification, then sequencing were completed on all samples. Alpha diversity (diversity, evenness, and richness), and beta diversity (community membership and structure), and relative abundances of bacterial genera were compared between treatments. Homogenization and RNAlater minimized changes in the microbial communities over time, although minor changes in relative abundances occurred. Non-homogenized samples had more inter-sample variability and greater changes in beta diversity than homogenized samples. Storage of canine fecal samples in the fridge for 24 h prior to storage in the freezer had little effect on the fecal microbiota profile. Our findings suggest that if immediate analysis of fecal samples is not possible, samples should at least be homogenized to preserve the existing microbiota profile.
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.