ArticleOncogene2024
Robustness of cancer microbiome signals over a broad range of methodological variation.
Article in Oncogene, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 57 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
57 citing papers in PubMed.
- Modulation of the response to immunotherapy in triple-negative breast cancer: the role of the microbiota and microbial metabolites in the tumor microenvironment.Gut microbes · 2026Review
- Harnessing microfluidics for microbiology: from bacteria-host interactions to emerging cancer therapies.Communications biology · 2026Review
- Decoding the cancer microbiome: multi-omics, AI, and translational opportunities.Genome biology · 2026Review
- Benchmarking methods for extracting microbial signal from host-dominated metatranscriptomes.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2026Article
- The Oral and Nasal Gateway Microbiomes: Salivaomics and Systemic Health at the Airway-Digestive Interface.Microorganisms · 2026Review
- Detection of House Dust Mite-derived DNA in Human Lung Tumors by Whole-Genome Sequencing.Research square · 2026Article
- Mechanism-Driven Diagnostic Development: A Specimen-Aware Framework Illustrated by Colorectal Cancer and Solid Tumours.Cancers · 2026Review
- Article
- Multifeature sequencing-based liquid biopsy for cancer diagnosis and monitoring.Genome medicine · 2026Review
- Harnessing the microbiome for cancer therapy.Nature reviews. Microbiology · 2026Review
- Systematic evaluation of TCGA tumor microbiota reveals context-dependent reliability.mSystems · 2026Article
- Review
- Modifications of microbiome-derived cell-free RNA in plasma discriminates colorectal cancer samples.Nature biotechnology · 2026Article
- Harnessing the Microbiome in Cancer Immunotherapy: Regulation, Prediction, and Therapeutic Targeting.Annual review of immunology · 2026Review
- Setting higher standards for reports of microbial species in human cancers.Nature cancer · 2026Review
- Bacterial population dynamics during colonization of solid tumors.Molecular systems biology · 2026Article
- IntratumoralScience advances · 2026Article
- Community assembly modeling of the microbiome within Barrett's esophagus and esophageal adenocarcinoma.BMC genomics · 2026Article
- The best from both disciplines: integrating human and microbial signatures from whole genome sequencing to advance cancer diagnostics.mSystems · 2026Review
- Planning and Analyzing a Low-Biomass Microbiome Study: A Data Analysis Perspective.The Journal of infectious diseases · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
21 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In 2020, we identified cancer-specific microbial signals in The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) [1]. Multiple peer-reviewed papers independently verified or extended our findings [2-12]. Given this impact, we carefully considered concerns by Gihawi et al. [13] that batch correction and database contamination with host sequences artificially created the appearance of cancer type-specific microbiomes. (1) We tested batch correction by comparing raw and Voom-SNM-corrected data per-batch, finding predictive equivalence and significantly similar features. We found consistent results with a modern microbiome-specific method (ConQuR [14]), and when restricting to taxa found in an independent, highly-decontaminated cohort. (2) Using Conterminator [15], we found low levels of human contamination in our original databases (~1% of genomes). We demonstrated that the increased detection of human reads in Gihawi et al. [13] was due to using a newer human genome reference. (3) We developed Exhaustive, a method twice as sensitive as Conterminator, to clean RefSeq. We comprehensively host-deplete TCGA with many human (pan)genome references. We repeated all analyses with this and the Gihawi et al. [13] pipeline, and found cancer type-specific microbiomes. These extensive re-analyses and updated methods validate our original conclusion that cancer type-specific microbial signatures exist in TCGA, and show they are robust to methodology.
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.