ArticlemSystems2024
Distinct compositions and functions of circulating microbial DNA in the peripheral blood compared to fecal microbial DNA in healthy individuals.
Article in mSystems, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- A machine-learning informed circulating microbial DNA signature for early diagnosis of esophageal adenocarcinoma.Gut microbes · 2026Article
- The leaky gut and microbiome in critical illness: emerging insights into microbial "translocation".Current opinion in critical care · 2026Review
- The best from both disciplines: integrating human and microbial signatures from whole genome sequencing to advance cancer diagnostics.mSystems · 2026Review
- The origin of circulating microbial DNA in the blood: where does it come from?Annals of medicine · 2025Review
- Differences in cell-associated and cell-free microbial DNA in blood.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- The Role of the Intestinal Flora and Its Derivatives in Neurocognitive Disorders: A Narrative Review from Surgical Perspective.Molecular neurobiology · 2025Review
- Nanopathways modulating postoperative cognitive dysfunction: extracellular vesicles.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2025Review
- Metagenomic analysis of blood microbiota alterations: insights into HIV progression and immune restoration.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2025Article
- Common microbial signatures in blood and their amplification in clinical disorders.Gut microbes reports · 2025Review
- Blood Microbiota and Its Products: Mechanisms of Interference with Host Cells and Clinical Outcomes.Hematology reports · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The crucial function of circulating microbial DNA (cmDNA) in peripheral blood is gaining recognition because of its importance in normal physiology and immunity in healthy individuals. Evidence suggests that cmDNA in peripheral blood is derived from highly abundant, translocating gut microbes. However, the associations with and differences between cmDNA in peripheral blood and the gut microbiome remain unclear. We collected blood, urine, and fecal samples from volunteers to compare their microbial information via 16S rDNA sequencing. The results revealed that, compared with gut microbial DNA, cmDNA in peripheral blood was associated with reduced diversity and a distinct microbiota composition. The cmDNA in the blood reflects the biochemical processes of microorganisms, including synthesis, energy conversion, degradation, and adaptability, surpassing that of fecal samples. Interestingly, cmDNA in blood showed a limited presence of DNA from anaerobes and gram-positive bacteria, which contrast with the trend observed in fecal samples. Furthermore, analysis of cmDNA revealed traits associated with mobile elements and potential pathologies, among others, which were minimal in stool samples. Notably, cmDNA analysis indicated similarities between the microbial functions and phenotypes in blood and urine samples, although greater diversity was observed in urine samples. Source Tracker analysis suggests that gut microbes might not be the main source of blood cmDNA, or a selective mechanism allows only certain microbial DNA into the bloodstream. In conclusion, our study highlights the composition and potential functions associated with cmDNA in peripheral blood, emphasizing its selective presence; however, further research is required to elucidate the mechanisms involved.IMPORTANCEOur research provides novel insights into the unique characteristics and potential functional implications of circulating microbial DNA (cmDNA) in peripheral blood. Unlike other studies that analyzed sequencing data from fecal or blood microbiota in different study cohorts, our comparative analysis of cmDNA from blood, urine, and fecal samples from the same group of volunteers revealed a distinct blood-specific cmDNA composition. We discovered a decreased diversity of microbial DNA in blood samples compared to fecal samples as well as an increased presence of biochemical processes microbial DNA in blood. Notably, we add to the existing knowledge by documenting a reduced abundance of anaerobes and gram-positive bacteria in blood compared to fecal samples according to the analysis of cmDNA and gut microbial DNA, respectively. This observation suggested that a potential selective barrier or screening mechanism might filter microbial DNA molecules, indicating potential selectivity in the translocation process which contrasts with the traditional view that cmDNA primarily originates from random translocation from the gut and other regions. By highlighting these differences, our findings prompt a reconsideration of the origin and role of cmDNA in blood circulation and suggest that selective processes involving more complex biological mechanisms may be involved.
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.