Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38585427›Full record

ArticleJOR spine2024

Intervertebral disc microbiome in Modic changes: Lack of result replication underscores the need for a consensus in low-biomass microbiome analysis.

Tamara Mengis, Natalia Zajac, Laura Bernhard, Irina Heggli, Nick Herger, Jan Devan, Roy Marcus, Florian Brunner, Christoph Laux, Mazda Farshad and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JOR spine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. IntradiscalJOR spine · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Insights into IVDD pathogenesis in 2024.Nature reviews. Rheumatology · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Tamara MengisCenter of Experimental Rheumatology, Department of Rheumatology University Hospital, University of Zurich Zurich Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0000-5595-5224
Natalia ZajacFunctional Genomics Center Zurich University and ETH Zurich Zurich Switzerland.
Laura BernhardCenter of Experimental Rheumatology, Department of Rheumatology University Hospital, University of Zurich Zurich Switzerland.
Irina HeggliCenter of Experimental Rheumatology, Department of Rheumatology University Hospital, University of Zurich Zurich Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3064-8364
Nick HergerCenter of Experimental Rheumatology, Department of Rheumatology University Hospital, University of Zurich Zurich Switzerland.
Jan DevanCenter of Experimental Rheumatology, Department of Rheumatology University Hospital, University of Zurich Zurich Switzerland.
Roy MarcusDepartment of Radiology, Balgrist University Hospital University of Zurich Zurich Switzerland.
Florian BrunnerDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rheumatology, Balgrist University Hospital University of Zurich Zurich Switzerland.
Christoph LauxDepartment of Orthopedics, Balgrist University Hospital University of Zurich Zurich Switzerland.
Mazda FarshadDepartment of Orthopedics, Balgrist University Hospital University of Zurich Zurich Switzerland.
Oliver DistlerCenter of Experimental Rheumatology, Department of Rheumatology University Hospital, University of Zurich Zurich Switzerland.
Stefan DudliCenter of Experimental Rheumatology, Department of Rheumatology University Hospital, University of Zurich Zurich Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: The emerging field of the disc microbiome challenges traditional views of disc sterility, which opens new avenues for novel clinical insights. However, the lack of methodological consensus in disc microbiome studies introduces discrepancies. The aims of this study were to (1) compare the disc microbiome of non-Modic (nonMC), Modic type 1 change (MC1), and MC2 discs to findings from prior disc microbiome studies, and (2) investigate if discrepancies to prior studies can be explained with bioinformatic variations. Methods: Sequencing of 16S rRNA in 70 discs (24 nonMC, 25 MC1, and 21 MC2) for microbiome profiling. The experimental setup included buffer contamination controls and was performed under aseptic conditions. Methodology and results were contrasted with previous disc microbiome studies. Critical bioinformatic steps that were different in our best-practice approach and previous disc microbiome studies (taxonomic lineage assignment, prevalence cut-off) were varied and their effect on results were compared. Results: There was limited overlap of results with a previous study on MC disc microbiome. No bacterial genera were shared using the same bioinformatic parameters. Taxonomic lineage assignment using "amplicon sequencing variants" was more sensitive and detected 48 genera compared to 22 with "operational taxonomic units" (previous study). Increasing filter cut-off from 4% to 50% (previous study) reduced genera from 48 to 4 genera. Despite these differences, both studies observed dysbiosis with an increased abundance of gram-negative bacteria in MC discs as well as a lower beta-diversity. Conclusion: There is dysbiosis in MC discs. Bioinformatic parameters impact results yet cannot explain the different findings from this and a previous study. Therefore, discrepancies are likely caused by different sample preparations or true biologic differences. Harmonized protocols are required to advance understanding of the disc microbiome and its clinical implications.

Indexed as

Cutibacterium acnesmetagenomicsmicrobiomeModic changes

Identifiers

PMID38585427
PMCPMC10995447

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.