Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38710815›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2024

Oral microbiome dysbiosis among cigarette smokers and smokeless tobacco users compared to non-users.

Suhana Chattopadhyay, Leena Malayil, Jessica Chopyk, Eoghan Smyth, Prachi Kulkarni, Greg Raspanti, Stephen B Thomas, Amir Sapkota, Emmanuel F Mongodin, Amy R Sapkota

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. The association between self-reported vaping and the human oral microbiome: a systematic review.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
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

10 authors.

Suhana ChattopadhyayDepartment of Global, Environmental, and Occupational Health, School of Public Health, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA.
Leena MalayilDepartment of Global, Environmental, and Occupational Health, School of Public Health, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA.
Jessica ChopykDepartment of Global, Environmental, and Occupational Health, School of Public Health, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA.
Eoghan SmythDepartment of Global, Environmental, and Occupational Health, School of Public Health, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA.
Prachi KulkarniDepartment of Global, Environmental, and Occupational Health, School of Public Health, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA.
Greg RaspantiDepartment of Global, Environmental, and Occupational Health, School of Public Health, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA.
Stephen B ThomasCenter for Health Equity, School of Public Health, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA.
Amir SapkotaDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA.
Emmanuel F MongodinDepartment of Microbiology and Immunology, Institute for Genome Sciences, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Amy R SapkotaDepartment of Global, Environmental, and Occupational Health, School of Public Health, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA. ars@umd.edu.

Funding

Rapid Response Characterization of New and Manipulated Tobacco ProductsP50CA180523 · NCI · UNIV OF MARYLAND, COLLEGE PARK · PI CLARK, PAMELA I · 2013 to 2017
$19.0M
NCI NIH HHS P50 CA180523
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Tobacco use significantly influences the oral microbiome. However, less is known about how different tobacco products specifically impact the oral microbiome over time. To address this knowledge gap, we characterized the oral microbiome of cigarette users, smokeless tobacco users, and non-users over 4 months (four time points). Buccal swab and saliva samples (n = 611) were collected from 85 participants. DNA was extracted from all samples and sequencing was carried out on an Illumina MiSeq, targeting the V3-V4 region of the 16S rRNA gene. Cigarette and smokeless tobacco users had more diverse oral bacterial communities, including a higher relative abundance of Firmicutes and a lower relative abundance of Proteobacteria, when compared to non-users. Non-users had a higher relative abundance of Actinomyces, Granulicatella, Haemophilus, Neisseria, Oribacterium, Prevotella, Pseudomonas, Rothia, and Veillonella in buccal swab samples, compared to tobacco users. While the most abundant bacterial genera were relatively constant over time, some species demonstrated significant shifts in relative abundance between the first and last time points. In addition, some opportunistic pathogens were detected among tobacco users including Neisseria subflava, Bulleidia moorei and Porphyromonas endodontalis. Overall, our results provide a more holistic understanding of the structure of oral bacterial communities in tobacco users compared to non-users.

Indexed as

DysbiosisMicrobiotaMouthRNA, Ribosomal, 16STobacco, SmokelessAdultBacteriaCigarette SmokingFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMouth MucosaSalivaSmokersYoung AdultRNA, Ribosomal, 16S

Identifiers

PMID38710815
PMCPMC11074290

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.