ArticleGenes & genomics2024
Exploring oral bacterial compositional network in two oral disease groups using a convergent approach of NGS-molecular diagnostics.
Article in Genes & genomics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Backtracking identification techniques for predicting unclear bacterial taxonomy at species level: molecular diagnosis-based bacterial classification.Genes & genomics · 2025Article
- Exploring Competitive Relationship BetweenMicroorganisms · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSince most of the commonly known oral diseases are explained in link with balance of microbial community, an accurate bacterial taxonomy profiling for determining bacterial compositional network is essential. However, compared to intestinal microbiome, research data pool related to oral microbiome is small, and general 16S rRNA screening method has a taxonomy misclassification issue in confirming complex bacterial composition at the species level.
objectivePresent study aimed to explore bacterial compositional networks at the species level within saliva of 39 oral disease patients (Dental Caries group: n = 26 and Periodontitis group: n = 13) through comparison with public Korean-specific healthy oral microbiome data.
methodsHere, we applied comprehensive molecular diagnostics based on qRT-PCR and Sanger sequencing methods to complement the technical limitations of NGS-based 16S V3-V4 amplicon sequencing technology.
resultsAs a result of microbiome profiling at the genus level, relative frequencies of many nitrate-reducing bacteria within each oral disease group were found to be significantly low compared to the healthy group. In addition, the molecular diagnostics-based bacterial identification method allowed the determination of the correct taxonomy of screened primary colonizers (Streptococcus and Actinomyces unclassification clusters) for each oral disease. Finally, as with the results of microbiome profiling at the genus level, many core-species classified within the saliva of each oral disease group were also related to nitrate-reduction, and it was estimated that various pathogens associated with each disease formed a bacterial network with the core-species.
conclusionOur study introduced a novel approach that can compensate for the difficulty of identifying an accurate bacterial compositional network at the species level due to unclear taxonomy classification by using the convergent approach of NGS-molecular diagnostics. Ultimately, we suggest that our experimental approach and results could be potential reference materials for researchers who intend to prevent oral disease by determining the correlation between oral health and bacterial compositional network according to the changes in the relative frequency for nitrate-reducing species.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38847972What 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.