ArticleThe FEBS journal2025
Experimental tests challenge the evidence of a healthy human blood microbiome.
Article in The FEBS journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Large-scale profiling of blood microbial signatures in patients with Parkinson's disease and its association with disease progression: a cross-sectional study.EBioMedicine · 2026Article
- Yogurt reintroduction and the circulating microbiome in healthy volunteers: protocol for a prospective, longitudinal, species-controlled crossover clinical trial (MAMI).Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2025Article
- Testing the limits of short-reads metagenomic classifications programs in wastewater treating microbial communities.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Human DNA hijacking microbiota surveys: causes and consequences in colon related 16s rRNA amplicon sequencing.Gut microbiome (Cambridge, England) · 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The advent of next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies has made it possible to investigate microbial communities in various environments, including different sites within the human body. Therefore, the previously established belief of the sterile nature of several body sites, including human blood, has now been challenged. However, metagenomics investigation of areas with an anticipated low microbial biomass may be susceptible to misinterpretation. Here, we critically evaluate the results of 16S targeted amplicon sequencing performed on total DNA collected from healthy donors' blood samples while incorporating specific negative controls aimed at addressing potential bias to supplement and strengthen the research in this area. We prepared negative controls by increasing the initial DNA quantity through sequences that can be recognized and subsequently discarded. We found that only three organisms were sporadically present among the samples, and this was mostly attributable to bacteria ubiquitously present in laboratory reagents. Despite not fully confirming or denying the existence of healthy blood microbiota, our results suggest that living bacteria, or at least their residual DNA sequences, are not a common feature of human blood in healthy people. Finally, our study poses relevant questions on the design of controls in this research area that must be considered in order to avoid misinterpreted results that appear to contaminate current high-throughput research.
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.