ArticleBMC cancer2025
The causal relationship between the gut microbiota and endometrial cancer: a mendelian randomization study.
Article in BMC cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The Female Reproductive Tract Microbiota and Endometrial Cancer: A Systematic Review.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Pooled it
- Beyond just correlation: causal machine learning for the microbiome, from prediction to health policy with econometric tools.Frontiers in microbiology · 2025Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundGut microbiota is associated with endometrial cancer (EC); however, the causal relationship remains unexplored. This study attempted to explore the relationship between gut microbiota and EC using Mendelian randomization (MR) methods.
methodsIn this two-sample MR analysis, we used MiBioGen's gut microbiota data as the exposure and three datasets from European populations with EC as the outcome. The EC datasets included general EC, endometrioid histology, and non-endometrioid histology. Single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) was used as the instrumental variable. Inverse variance weighted (IVW), multiplicative random effects IVW (MRE-IVW), Maximum likelihood (ML), MR Egger, MR-PRESSO, and the weighted median were used to perform MR analysis. Sensitivity analysis was conducted to assess the reliability of the results.
resultsIn this MR analysis of three EC datasets, specific gut microbiota were identified as potentially associated with different pathological types of EC. For general EC (ID: ebi-a-GCST006464), Family.Acidaminococcaceae (OR = 1.23, 95%CI: 1.02-1.48) and genus.Butyrivibrio (OR = 1.08, 95%CI: 1.01-1.16) were identified as risk factors, while genus.Ruminococcaceae UCG014 (OR = 0.82, 95%CI: 0.69-0.98) and genus.Turicibacter (OR = 0.84, 95%CI: 0.73-0.97) appeared to have protective effects. For endometrioid histology EC (ID: ebi-a-GCST006465), Family.Acidaminococcaceae (OR = 1.27, 95%CI: 1.01-1.59) and genus.Butyrivibrio (OR = 1.10, 95%CI: 1.01-1.19) were identified as risk factors, while several microbiota, including Family.Lactobacillaceae, genus.Coprococcus3, genus.Dorea, genus.Flavonifractor, genus.Lactobacillus, genus.Paraprevotella, and genus.Turicibacter, were identified as protective factors. For non-endometrioid histology EC (ID: ebi-a-GCST006466), Family.Rhodospirillaceae (OR = 1.41, 95%CI: 1.01-1.96) and genus.Peptococcus (OR = 1.43, 95%CI: 1.07-1.91) were identified as risk factors, while no significant protective factors were identified.
conclusionsThis two-sample MR study has identified gut microbiota with potential causal relationships with EC, varying by pathological type. These findings provide new insights into the pathogenesis of EC and suggest directions for future research on diagnosis and treatment strategies.
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.