Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39980334›Full record

ArticleGut microbes2025

Mucosal washes are useful for sampling intestinal mucus-associated microbiota despite low biomass.

Jennifer N Martinez-Medina, Fereshteh Ghazisaeedi, Catharina Kramer, Jörn F Ziegler, Victoria McParland, Paul W Mönch, Britta Siegmund, Víctor Hugo Jarquín-Díaz, Marcus Fulde, Sofia K Forslund-Startceva

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Gut microbes, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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

10 authors.

Jennifer N Martinez-MedinaMax-Delbrück-Center for Molecular Medicine in the Helmholtz Association (MDC), Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-3438-5730
Fereshteh GhazisaeediInstitute of Microbiology and Epizootics, School of Veterinary Medicine at the Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Catharina KramerCharité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-5705-3715
Jörn F ZieglerCharité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-7445-541X
Victoria McParlandMax-Delbrück-Center for Molecular Medicine in the Helmholtz Association (MDC), Berlin, Germany.
Paul W MönchCharité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0009-0008-4170-8538
Britta SiegmundCharité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-0055-958X
Víctor Hugo Jarquín-DíazMax-Delbrück-Center for Molecular Medicine in the Helmholtz Association (MDC), Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-3758-1091
Marcus FuldeInstitute of Microbiology and Epizootics, School of Veterinary Medicine at the Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Sofia K Forslund-StartcevaMax-Delbrück-Center for Molecular Medicine in the Helmholtz Association (MDC), Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-4285-6993

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Understanding the dynamic relationship between mucus-associated microbiota and host health is critical. However, studies predominantly using stool samples may not accurately represent these bacterial communities. Here, we investigated the mucus-associated microbiota in the gastrointestinal tract of mice and the terminal ileum of humans using different sample types: mucosal washes, brushes, scrapings, and intestinal contents in mice and biopsies, brushes and mucosal washes in humans. We used DNA quantification and 16S rRNA amplicon sequencing to evaluate the comparability of the information yielded from the different sample types under a controlled benchmark. In mice, mucosal washes and brushes had comparative bacterial DNA and host DNA contamination than scraping samples. Similarly, in humans, washes outperformed biopsies in bacterial DNA content. Read counts and microbiota alpha diversity remained remarkably similar in mice and between brushes and washes in humans. The composition of the microbiota varied based on the subsegment and sample type in mice and sample type in humans. We conclude that washes and brushes reduce host contamination without inducing substantial compositional bias when sampling mucosal microbiota. Our findings suggest that mucosal washes and brushes are a viable alternative to biopsies in humans and scrapings in mice, thereby improving the transferability of results across hosts. Our study highlights the importance of focusing on mucus-associated microbiota to better capture host-microbiome interactions at their closer interface.

Indexed as

BacteriaGastrointestinal MicrobiomeIntestinal MucosaMucusSpecimen HandlingAnimalsBiopsyDNA, BacterialFecesFemaleHumansIleumMaleMiceMice, Inbred C57BLRNA, Ribosomal, 16SDNA, BacterialRNA, Ribosomal, 16Sbacterial loadbiopsybrusheshumansintestinal microbiotalow-biomassmicemucosal-washesMucusmucus-associated

Identifiers

PMID39980334
PMCPMC11849919

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.