ArticleGut microbes2025
Mucosal washes are useful for sampling intestinal mucus-associated microbiota despite low biomass.
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.
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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.