Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40207154›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in microbiology2025

Comparison of metagenomic analysis of fecal and gastrointestinal tract samples for identifying beneficial gut microorganisms.

Ji-Seon Ahn, Eui-Jeong Han, Hea-Jong Chung

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in microbiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
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

3 authors.

Ji-Seon Ahn *Honam Regional Center, Korea Basic Science Institute, Gwangju, Republic of Korea.
Eui-Jeong Han *Honam Regional Center, Korea Basic Science Institute, Gwangju, Republic of Korea.
Hea-Jong ChungHonam Regional Center, Korea Basic Science Institute, Gwangju, Republic of Korea.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Previous research on the gut microbiome has primarily focused on fecal microbiota, raising concerns about whether fecal samples accurately represent the entire intestinal microbiota. Studies have shown that microbial communities across the gastrointestinal (GI) tract are more diverse than those in feces, suggesting that microbial composition may vary depending on the sampling method. Additionally, analyzing the broader diversity of microbial communities in the GI tract may enhance the identification of potentially beneficial microbiota. Methods: In this study, we compare gut microbiome datasets obtained from fecal samples and GI samples (collected by pooling luminal contents and mucosal scrapings from the stomach to the end of the colon) of 6-month-old mice using 16S rRNA sequencing. We further investigate the associations between gut microbiota and motor, cognitive, and emotional functions in mice, examining differences between the two sample types. To assess these variations, we apply DESeq2 analysis to identify microbial species enriched in high-functioning groups and evaluate how their selection may differ depending on the sampling approach. Results: Our findings reveal notable differences in microbial composition between fecal and GI samples, suggesting that sampling methods may influence the identification of beneficial bacteria. Discussion: These results highlight the importance of selecting an appropriate sampling approach in microbiome research to ensure a comprehensive understanding of gut microbiota-host interactions.

Indexed as

cognitive functiondifferential analysisemotional functionmetagenomic analysismotor function

Identifiers

PMID40207154
PMCPMC11979174

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.