ArticleBMC microbiology2025
Changes in microbiome composition after fecal microbiota transplantation via oral gavage and magnetic navigation technology-assisted proximal colon/cecum enema in antibiotic knock-down rats: a comparative experimental study.
Article in BMC microbiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) transfers fecal matter from a donor into the gastrointestinal tract of a recipient to induce changes to the gut microbiota for therapeutic benefit; however, differences in the composition of gut microbiota after FMT via different donor material delivery routes are poorly understood. In this study, we first developed a novel technique for FMT, magnetic navigation technology(MAT)-assisted proximal colon enemas, in healthy Sprague-Dawley rats. Besides, the difference in fecal microbiota composition after FMT via oral gavage and proximal colon/cecum enemas was determined in antibiotic knock-down rats, in addition to the impact on intestinal barrier function.
methodsA device consisting of an external magnet and a magnet-tipped 6 Fr tube was used in the MAT group (n = 6), and the control group (n = 6) where fecal matter was delivered without magnetic navigation. The feasibility and safety of this method were assessed by angiography and histology. Next, the fecal microbiota of donor rats was transplanted into antibiotic knock-down rats via oral gavage (n = 6) and MAT-assisted proximal colon/cecum enema (n = 6) for a week. Analysis of fecal 16 S rRNA was conducted to determine differences in the composition of gut microbiota between different groups. The rat intestinal barrier integrity were evaulated by H&E and ZO-1/MUC2 immunofluorescence staining.
resultsThe end of the fecal tube could be placed in the cecum or proximal colon of rats in MAT group; however, this was rarely achieved in the control group. No colon perforation or bleeding was detected in either group. After fecal microbiota transplantation, the microbiota α-diversity and β-diversity were comparable among the different delivery routes.At the family level, the relative abundances of Muribaculaceae, Oscillospiraceae, and Erysipelotrichaceae were higher in the gavage treatment group, whereas Lactobacillaceae and Saccharimonadaceae were higher in the enema treatment group (all p < 0.05). FMT by enema was superior to gavage in maintaining the integrity of the rat intestinal barrier, as assessed by an elevation in the density of goblet cells and increased expression of mucin-2.
conclusionsFecal microbiota tube placement using magnetic navigation was safe and feasible in rats.Different delivery route for FMT affects the gut microbiota composition and the integrity of the rat intestinal barrier. Future experimental designs should consider the colonization outcomes of critical microbial taxa to determine the optimal FMT delivery routes in scientific research as well as clinical practise.
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.