ArticleFrontiers in oncology2025
Comparative microbiome analysis of paired mucosal and fecal samples in Korean colorectal cancer patients.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Response of Mucosal Colonic Microbiota to Probiotic and Dietary Intervention In Vitro.Microorganisms · 2026Article
- Spatial niches of the colorectal cancer microbiome: differences, interrelationships, and clinical implications of fecal, mucosal, and intratumoral microbiota.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Review
- Tumor-resident microorganisms as clinical biomarkers in primary liver cancer: A systematic review of current evidence.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2025Article
- Interactions between host sex and seasonal changes shape the gut microbial communities of wild blue sheep (Frontiers in microbiology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is increasingly linked to gut microbiome dysbiosis. However, few studies have examined tumor-associated microbial dynamics in Korean CRC patients using both mucosal and fecal samples. Methods: We analyzed paired fecal and mucosal samples from 30 Korean CRC patients aged 60-80 years before and after surgery. Microbial DNA was sequenced using 16S rRNA gene analysis. Diversity metrics, differential abundance testing (LEfSe), and pathway prediction (PICRUSt2) were performed. Diagnostic performance was evaluated with ROC curves, and associations with clinical parameters were assessed via regression models. Results: Beta diversity revealed significant compositional differences between fecal and mucosal samples (p = 0.001), with mucosal samples showing higher enrichment of CRC-associated taxa. Conclusion: This study highlights distinct microbial and functional signatures in CRC, particularly from mucosal samples, which offer deeper insights into tumor-microbiota interactions. The identified microbial markers and enriched pathways may contribute to immune modulation and tumor progression. These findings support the potential for microbiome-based diagnostic and therapeutic strategies tailored to Korean CRC patients and underscore the importance of dual-sample analysis in microbiome research.
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.