ArticleMicrobiology research2024
Bioinformatic Methodologies in Assessing Gut Microbiota.
Article in Microbiology research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Multi-cohort ensemble learning framework for vaginal microbiome-based endometrial cancer detection.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2025Pooled it
- Vaginal Microbiota and Ovarian Cancer: A New Frontier in Immunomodulation and Diagnosis.Immunology · 2026Review
- Metagenomic Applications to Herbivore Gut Microbiomes: A Comprehensive Review of Microbial Diversity and Host Interactions.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Review
- Microbiota Gut-Brain Axis and Autism Spectrum Disorder: Mechanisms and Therapeutic Perspectives.Nutrients · 2025Review
- The interaction between IL-17 and gut microbiota contributes to cholestatic liver disease in children.Microbiology (Reading, England) · 2025Article
- Gut Mycobiome: Latest Findings and Current Knowledge Regarding Its Significance in Human Health and Disease.Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Bioinformatic methodologies play a crucial role in the assessment of gut microbiota, offering advanced tools for analyzing complex microbial communities. These methodologies involve high-throughput sequencing technologies, such as 16S rRNA gene sequencing and metagenomics, which generate vast amounts of data on microbial diversity and functional potential, as well as whole-genome sequencing, which, while being more costly, has a more expansive potential. Bioinformatics tools and algorithms process these data to identify microbial taxa and quantify and elucidate their roles within the microbiome. Advanced statistical and computational models further enable the identification of microbiota patterns associated with various diseases and health conditions. Overall, bioinformatic approaches are essential for deciphering the complexities of gut microbiota so that, in the future, we may be able to discover treatments and technologies aimed at restoring or optimizing the microbiome. The goal of this review is to describe the differences in methodology and utilization of 16S versus whole-genome sequencing to address the increased understanding of the role that the gut microbiome plays in human physiology and pathology.
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.