Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40988886›Full record

ArticleAccess microbiology2025

At-home, self-sampling of the skin microbiome: development of an unsupervised sampling approach.

J Leng, J Tyson-Carr, S Adams, M Scott, A Thomas, T Giesbrecht, N Fallon, B Murphy, M Hoptroff, C Roberts and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Access 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.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

11 authors.

J LengInstitute of Infection, Veterinary and Ecological Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, L69 7ZB, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8347-0339
J Tyson-CarrDepartment of Psychology, Institute of Population Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, L69 7ZB, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3364-2184
S AdamsUnilever Research and Development, Port Sunlight, Bebington, Wirral, CH63 3JW, UK.
M ScottUnilever Research and Development, Port Sunlight, Bebington, Wirral, CH63 3JW, UK.
A ThomasUnilever Research and Development, Port Sunlight, Bebington, Wirral, CH63 3JW, UK.
T GiesbrechtUnilever Research and Development, Port Sunlight, Bebington, Wirral, CH63 3JW, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5545-6895
N FallonDepartment of Psychology, Institute of Population Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, L69 7ZB, UK.
B MurphyUnilever Research and Development, Port Sunlight, Bebington, Wirral, CH63 3JW, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2305-5875
M HoptroffUnilever Research and Development, Port Sunlight, Bebington, Wirral, CH63 3JW, UK.
C RobertsDepartment of Psychology, Institute of Population Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, L69 7ZB, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4275-601X
S PatersonInstitute of Infection, Veterinary and Ecological Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, L69 7ZB, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1307-2981

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Large-scale skin microbiome studies are often restricted due to the need for participants to visit a research centre to have their skin swabbed by a trained individual. If samples taken by participants at home returned high-quality data, similar to that generated from samples taken by trained experts under controlled conditions, it would provide the potential for studies to have larger cohorts, include participants from multiple locations and facilitate longitudinal sample collection. Here, we describe the development of a novel unsupervised skin microbiome sample collection method and compare the data quality with that of supervised, in-lab sample collection. We enrolled 57 participants to collect skin swabs from their axillae, forearms, cheeks and scalps. Initially, samples were collected in our research centre under strict supervision by a trained expert. Participants then collected swabs from the same body sites 24 h later, unsupervised, at home, which they returned to the research centre within 3-5 days. All samples then underwent bacterial DNA extraction and 16S rRNA gene sequencing. Yield of extracted bacterial DNA was different depending on body site, with the dry swabs from the forearm producing the lowest amount. There were no significant differences in alpha and beta-diversities between supervised and unsupervised sampling methods, regardless of body site. Taxonomic analysis of bacterial genera also did not differ for axilla, cheek or scalp. Our data suggest that self-sampling skin microbiome methods can produce data that are comparable to samples collected under the supervision of a trained expert in lab settings. These findings should encourage the scalability of future research and allow for greater representative population diversity in genomic and microbiome research.

Indexed as

16S rRNA sequencingremote samplingskin microbiome

Identifiers

PMID40988886
PMCPMC12451302

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.