ArticleResearch square2025
Comparative study of sample storage conditions on gut dysbiosis in peripheral artery disease.
Article in Research square, 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Large-scale gut microbiome studies rely on fecal sample storage prior to batch sample preparation, sequencing, and analysis. Effects of storage methods have largely been studied using samples from healthy participants, where the microbial communities and the metabolic environment are in concordance. In diseased states, dysbiosis is more prone to environmental perturbation, which causes variable shifts in the communities. Cardiovascular diseases are associated with gut dysbiosis, but the effect of storage methods on the qualitative and quantitative aspects of dysbiosis is unknown. Thus, we examined the effects of 3 sample storage conditions on the fecal samples of patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD), a form of cardiovascular disease, and non-PAD controls. Methods and Results: This is a cross-sectional study of fecal samples collected from adults with PAD and non-PAD controls. All participants (12 non-PAD and 18 PAD) followed the home fecal sample collection protocol. Each sample was immediately frozen (IF), placed in modified Cary-Blair (CB), and stored in an OMNIgene•Gut vial. All samples were subjected to 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing of the hypervariable V4 region. A subset of glycerol stocks from IF and CB samples was thawed and cultured to compare revivification. We found significant differences in microbial composition and community structure between non-PAD and PAD groups based on storage conditions. Although we did not see the effect of an interaction term (disease group*storage condition) at the community level, we observed storage condition-specific differential abundance of genera in the PAD compared to the non-PAD group. The high number of differentially variable taxa in the PAD group samples further emphasize the need for standardizing storage conditions. The subset of samples stored in CB had less revivification potential than IF samples under both anaerobic and aerobic processing conditions. Conclusions: Sample storage conditions and room temperature storage time differentially affect the microbial communities of fecal samples and revivification of glycerol stocks from non-PAD and PAD groups. The effects of storage conditions can bias microbiome-related disease biomarker discovery. Careful consideration should be given to sample storage conditions when analyzing fecal samples from diseased populations and when combining data from cohorts with samples stored in different conditions.
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.