Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41310812›Full record

ArticleMicrobiome2025

Critical Assessment of MetaProteome Investigation 2 (CAMPI-2): multi-laboratory assessment of sample processing methods to stabilize fecal microbiome for functional analysis.

Alessandro Tanca, Kay Schallert, Lucia Grenga, Samantha L Peters, Marcello Abbondio, Laura De Diego, Maria Antonietta Deledda, Sven-Bastiaan Haange, Guylaine Miotello, Johan S Sáenz and 14 more

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Microbiome, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
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

24 authors.

Alessandro TancaDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, University of Sassari, Sassari, Italy.
Kay SchallertMultidimensional Omics Analyses Group, Leibniz-Institut für Analytische Wissenschaften - ISAS - e.V., Dortmund, Germany.
Lucia GrengaDépartement Médicaments Et Technologies Pour La Santé (DMTS), SPI, Université Paris-Saclay, CEA, INRAE, Bagnols-Sur-Cèze, France.
Samantha L PetersBiosciences Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, USA.
Marcello AbbondioDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, University of Sassari, Sassari, Italy.
Laura De DiegoDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, University of Sassari, Sassari, Italy.
Maria Antonietta DeleddaDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, University of Sassari, Sassari, Italy.
Sven-Bastiaan HaangeDepartment of Molecular Toxicology, Helmholtz-Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ GmbH, Leipzig, Germany.
Guylaine MiotelloDépartement Médicaments Et Technologies Pour La Santé (DMTS), SPI, Université Paris-Saclay, CEA, INRAE, Bagnols-Sur-Cèze, France.
Johan S SáenzInstitute of Animal Science, University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart, Germany.
Maximilian WolfMultidimensional Omics Analyses Group, Faculty of Technology, Bielefeld University, Bielefeld, Germany.
Felipe BastidaDepartment of Soil and Water Conservation and Organic Waste Management, CEBAS-CSIC, Murcia, Spain.
Simon DevosVIB-UGent Center for Medical Biotechnology, VIB, Ghent, Belgium.
Guillermina Hernandez-RaquetToulouse Biotechnology Institute (TBI), Université de Toulouse, CNRS, INRAE, INSA, Toulouse, France.
Jana SeifertInstitute of Animal Science, University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart, Germany.
Paul WilmesLuxembourg Centre for Systems Biomedicine, University of Luxembourg, Esch-Sur-Alzette, Luxembourg.
Tim Van Den BosscheVIB-UGent Center for Medical Biotechnology, VIB, Ghent, Belgium.
Benoit J KunathLuxembourg Centre for Systems Biomedicine, University of Luxembourg, Esch-Sur-Alzette, Luxembourg.
Robert HeyerMultidimensional Omics Analyses Group, Leibniz-Institut für Analytische Wissenschaften - ISAS - e.V., Dortmund, Germany.
Nico JehmlichDepartment of Molecular Toxicology, Helmholtz-Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ GmbH, Leipzig, Germany.
Dirk BenndorfApplied Biosciences and Process Engineering, Anhalt University of Applied Sciences, Köthen, Germany.
Robert L HettichBiosciences Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, USA.
Jean ArmengaudDépartement Médicaments Et Technologies Pour La Santé (DMTS), SPI, Université Paris-Saclay, CEA, INRAE, Bagnols-Sur-Cèze, France.
Sergio UzzauDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, University of Sassari, Sassari, Italy. uzzau@uniss.it.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFecal samples are widely used as a proxy for studying gut microbiome composition in both human and animal research. Fecal metaproteomics provides valuable insights by tracking changes in the relative abundance of microbial taxa and their protein functions. To ensure reliable results, it is crucial to minimize alterations in the metaproteome occurring from sample collection to protein extraction. Therefore, employing effective stabilization methods is essential to preserve the integrity of the fecal metaproteome from sample collection to laboratory analysis, particularly over long distances or when rapid freezing options are not readily available. In line with these needs, the second edition of the Critical Assessment of MetaProteome Investigation (CAMPI-2) was specifically focused on testing sample stabilization protocols to be applied before metaproteomic analysis.

resultsThis collaborative multicenter study assessed the ability of five different stabilization methods, based on two commercial devices and three specific reagents (acetone, lithium dodecyl sulfate, and an RNAlater-like buffer), respectively, to stabilize the fecal metaproteome during room-temperature storage (14 days) and shipment to mass spectrometry facilities. The five methods were tested simultaneously by eight different laboratories across Europe, using aliquots from the same fecal sample. After protein extraction and digestion, duplicate aliquots of the resulting peptides were analyzed independently by two mass spectrometry facilities at distinct international locations. Analysis of the mass spectrometric data using two different search engines revealed that the fecal metaproteome profile differed considerably depending on the stabilization method used in terms of richness, alpha and beta diversity, reproducibility, and quantitative distribution of main taxa and functions. Although each method showed unique strengths and weaknesses, a commercial swab-based device stood out for its remarkable reproducibility and ranked highest for most of the metrics measured.

conclusionsCAMPI-2 allowed a robust evaluation of five different methods for preserving fecal metaproteome samples. The present investigation provides useful data for the design of metaproteomics and multi-omics studies where fecal sampling cannot be immediately followed by long-term storage at - 80 °C. Further optimization of the tested protocols is necessary to improve stabilization efficiency and control bias in the taxonomic and functional profile of the gut microbiome. Video Abstract.

Indexed as

FecesGastrointestinal MicrobiomeProteomeProteomicsSpecimen HandlingBacteriaHumansLaboratoriesProteomeCAMPIFecal microbiomeMass spectrometryMetaproteomicsSample stabilization

Identifiers

PMID41310812
PMCPMC12661826

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.