ArticleMicrobiology spectrum2026
Comparison of oral collection methods for 16S rRNA gene and shotgun metagenomic sequencing.
Article in Microbiology spectrum, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Diagnostic and Therapeutic Approaches in Periodontology: From Traditional Concepts to Modern Innovations.Biomedicines · 2026Review
- Asymptomatic Tuberculosis: The Silent Face of the Disease Among Migrants and Refugees and the Challenges in Brazil.Journal of immigrant and minority health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To understand how sample collection affects oral microbiome studies, we evaluated the comparability of unpreserved saliva, saliva in glycerol, and mouthwash samples, their room temperature stability, and intraindividual stability over 6 months. Saliva and mouthwash samples were collected from 20 healthy participants 6 months apart. Saliva was divided, with half preserved in glycerol. Some aliquots were frozen immediately, while others were stored at room temperature for a week. DNA was extracted using the PowerSoil Pro and 16S rRNA gene, and shotgun metagenomic sequencing was conducted. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) from taxonomic and functional tables were compared to assess variability. We estimated sample size requirements based on the intraindividual stability over 6 months. Saliva in glycerol appeared more similar to unpreserved saliva than mouthwash, with higher median ICCs at genus (0.88 vs 0.60), species (0.92 vs 0.64), and gene levels (0.84 vs 0.36; all IMPORTANCE: The oral microbiome plays a key role in health and disease, yet methodological inconsistencies in sample collection and processing can introduce variability and limit comparability across studies. This study investigates the impact of different oral sample collection methods on microbiome profiling and their stability over time. We demonstrate that sample type significantly influences taxonomic and functional microbiome profiles, with mouthwash showing greater stability during delayed processing and saliva in glycerol more closely resembling fresh saliva. Importantly, intraindividual microbial communities were only moderately stable over 6 months, emphasizing the need for consistent sampling protocols and consideration of temporal variation. These findings have direct implications for microbiome study design, highlighting that methodological choices can affect reproducibility, statistical power, and biological interpretation. Our results support the use of mouthwash as a practical alternative when freezing is delayed and underscore the value of longitudinal sampling for detecting biologically meaningful changes.
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.