ReviewCancers2025
Oral Microbiome in Oral Cancer Research from Sampling to Analysis: Strategies, Challenges, and Recommendations.
Review in Cancers, 2025. 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.
- Exploring the oral microbiome: from traditional techniques to advanced omics and databases.Antonie van Leeuwenhoek · 2026Review
- Integrative meta-analysis of the OSCC microbiome: from niche-specific heterogeneity to universal network and functional signatures.Journal of oral microbiology · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The oral microbiome has become an emerging focus of oral cancer research, with growing evidence linking microbial communities to disease development, progression, and prognosis. However, there is limited consensus on optimal sampling strategies, storage methods, and analytical approaches. This narrative review critically evaluates current strategies for sampling, preservation, DNA extraction, sequencing, and data analysis in oral microbiome research related to oral cancer. We compared commonly used sampling methods, including saliva, oral rinse, swab, brush, and tissue biopsy, and reviewed preservation conditions, extraction kits, sequencing platforms, and analytical pipelines reported in recent oral microbiome studies. Sampling approaches affect microbial yield and site specificity. Saliva and oral rinse samples are convenient and noninvasive but may dilute lesion-specific microbial signals, whereas lesion-directed swabbing or brushing yields greater microbial biomass and biological relevance. Preservation media and storage temperature significantly influence microbial stability, and DNA extraction methods vary in their ability to remove host DNA. Although 16S rRNA gene sequencing remains the most common approach, shotgun metagenomics offers higher resolution and function insights but is still limited by clinical applicability. Differences in data pre- and post-processing models and normalization strategies further contribute to inconsistent microbial profiles. Given that oral mucosal sites differ markedly in structure and microenvironment, careful consideration is required to ensure that collected samples accurately represent the biological question being addressed. Methodological consistency across all workflow stages-from collection to analysis-is essential to generate reproducible, high-quality data and to enable reliable translation of oral microbiome research into clinical applications for cancer detection and risk assessment. Together, these insights provide a framework to guide future study design and support the development of clinically applicable microbiome-based biomarkers.
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.