ArticleCommunications medicine2026
Distinct prophage infections in colorectal cancer-associated Bacteroides fragilis.
Article in Communications medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- The mycobiome, virome and archaeome in gastrointestinal cancers: molecular pathogenesis and therapeutic intervention.Molecular cancer · 2026Review
- Bacteriophages as Antibacterial Agents Against Bovine Pathobionts Associated with Foodborne Human Morbidity.Viruses · 2026Review
- Interkingdom microbiome physiology in colorectal cancer: barrier dysfunction, immune-metabolic signaling, and therapeutic resistance.Frontiers in physiology · 2026Review
- Transcriptomic Association Between Poliovirus Receptor (PVR/CD155) and Claudin Signaling Pathways in Colorectal Cancer.Cancer diagnosis & prognosisArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundColorectal cancer (CRC) patients exhibit distinct gut microbiota disruption, known as dysbiosis, which is believed to play a causative role in CRC. One of the key bacterial species implicated in CRC dysbiosis is Bacteroides fragilis, which presents a paradox as it is also present in most healthy individuals. This discrepancy underscores the need for analysis beyond species-level associations and to investigate intraspecies variation within B. fragilis.
methodsFrom a highly specific collection of B. fragilis isolates from CRC patients and controls, a pangenome-wide association study was conducted, identifying intraspecies genetic variations associated with CRC. The CRC association of these genetic variations were then validated in a metagenome sequencing cohort of faecal samples from 877 individuals, with and without CRC. To test group differences a mixed effects logistic regression with cohort as a random effect was performed for each genetic variation.
resultsHere we show that CRC-associated B. fragilis isolates are infected with specific Caudoviricetes prophages, significantly more often than negative controls. The initial discovery was made in our highly specific isolate collection and then validated in an independent metagenome sequencing cohort, finding that CRC patients were twice as likely to have detectable levels of these phages (OR = 2.05, p = 2.522E-7, SE = 0.139).
conclusionsTo our knowledge, these findings mark the first link between one of the most implicated driver bacteria and phages in CRC and suggest a more complex role of phages in CRC dysbiosis than current models suggest and highlights the potential of phages as CRC biomarkers.
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.