Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41714357›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2026

Effects of repeated freeze and thaw cycles on the stability of faecal microbiome composition.

Matteo Sangermani, Indri Desiati, Nicole Quattrini, Guro F Giskeødegård

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Matteo SangermaniHUNT Center for Molecular and Clinical Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Nursing, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway. matteo.sangermani@ntnu.no.
Indri DesiatiDepartment of Circulation and Medical Imaging, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.
Nicole QuattriniHUNT Center for Molecular and Clinical Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Nursing, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.
Guro F GiskeødegårdHUNT Center for Molecular and Clinical Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Nursing, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway. guro.giskeodegard@ntnu.no.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Reanalysing previously collected samples to address new research questions offers a time-efficient alternative to initiating new cohort studies. However, concerns remain regarding the stability of the faecal microbiome following repeated freeze-thaw (FT) cycles, which may introduce bias in downstream analyses. To this end, we investigated the effect repeated FT cycles had on 16 S rRNA gene sequencing and its ability to accurately measure the gut microbiome composition consistently. Our analysis showed that inter-individual sample differences consistently outweighed any effects introduced by FT. Differential abundance analysis with MaAsLin2 identified a limited number of significantly altered microbial genera after the first FT, when compared to the fresh, unfrozen material. The following second and third FT cycles showed no significant changes compared to the first FT cycle. Subsequent cycles (four to six) showed minor but progressive shifts in specific taxa. However, analysis with the more conservative method ALDEx2 showed no significant changes across any FT cycle. These findings support the reuse of stored faecal samples that have undergone a single thaw, suggesting minimal risk of compromising microbiome integrity.

Indexed as

FecesFreezingMicrobiotaBacteriaHumansRNA, Ribosomal, 16SRNA, Ribosomal, 16S16S rRNA gene sequencingCompositional stabilityFaecesFreezingMicrobiomeReproducibilitySample handling

Identifiers

PMID41714357
PMCPMC13018280

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.