Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41852422›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in microbiomes2025

Optimisation of cutaneous microbiota sampling methodology.

Dario Leonardo Balacco, Ajoy Bardhan, Hadeer Ibrahim, Sarah A Kuehne, Melissa M Grant, Josefine Hirschfeld, Adrian H M Heagerty, Iain L Chapple

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in microbiomes, 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. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  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

8 authors.

Dario Leonardo BalaccoPeriodontal Research Group, Dentistry, School of Health Sciences, University of Birmingham and Birmingham Dental Hospital (Birmingham Community Healthcare Trust), Birmingham, United Kingdom.
Ajoy BardhanSchool of Health Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
Hadeer IbrahimPeriodontal Research Group, Dentistry, School of Health Sciences, University of Birmingham and Birmingham Dental Hospital (Birmingham Community Healthcare Trust), Birmingham, United Kingdom.
Sarah A KuehneSchool of Science and Technology, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, United Kingdom.
Melissa M GrantPeriodontal Research Group, Dentistry, School of Health Sciences, University of Birmingham and Birmingham Dental Hospital (Birmingham Community Healthcare Trust), Birmingham, United Kingdom.
Josefine HirschfeldPeriodontal Research Group, Dentistry, School of Health Sciences, University of Birmingham and Birmingham Dental Hospital (Birmingham Community Healthcare Trust), Birmingham, United Kingdom.
Adrian H M HeagertySchool of Health Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
Iain L ChapplePeriodontal Research Group, Dentistry, School of Health Sciences, University of Birmingham and Birmingham Dental Hospital (Birmingham Community Healthcare Trust), Birmingham, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: The cutaneous microbiome plays an essential role in guarding against invasive pathogens and maintaining healthy skin homeostasis. Several studies have demonstrated the importance of a healthy skin microbiome through its alteration in several diseases. Differing skin characteristics across the body (temperature, pH, humidity) create distinct ecological niches inhabited by diverse microbial communities. The study of cutaneous microbiota is further complicated by numerous variables at all stages of investigation, including study design, skin sampling method, sample storage, sample processing, sequencing, and data analysis. Utilisation of standardised approaches is critical for reproducibility and comparison between skin microbiome studies. However, there is a notable lack of standardisation of sampling methodologies in the literature. Studies have employed differing sampling strategies and conditions which may affect microbiota characterisation. Methods: Antecubital fossa was sampled from sixteen individuals using sterile dry cotton swabs or eSwabs. Sterile phosphate buffered saline, or 0.9% sterile saline were used as moistening solutions. Samples were then either stored at room temperature for 30 minutes or stored at -80°C for at least 24 hours before processing. Cutaneous microbiome was identified using 16S sequencing. Results: Comparative analysis determined whether the type of swab (cotton/eSwab), moistening solution (saline solution/phosphate buffered saline), duration of swabbing (30 sec/1 min), and sample storage temperature (room temperature/-80°C) affect sampling and identification of skin microbial communities. Comparison of the total DNA yield extracted using different conditions showed that while moistening solution, duration of swabbing, and storage conditions did not affect the total DNA amount, using eSwabs yielded higher biomass. Discussion: Sampling approaches are critical for the success of sequencing. The conditions investigated in this study did not influence microbiome profiling allowing consistent sampling of the microbiota. However, data clustering was affected more by individual subject than by the conditions investigated, suggesting the importance of recognizing inter-individual variability as an important factor in real-life skin microbiome studies.

Indexed as

16Smicrobiomeskin microbiomeskin samplingswab

Identifiers

PMID41852422
PMCPMC12993629

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.