ArticleScientific reports2026
Comparative analysis of the sputum microbiota in different COPD clinical states.
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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a well-known respiratory illness. COPD patients oscillate between a stable state and an exacerbated state that leads to disease deterioration. Studies suggest that respiratory microbiome dysbiosis plays a vital role in COPD pathogenesis. However, the exact microbial composition among different clinical states of COPD is still elusive. To determine and compare the respiratory microbiota composition in different COPD clinical states, namely, the stable state (S-COPD) and the acute exacerbated state (AE-COPD). In this prospective study, 74 samples were collected from COPD patients. The sputum microbiota was analyzed via 16 S rRNA gene sequencing, and only 35 samples were included due to bad reads or not in accordance with inclusion criteria: S-COPD patients (n = 18), and AE-COPD patients (n = 17). Bioinformatics analysis was used to determine changes in the microbiota among the comparison groups. The most abundant phyla among all the samples were Proteobacteria, Fusobacteria, Firmicutes, and Actinobacteria, with Paracoccus, Streptomyces Leptotrichia Fusobacterium and Ruminococcaceae being the most prevalent genera. Dissimilarity in abundance across the studied COPD states was observed, with significantly greater abundance of Proteobacteria and Fusobacteria in S-COPD patients and greater abundance of Firmicutes in AE-COPD patients at the phylum level. At the genus level, Paracoccus, Fusobacterium, Streptococcus, Haemophilus, and Moraxella were significantly different between the two groups and were more prevalent in S-COPD, whereas Cellulosilyticum, Streptomyces, Leptotrichia, Ruminococcaceae_UCG_014, and Atopobium were more prevalent in exacerbated individuals. Alpha diversity revealed greater diversity in stable versus exacerbated patients, and a PCoA plot of Bray‒Curtis and weighted UniFrac distances revealed that stable patients were highly clustered, whereas exacerbated patients were more disseminated. At the genus level, LEfSe analysis revealed the dominance of Cellulosilytic, Liptotrichia, and Streptomyces in the AE-COPD group, whereas the S-COPD group microbiome was dominated by the genera Paracoccus, Fusobacterium, Streptococcus Haemophilus, and Moraxella (p < 0.05). The results of the present study suggest that COPD patients have unique microbial profiles that differ across different states, with increased abundances of Proteobacteria, chiefly Paracoccus. These findings need more research to clarify the definite role of microbiome dysbiosis in COPD pathogenesis.
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.