The impacts of faecal subsampling on microbial compositional profiling

Abstract Objective Despite the move to at-home, small-volume collection kits to facilitate large population-based studies of faecal microbial compositional profiling, there remains limited reporting on potential impacts of faecal subsampling approaches on compositional profiles. This study aimed to...
Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:

Autor*in:	Amanda J. Cox [verfasserIn] Lily Hughes [verfasserIn] Tiffanie M. Nelson [verfasserIn] Kyle M. Hatton-Jones [verfasserIn] Rebecca Ramsey [verfasserIn] Allan W. Cripps [verfasserIn] Nicholas P. West [verfasserIn]

Format:	E-Artikel
Sprache:	Englisch

Erschienen:	2022

Schlagwörter:	Gut microbiota Faecal samples Sub-sampling 16s rRNA

Übergeordnetes Werk:	In: BMC Research Notes - BMC, 2008, 15(2022), 1, Seite 5
Übergeordnetes Werk:	volume:15 ; year:2022 ; number:1 ; pages:5

Links:	Link aufrufen Link aufrufen Link aufrufen Journal toc

DOI / URN:	10.1186/s13104-022-05923-6

Katalog-ID:	DOAJ017482844

Internformat


LEADER	01000caa a22002652 4500
001	DOAJ017482844
003	DE-627
005	20230502125136.0
007	cr uuu---uuuuu
008	230226s2022 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c
024	7		\|a 10.1186/s13104-022-05923-6 \|2 doi
035			\|a (DE-627)DOAJ017482844
035			\|a (DE-599)DOAJf2c313c57e2d4d628e97e8add4b9668f
040			\|a DE-627 \|b ger \|c DE-627 \|e rakwb
041			\|a eng
050		0	\|a QH301-705.5
050		0	\|a Q1-390
100	0		\|a Amanda J. Cox \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
245	1	4	\|a The impacts of faecal subsampling on microbial compositional profiling
264		1	\|c 2022
336			\|a Text \|b txt \|2 rdacontent
337			\|a Computermedien \|b c \|2 rdamedia
338			\|a Online-Ressource \|b cr \|2 rdacarrier
520			\|a Abstract Objective Despite the move to at-home, small-volume collection kits to facilitate large population-based studies of faecal microbial compositional profiling, there remains limited reporting on potential impacts of faecal subsampling approaches on compositional profiles. This study aimed to compare the microbial composition from faecal subsamples (< 5 g) collected from the beginning and end of a single bowel movement in ten otherwise healthy adults (6 female, 4 male; age: 24–55 years). Microbial composition was determined by V3–V4 16s rRNA sequencing and compared between subsamples. Results There were no significant differences in OTU count (p = 0.32) or Shannon diversity index (p = 0.29) between the subsamples. Comparison of relative abundance for identified taxa revealed very few differences between subsamples. At the lower levels of taxonomic classification differences in abundance of the Bacillales (p = 0.02) and the Eubacteriaceae family (p = 0.03), and the Eubacterium genera (p = 0.03) were noted. The observation of consistent microbial compositional profiles between faecal subsamples from the beginning and end of a single bowel movement is an important outcome for study designs employing this approach to faecal sample collection. These findings provide assurance that use of a faecal subsample for microbial composition profiling is generally representative of the gut luminal contents more broadly.
650		4	\|a Gut microbiota
650		4	\|a Faecal samples
650		4	\|a Sub-sampling
650		4	\|a 16s rRNA
653		0	\|a Medicine
653		0	\|a R
653		0	\|a Biology (General)
653		0	\|a Science (General)
700	0		\|a Lily Hughes \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Tiffanie M. Nelson \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Kyle M. Hatton-Jones \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Rebecca Ramsey \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Allan W. Cripps \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Nicholas P. West \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
773	0	8	\|i In \|t BMC Research Notes \|d BMC, 2008 \|g 15(2022), 1, Seite 5 \|w (DE-627)559431805 \|w (DE-600)2413336-X \|x 17560500 \|7 nnns
773	1	8	\|g volume:15 \|g year:2022 \|g number:1 \|g pages:5
856	4	0	\|u https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-022-05923-6 \|z kostenfrei
856	4	0	\|u https://doaj.org/article/f2c313c57e2d4d628e97e8add4b9668f \|z kostenfrei
856	4	0	\|u https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-022-05923-6 \|z kostenfrei
856	4	2	\|u https://doaj.org/toc/1756-0500 \|y Journal toc \|z kostenfrei
912			\|a GBV_USEFLAG_A
912			\|a SYSFLAG_A
912			\|a GBV_DOAJ
912			\|a SSG-OLC-PHA
912			\|a GBV_ILN_11
912			\|a GBV_ILN_20
912			\|a GBV_ILN_22
912			\|a GBV_ILN_23
912			\|a GBV_ILN_24
912			\|a GBV_ILN_39
912			\|a GBV_ILN_40
912			\|a GBV_ILN_60
912			\|a GBV_ILN_62
912			\|a GBV_ILN_63
912			\|a GBV_ILN_65
912			\|a GBV_ILN_69
912			\|a GBV_ILN_70
912			\|a GBV_ILN_73
912			\|a GBV_ILN_74
912			\|a GBV_ILN_95
912			\|a GBV_ILN_105
912			\|a GBV_ILN_110
912			\|a GBV_ILN_151
912			\|a GBV_ILN_161
912			\|a GBV_ILN_170
912			\|a GBV_ILN_206
912			\|a GBV_ILN_213
912			\|a GBV_ILN_230
912			\|a GBV_ILN_285
912			\|a GBV_ILN_293
912			\|a GBV_ILN_602
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2003
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2005
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2009
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2011
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2014
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2055
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2111
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4012
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4037
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4112
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4125
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4126
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4249
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4305
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4306
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4307
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4313
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4322
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4323
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4324
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4325
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4338
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4367
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4700
951			\|a AR
952			\|d 15 \|j 2022 \|e 1 \|h 5

Indexfelder

author_variant	a j c ajc l h lh t m n tmn k m h j kmhj r r rr a w c awc n p w npw
matchkey_str	article:17560500:2022----::hipcsfaclusmlnomcoilop
hierarchy_sort_str	2022
callnumber-subject-code	QH
publishDate	2022
allfields	10.1186/s13104-022-05923-6 doi (DE-627)DOAJ017482844 (DE-599)DOAJf2c313c57e2d4d628e97e8add4b9668f DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng QH301-705.5 Q1-390 Amanda J. Cox verfasserin aut The impacts of faecal subsampling on microbial compositional profiling 2022 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Abstract Objective Despite the move to at-home, small-volume collection kits to facilitate large population-based studies of faecal microbial compositional profiling, there remains limited reporting on potential impacts of faecal subsampling approaches on compositional profiles. This study aimed to compare the microbial composition from faecal subsamples (< 5 g) collected from the beginning and end of a single bowel movement in ten otherwise healthy adults (6 female, 4 male; age: 24–55 years). Microbial composition was determined by V3–V4 16s rRNA sequencing and compared between subsamples. Results There were no significant differences in OTU count (p = 0.32) or Shannon diversity index (p = 0.29) between the subsamples. Comparison of relative abundance for identified taxa revealed very few differences between subsamples. At the lower levels of taxonomic classification differences in abundance of the Bacillales (p = 0.02) and the Eubacteriaceae family (p = 0.03), and the Eubacterium genera (p = 0.03) were noted. The observation of consistent microbial compositional profiles between faecal subsamples from the beginning and end of a single bowel movement is an important outcome for study designs employing this approach to faecal sample collection. These findings provide assurance that use of a faecal subsample for microbial composition profiling is generally representative of the gut luminal contents more broadly. Gut microbiota Faecal samples Sub-sampling 16s rRNA Medicine R Biology (General) Science (General) Lily Hughes verfasserin aut Tiffanie M. Nelson verfasserin aut Kyle M. Hatton-Jones verfasserin aut Rebecca Ramsey verfasserin aut Allan W. Cripps verfasserin aut Nicholas P. West verfasserin aut In BMC Research Notes BMC, 2008 15(2022), 1, Seite 5 (DE-627)559431805 (DE-600)2413336-X 17560500 nnns volume:15 year:2022 number:1 pages:5 https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-022-05923-6 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/f2c313c57e2d4d628e97e8add4b9668f kostenfrei https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-022-05923-6 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1756-0500 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 15 2022 1 5
spelling	10.1186/s13104-022-05923-6 doi (DE-627)DOAJ017482844 (DE-599)DOAJf2c313c57e2d4d628e97e8add4b9668f DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng QH301-705.5 Q1-390 Amanda J. Cox verfasserin aut The impacts of faecal subsampling on microbial compositional profiling 2022 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Abstract Objective Despite the move to at-home, small-volume collection kits to facilitate large population-based studies of faecal microbial compositional profiling, there remains limited reporting on potential impacts of faecal subsampling approaches on compositional profiles. This study aimed to compare the microbial composition from faecal subsamples (< 5 g) collected from the beginning and end of a single bowel movement in ten otherwise healthy adults (6 female, 4 male; age: 24–55 years). Microbial composition was determined by V3–V4 16s rRNA sequencing and compared between subsamples. Results There were no significant differences in OTU count (p = 0.32) or Shannon diversity index (p = 0.29) between the subsamples. Comparison of relative abundance for identified taxa revealed very few differences between subsamples. At the lower levels of taxonomic classification differences in abundance of the Bacillales (p = 0.02) and the Eubacteriaceae family (p = 0.03), and the Eubacterium genera (p = 0.03) were noted. The observation of consistent microbial compositional profiles between faecal subsamples from the beginning and end of a single bowel movement is an important outcome for study designs employing this approach to faecal sample collection. These findings provide assurance that use of a faecal subsample for microbial composition profiling is generally representative of the gut luminal contents more broadly. Gut microbiota Faecal samples Sub-sampling 16s rRNA Medicine R Biology (General) Science (General) Lily Hughes verfasserin aut Tiffanie M. Nelson verfasserin aut Kyle M. Hatton-Jones verfasserin aut Rebecca Ramsey verfasserin aut Allan W. Cripps verfasserin aut Nicholas P. West verfasserin aut In BMC Research Notes BMC, 2008 15(2022), 1, Seite 5 (DE-627)559431805 (DE-600)2413336-X 17560500 nnns volume:15 year:2022 number:1 pages:5 https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-022-05923-6 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/f2c313c57e2d4d628e97e8add4b9668f kostenfrei https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-022-05923-6 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1756-0500 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 15 2022 1 5
allfields_unstemmed	10.1186/s13104-022-05923-6 doi (DE-627)DOAJ017482844 (DE-599)DOAJf2c313c57e2d4d628e97e8add4b9668f DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng QH301-705.5 Q1-390 Amanda J. Cox verfasserin aut The impacts of faecal subsampling on microbial compositional profiling 2022 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Abstract Objective Despite the move to at-home, small-volume collection kits to facilitate large population-based studies of faecal microbial compositional profiling, there remains limited reporting on potential impacts of faecal subsampling approaches on compositional profiles. This study aimed to compare the microbial composition from faecal subsamples (< 5 g) collected from the beginning and end of a single bowel movement in ten otherwise healthy adults (6 female, 4 male; age: 24–55 years). Microbial composition was determined by V3–V4 16s rRNA sequencing and compared between subsamples. Results There were no significant differences in OTU count (p = 0.32) or Shannon diversity index (p = 0.29) between the subsamples. Comparison of relative abundance for identified taxa revealed very few differences between subsamples. At the lower levels of taxonomic classification differences in abundance of the Bacillales (p = 0.02) and the Eubacteriaceae family (p = 0.03), and the Eubacterium genera (p = 0.03) were noted. The observation of consistent microbial compositional profiles between faecal subsamples from the beginning and end of a single bowel movement is an important outcome for study designs employing this approach to faecal sample collection. These findings provide assurance that use of a faecal subsample for microbial composition profiling is generally representative of the gut luminal contents more broadly. Gut microbiota Faecal samples Sub-sampling 16s rRNA Medicine R Biology (General) Science (General) Lily Hughes verfasserin aut Tiffanie M. Nelson verfasserin aut Kyle M. Hatton-Jones verfasserin aut Rebecca Ramsey verfasserin aut Allan W. Cripps verfasserin aut Nicholas P. West verfasserin aut In BMC Research Notes BMC, 2008 15(2022), 1, Seite 5 (DE-627)559431805 (DE-600)2413336-X 17560500 nnns volume:15 year:2022 number:1 pages:5 https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-022-05923-6 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/f2c313c57e2d4d628e97e8add4b9668f kostenfrei https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-022-05923-6 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1756-0500 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 15 2022 1 5
allfieldsGer	10.1186/s13104-022-05923-6 doi (DE-627)DOAJ017482844 (DE-599)DOAJf2c313c57e2d4d628e97e8add4b9668f DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng QH301-705.5 Q1-390 Amanda J. Cox verfasserin aut The impacts of faecal subsampling on microbial compositional profiling 2022 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Abstract Objective Despite the move to at-home, small-volume collection kits to facilitate large population-based studies of faecal microbial compositional profiling, there remains limited reporting on potential impacts of faecal subsampling approaches on compositional profiles. This study aimed to compare the microbial composition from faecal subsamples (< 5 g) collected from the beginning and end of a single bowel movement in ten otherwise healthy adults (6 female, 4 male; age: 24–55 years). Microbial composition was determined by V3–V4 16s rRNA sequencing and compared between subsamples. Results There were no significant differences in OTU count (p = 0.32) or Shannon diversity index (p = 0.29) between the subsamples. Comparison of relative abundance for identified taxa revealed very few differences between subsamples. At the lower levels of taxonomic classification differences in abundance of the Bacillales (p = 0.02) and the Eubacteriaceae family (p = 0.03), and the Eubacterium genera (p = 0.03) were noted. The observation of consistent microbial compositional profiles between faecal subsamples from the beginning and end of a single bowel movement is an important outcome for study designs employing this approach to faecal sample collection. These findings provide assurance that use of a faecal subsample for microbial composition profiling is generally representative of the gut luminal contents more broadly. Gut microbiota Faecal samples Sub-sampling 16s rRNA Medicine R Biology (General) Science (General) Lily Hughes verfasserin aut Tiffanie M. Nelson verfasserin aut Kyle M. Hatton-Jones verfasserin aut Rebecca Ramsey verfasserin aut Allan W. Cripps verfasserin aut Nicholas P. West verfasserin aut In BMC Research Notes BMC, 2008 15(2022), 1, Seite 5 (DE-627)559431805 (DE-600)2413336-X 17560500 nnns volume:15 year:2022 number:1 pages:5 https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-022-05923-6 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/f2c313c57e2d4d628e97e8add4b9668f kostenfrei https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-022-05923-6 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1756-0500 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 15 2022 1 5
allfieldsSound	10.1186/s13104-022-05923-6 doi (DE-627)DOAJ017482844 (DE-599)DOAJf2c313c57e2d4d628e97e8add4b9668f DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng QH301-705.5 Q1-390 Amanda J. Cox verfasserin aut The impacts of faecal subsampling on microbial compositional profiling 2022 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Abstract Objective Despite the move to at-home, small-volume collection kits to facilitate large population-based studies of faecal microbial compositional profiling, there remains limited reporting on potential impacts of faecal subsampling approaches on compositional profiles. This study aimed to compare the microbial composition from faecal subsamples (< 5 g) collected from the beginning and end of a single bowel movement in ten otherwise healthy adults (6 female, 4 male; age: 24–55 years). Microbial composition was determined by V3–V4 16s rRNA sequencing and compared between subsamples. Results There were no significant differences in OTU count (p = 0.32) or Shannon diversity index (p = 0.29) between the subsamples. Comparison of relative abundance for identified taxa revealed very few differences between subsamples. At the lower levels of taxonomic classification differences in abundance of the Bacillales (p = 0.02) and the Eubacteriaceae family (p = 0.03), and the Eubacterium genera (p = 0.03) were noted. The observation of consistent microbial compositional profiles between faecal subsamples from the beginning and end of a single bowel movement is an important outcome for study designs employing this approach to faecal sample collection. These findings provide assurance that use of a faecal subsample for microbial composition profiling is generally representative of the gut luminal contents more broadly. Gut microbiota Faecal samples Sub-sampling 16s rRNA Medicine R Biology (General) Science (General) Lily Hughes verfasserin aut Tiffanie M. Nelson verfasserin aut Kyle M. Hatton-Jones verfasserin aut Rebecca Ramsey verfasserin aut Allan W. Cripps verfasserin aut Nicholas P. West verfasserin aut In BMC Research Notes BMC, 2008 15(2022), 1, Seite 5 (DE-627)559431805 (DE-600)2413336-X 17560500 nnns volume:15 year:2022 number:1 pages:5 https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-022-05923-6 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/f2c313c57e2d4d628e97e8add4b9668f kostenfrei https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-022-05923-6 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1756-0500 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 15 2022 1 5
language	English
source	In BMC Research Notes 15(2022), 1, Seite 5 volume:15 year:2022 number:1 pages:5
sourceStr	In BMC Research Notes 15(2022), 1, Seite 5 volume:15 year:2022 number:1 pages:5
format_phy_str_mv	Article
institution	findex.gbv.de
topic_facet	Gut microbiota Faecal samples Sub-sampling 16s rRNA Medicine R Biology (General) Science (General)
isfreeaccess_bool	true
container_title	BMC Research Notes
authorswithroles_txt_mv	Amanda J. Cox @@aut@@ Lily Hughes @@aut@@ Tiffanie M. Nelson @@aut@@ Kyle M. Hatton-Jones @@aut@@ Rebecca Ramsey @@aut@@ Allan W. Cripps @@aut@@ Nicholas P. West @@aut@@
publishDateDaySort_date	2022-01-01T00:00:00Z
hierarchy_top_id	559431805
id	DOAJ017482844
language_de	englisch
fullrecord	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ017482844</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230502125136.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230226s2022 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1186/s13104-022-05923-6</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ017482844</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJf2c313c57e2d4d628e97e8add4b9668f</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">QH301-705.5</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Q1-390</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Amanda J. Cox</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">The impacts of faecal subsampling on microbial compositional profiling</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2022</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Abstract Objective Despite the move to at-home, small-volume collection kits to facilitate large population-based studies of faecal microbial compositional profiling, there remains limited reporting on potential impacts of faecal subsampling approaches on compositional profiles. This study aimed to compare the microbial composition from faecal subsamples (< 5 g) collected from the beginning and end of a single bowel movement in ten otherwise healthy adults (6 female, 4 male; age: 24–55 years). Microbial composition was determined by V3–V4 16s rRNA sequencing and compared between subsamples. Results There were no significant differences in OTU count (p = 0.32) or Shannon diversity index (p = 0.29) between the subsamples. Comparison of relative abundance for identified taxa revealed very few differences between subsamples. At the lower levels of taxonomic classification differences in abundance of the Bacillales (p = 0.02) and the Eubacteriaceae family (p = 0.03), and the Eubacterium genera (p = 0.03) were noted. The observation of consistent microbial compositional profiles between faecal subsamples from the beginning and end of a single bowel movement is an important outcome for study designs employing this approach to faecal sample collection. These findings provide assurance that use of a faecal subsample for microbial composition profiling is generally representative of the gut luminal contents more broadly.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Gut microbiota</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Faecal samples</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Sub-sampling</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">16s rRNA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Medicine</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">R</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Biology (General)</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Science (General)</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Lily Hughes</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Tiffanie M. Nelson</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Kyle M. Hatton-Jones</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Rebecca Ramsey</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Allan W. Cripps</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Nicholas P. West</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">BMC Research Notes</subfield><subfield code="d">BMC, 2008</subfield><subfield code="g">15(2022), 1, Seite 5</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)559431805</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2413336-X</subfield><subfield code="x">17560500</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:15</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2022</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:5</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-022-05923-6</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/f2c313c57e2d4d628e97e8add4b9668f</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-022-05923-6</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/1756-0500</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2009</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2011</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2055</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2111</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">15</subfield><subfield code="j">2022</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="h">5</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
callnumber-first	Q - Science
author	Amanda J. Cox
spellingShingle	Amanda J. Cox misc QH301-705.5 misc Q1-390 misc Gut microbiota misc Faecal samples misc Sub-sampling misc 16s rRNA misc Medicine misc R misc Biology (General) misc Science (General) The impacts of faecal subsampling on microbial compositional profiling
authorStr	Amanda J. Cox
ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv	@@773@@(DE-627)559431805
format	electronic Article
delete_txt_mv	keep
author_role	aut aut aut aut aut aut aut
collection	DOAJ
remote_str	true
callnumber-label	QH301-705
illustrated	Not Illustrated
issn	17560500
topic_title	QH301-705.5 Q1-390 The impacts of faecal subsampling on microbial compositional profiling Gut microbiota Faecal samples Sub-sampling 16s rRNA
topic	misc QH301-705.5 misc Q1-390 misc Gut microbiota misc Faecal samples misc Sub-sampling misc 16s rRNA misc Medicine misc R misc Biology (General) misc Science (General)
topic_unstemmed	misc QH301-705.5 misc Q1-390 misc Gut microbiota misc Faecal samples misc Sub-sampling misc 16s rRNA misc Medicine misc R misc Biology (General) misc Science (General)
topic_browse	misc QH301-705.5 misc Q1-390 misc Gut microbiota misc Faecal samples misc Sub-sampling misc 16s rRNA misc Medicine misc R misc Biology (General) misc Science (General)
format_facet	Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource
format_main_str_mv	Text Zeitschrift/Artikel
carriertype_str_mv	cr
hierarchy_parent_title	BMC Research Notes
hierarchy_parent_id	559431805
hierarchy_top_title	BMC Research Notes
isfreeaccess_txt	true
familylinks_str_mv	(DE-627)559431805 (DE-600)2413336-X
title	The impacts of faecal subsampling on microbial compositional profiling
ctrlnum	(DE-627)DOAJ017482844 (DE-599)DOAJf2c313c57e2d4d628e97e8add4b9668f
title_full	The impacts of faecal subsampling on microbial compositional profiling
author_sort	Amanda J. Cox
journal	BMC Research Notes
journalStr	BMC Research Notes
callnumber-first-code	Q
lang_code	eng
isOA_bool	true
recordtype	marc
publishDateSort	2022
contenttype_str_mv	txt
container_start_page	5
author_browse	Amanda J. Cox Lily Hughes Tiffanie M. Nelson Kyle M. Hatton-Jones Rebecca Ramsey Allan W. Cripps Nicholas P. West
container_volume	15
class	QH301-705.5 Q1-390
format_se	Elektronische Aufsätze
author-letter	Amanda J. Cox
doi_str_mv	10.1186/s13104-022-05923-6
author2-role	verfasserin
title_sort	impacts of faecal subsampling on microbial compositional profiling
callnumber	QH301-705.5
title_auth	The impacts of faecal subsampling on microbial compositional profiling
abstract	Abstract Objective Despite the move to at-home, small-volume collection kits to facilitate large population-based studies of faecal microbial compositional profiling, there remains limited reporting on potential impacts of faecal subsampling approaches on compositional profiles. This study aimed to compare the microbial composition from faecal subsamples (< 5 g) collected from the beginning and end of a single bowel movement in ten otherwise healthy adults (6 female, 4 male; age: 24–55 years). Microbial composition was determined by V3–V4 16s rRNA sequencing and compared between subsamples. Results There were no significant differences in OTU count (p = 0.32) or Shannon diversity index (p = 0.29) between the subsamples. Comparison of relative abundance for identified taxa revealed very few differences between subsamples. At the lower levels of taxonomic classification differences in abundance of the Bacillales (p = 0.02) and the Eubacteriaceae family (p = 0.03), and the Eubacterium genera (p = 0.03) were noted. The observation of consistent microbial compositional profiles between faecal subsamples from the beginning and end of a single bowel movement is an important outcome for study designs employing this approach to faecal sample collection. These findings provide assurance that use of a faecal subsample for microbial composition profiling is generally representative of the gut luminal contents more broadly.
abstractGer	Abstract Objective Despite the move to at-home, small-volume collection kits to facilitate large population-based studies of faecal microbial compositional profiling, there remains limited reporting on potential impacts of faecal subsampling approaches on compositional profiles. This study aimed to compare the microbial composition from faecal subsamples (< 5 g) collected from the beginning and end of a single bowel movement in ten otherwise healthy adults (6 female, 4 male; age: 24–55 years). Microbial composition was determined by V3–V4 16s rRNA sequencing and compared between subsamples. Results There were no significant differences in OTU count (p = 0.32) or Shannon diversity index (p = 0.29) between the subsamples. Comparison of relative abundance for identified taxa revealed very few differences between subsamples. At the lower levels of taxonomic classification differences in abundance of the Bacillales (p = 0.02) and the Eubacteriaceae family (p = 0.03), and the Eubacterium genera (p = 0.03) were noted. The observation of consistent microbial compositional profiles between faecal subsamples from the beginning and end of a single bowel movement is an important outcome for study designs employing this approach to faecal sample collection. These findings provide assurance that use of a faecal subsample for microbial composition profiling is generally representative of the gut luminal contents more broadly.
abstract_unstemmed	Abstract Objective Despite the move to at-home, small-volume collection kits to facilitate large population-based studies of faecal microbial compositional profiling, there remains limited reporting on potential impacts of faecal subsampling approaches on compositional profiles. This study aimed to compare the microbial composition from faecal subsamples (< 5 g) collected from the beginning and end of a single bowel movement in ten otherwise healthy adults (6 female, 4 male; age: 24–55 years). Microbial composition was determined by V3–V4 16s rRNA sequencing and compared between subsamples. Results There were no significant differences in OTU count (p = 0.32) or Shannon diversity index (p = 0.29) between the subsamples. Comparison of relative abundance for identified taxa revealed very few differences between subsamples. At the lower levels of taxonomic classification differences in abundance of the Bacillales (p = 0.02) and the Eubacteriaceae family (p = 0.03), and the Eubacterium genera (p = 0.03) were noted. The observation of consistent microbial compositional profiles between faecal subsamples from the beginning and end of a single bowel movement is an important outcome for study designs employing this approach to faecal sample collection. These findings provide assurance that use of a faecal subsample for microbial composition profiling is generally representative of the gut luminal contents more broadly.
collection_details	GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2009 GBV_ILN_2011 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_2111 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700
container_issue	1
title_short	The impacts of faecal subsampling on microbial compositional profiling
url	https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-022-05923-6 https://doaj.org/article/f2c313c57e2d4d628e97e8add4b9668f https://doaj.org/toc/1756-0500
remote_bool	true
author2	Lily Hughes Tiffanie M. Nelson Kyle M. Hatton-Jones Rebecca Ramsey Allan W. Cripps Nicholas P. West
author2Str	Lily Hughes Tiffanie M. Nelson Kyle M. Hatton-Jones Rebecca Ramsey Allan W. Cripps Nicholas P. West
ppnlink	559431805
callnumber-subject	QH - Natural History and Biology
mediatype_str_mv	c
isOA_txt	true
hochschulschrift_bool	false
doi_str	10.1186/s13104-022-05923-6
callnumber-a	QH301-705.5
up_date	2024-07-04T01:47:07.040Z
_version_	1803611146334240768
fullrecord_marcxml	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ017482844</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230502125136.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230226s2022 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1186/s13104-022-05923-6</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ017482844</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJf2c313c57e2d4d628e97e8add4b9668f</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">QH301-705.5</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Q1-390</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Amanda J. Cox</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">The impacts of faecal subsampling on microbial compositional profiling</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2022</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Abstract Objective Despite the move to at-home, small-volume collection kits to facilitate large population-based studies of faecal microbial compositional profiling, there remains limited reporting on potential impacts of faecal subsampling approaches on compositional profiles. This study aimed to compare the microbial composition from faecal subsamples (< 5 g) collected from the beginning and end of a single bowel movement in ten otherwise healthy adults (6 female, 4 male; age: 24–55 years). Microbial composition was determined by V3–V4 16s rRNA sequencing and compared between subsamples. Results There were no significant differences in OTU count (p = 0.32) or Shannon diversity index (p = 0.29) between the subsamples. Comparison of relative abundance for identified taxa revealed very few differences between subsamples. At the lower levels of taxonomic classification differences in abundance of the Bacillales (p = 0.02) and the Eubacteriaceae family (p = 0.03), and the Eubacterium genera (p = 0.03) were noted. The observation of consistent microbial compositional profiles between faecal subsamples from the beginning and end of a single bowel movement is an important outcome for study designs employing this approach to faecal sample collection. These findings provide assurance that use of a faecal subsample for microbial composition profiling is generally representative of the gut luminal contents more broadly.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Gut microbiota</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Faecal samples</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Sub-sampling</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">16s rRNA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Medicine</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">R</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Biology (General)</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Science (General)</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Lily Hughes</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Tiffanie M. Nelson</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Kyle M. Hatton-Jones</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Rebecca Ramsey</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Allan W. Cripps</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Nicholas P. West</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">BMC Research Notes</subfield><subfield code="d">BMC, 2008</subfield><subfield code="g">15(2022), 1, Seite 5</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)559431805</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2413336-X</subfield><subfield code="x">17560500</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:15</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2022</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:5</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-022-05923-6</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/f2c313c57e2d4d628e97e8add4b9668f</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-022-05923-6</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/1756-0500</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2009</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2011</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2055</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2111</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">15</subfield><subfield code="j">2022</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="h">5</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
score	7.398122

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Schreiben Sie uns!

The impacts of faecal subsampling on microbial compositional profiling

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Zugang & Verfügbarkeit

Vorhandene Bände

Nicht das Richtige dabei?