↓ Skip to main content

Impact of Different Fecal Processing Methods on Assessments of Bacterial Diversity in the Human Intestine

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Microbiology, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
17 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
43 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
157 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Impact of Different Fecal Processing Methods on Assessments of Bacterial Diversity in the Human Intestine
Published in
Frontiers in Microbiology, October 2016
DOI 10.3389/fmicb.2016.01643
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yu-Hsin Hsieh, Courtney M. Peterson, Anne Raggio, Michael J. Keenan, Roy J. Martin, Eric Ravussin, Maria L. Marco

Abstract

The intestinal microbiota are integral to understanding the relationships between nutrition and health. Therefore, fecal sampling and processing protocols for metagenomic surveys should be sufficiently robust, accurate, and reliable to identify the microorganisms present. We investigated the use of different fecal preparation methods on the bacterial community structures identified in human stools. Complete stools were collected from six healthy individuals and processed according to the following methods: (i) randomly sampled fresh stool, (ii) fresh stool homogenized in a blender for 2 min, (iii) randomly sampled frozen stool, and (iv) frozen stool homogenized in a blender for 2 min, or (v) homogenized in a pneumatic mixer for either 10, 20, or 30 min. High-throughput DNA sequencing of the 16S rRNA V4 regions of bacterial community DNA extracted from the stools showed that the fecal microbiota remained distinct between individuals, independent of processing method. Moreover, the different stool preparation approaches did not alter intra-individual bacterial diversity. Distinctions were found at the level of individual taxa, however. Stools that were frozen and then homogenized tended to have higher proportions of Faecalibacterium, Streptococcus, and Bifidobacterium and decreased quantities of Oscillospira, Bacteroides, and Parabacteroides compared to stools that were collected in small quantities and not mixed prior to DNA extraction. These findings indicate that certain taxa are at particular risk for under or over sampling due to protocol differences. Importantly, homogenization by any method significantly reduced the intra-individual variation in bacteria detected per stool. Our results confirm the robustness of fecal homogenization for microbial analyses and underscore the value of collecting and mixing large stool sample quantities in human nutrition intervention studies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 157 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Unknown 155 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 26 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 15%
Student > Master 22 14%
Student > Bachelor 10 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 4%
Other 26 17%
Unknown 42 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 31 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 18 11%
Immunology and Microbiology 16 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 15 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 4%
Other 25 16%
Unknown 46 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 December 2019.
All research outputs
#2,262,295
of 25,299,129 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Microbiology
#1,691
of 29,045 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,114
of 323,831 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Microbiology
#43
of 424 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,299,129 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,045 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 323,831 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 424 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.