↓ Skip to main content

Extending colonic mucosal microbiome analysis—assessment of colonic lavage as a proxy for endoscopic colonic biopsies

Overview of attention for article published in Microbiome, November 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)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
4 X users
patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
47 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
100 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
Extending colonic mucosal microbiome analysis—assessment of colonic lavage as a proxy for endoscopic colonic biopsies
Published in
Microbiome, November 2016
DOI 10.1186/s40168-016-0207-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Euan Watt, Matthew R. Gemmell, Susan Berry, Mark Glaire, Freda Farquharson, Petra Louis, Graeme I. Murray, Emad El-Omar, Georgina L. Hold

Abstract

Sequencing-based analysis has become a well-established approach to deciphering the composition of the gut microbiota. However, due to the complexity of accessing sufficient material from colonoscopic biopsy samples, most studies have focused on faecal microbiota analysis, even though it is recognised that differences exist between the microbial composition of colonic biopsies and faecal samples. We determined the suitability of colonic lavage samples to see if it had comparable microbial diversity composition to colonic biopsies as they are without the limitations associated with sample size. We collected paired colonic biopsies and lavage samples from subjects who were attending for colorectal cancer screening colonoscopy. Next-generation sequencing and qPCR validation were performed with multiple bioinformatics analyses to determine the composition and predict function of the microbiota. Colonic lavage samples contained significantly higher numbers of operational taxonomic units (OTUs) compared to corresponding biopsy samples, however, diversity and evenness between lavage and biopsy samples were similar. The differences seen were driven by the presence of 12 OTUs which were in higher relative abundance in biopsies and were either not present or in low relative abundance in lavage samples, whilst a further 3 OTUs were present in higher amounts in the lavage samples compared to biopsy samples. However, predicted functional community profiling based on 16S ribosomal ribonucleic acid (rRNA) data indicated minimal differences between sample types. We propose that colonic lavage samples provide a relatively accurate representation of biopsy microbiota composition and should be considered where biopsy size is an issue.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 100 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 100 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 17%
Researcher 11 11%
Student > Master 10 10%
Student > Bachelor 10 10%
Student > Postgraduate 7 7%
Other 21 21%
Unknown 24 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 22 22%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 17 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 14 14%
Immunology and Microbiology 8 8%
Neuroscience 2 2%
Other 10 10%
Unknown 27 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 17 September 2020.
All research outputs
#2,659,867
of 24,885,505 outputs
Outputs from Microbiome
#1,042
of 1,705 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#51,124
of 426,983 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Microbiome
#14
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,885,505 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,705 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.5. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 426,983 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 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.