↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of stool versus rectal swab samples and storage conditions on bacterial community profiles

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Microbiology, March 2017
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 (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
36 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
129 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
239 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
Comparison of stool versus rectal swab samples and storage conditions on bacterial community profiles
Published in
BMC Microbiology, March 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12866-017-0983-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christine M. Bassis, Nicholas M. Moore, Karen Lolans, Anna M. Seekatz, Robert A. Weinstein, Vincent B. Young, Mary K. Hayden, for the CDC Prevention Epicenters Program

Abstract

Sample collection for gut microbiota analysis from in-patients can be challenging. Collection method and storage conditions are potential sources of variability. In this study, we compared the bacterial microbiota from stool stored under different conditions, as well as stool and swab samples, to assess differences due to sample storage conditions and collection method. Using bacterial 16S rRNA gene sequence analysis, we compared the microbiota profiles of stool samples stored and collected under various conditions. Stool samples (2 liquid, 1 formed) from three different patients at two hospitals were each evaluated under the following conditions: immediately frozen at -80°C, stored at 4°C for 12-48 hours before freezing at -80°C and stored at -20°C with 1-2 thaw cycles before storage at -80°C. Additionally, 8 stool and 30 rectal swab samples were collected from 8 in-patients at one hospital. Microbiota differences were assessed using the Yue and Clayton dissimilarity index (θYC distance) and analysis of molecular variance (AMOVA). Regardless of the storage conditions, the bacterial communities of aliquots from the same stool samples were very similar based on θYC distances (median intra-sample θYC distance: 0.035, IQR: 0.015-0.061) compared to aliquots from different stool samples (median inter-sample θYC distance: 0.93, IQR: 0.85-0.97) (Wilcoxon test p-value: <0.0001). For the stool and rectal swab comparison, samples from different patients, regardless of sample collection method, were significantly different (AMOVA p-values: <0.001-0.029) compared to no significant difference between all stool and swab samples (AMOVA p-value: 0.976). The θYC dissimilarity index between swab and stool samples was significantly lower within individuals (median 0.17, IQR: 0.10-0.27) than between individuals (median 0.93, IQR: 0.85-0.97) (Wilcoxon test p-value: <0.0001), indicating minimal differences between stool and swab samples collected from the same individual over the sampling period. For gastrointestinal microbiota studies based on bacterial 16S rRNA gene sequence analysis, interim stool sample storage at 4 °C or -20 °C, rather than immediate storage at -80 °C, does not significantly alter results. Additionally, stool and rectal swab microbiotas from the same subject were highly similar, indicating that these sampling methods could be used interchangeably to assess the community structure of the distal GI tract.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 36 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 239 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Unknown 236 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 53 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 44 18%
Student > Master 34 14%
Student > Bachelor 21 9%
Other 13 5%
Other 30 13%
Unknown 44 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 49 21%
Medicine and Dentistry 40 17%
Immunology and Microbiology 32 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 27 11%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 8 3%
Other 30 13%
Unknown 53 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 26. 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 09 April 2017.
All research outputs
#1,465,784
of 25,452,734 outputs
Outputs from BMC Microbiology
#65
of 3,493 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,374
of 324,107 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Microbiology
#2
of 62 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,452,734 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,493 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 324,107 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 62 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 98% of its contemporaries.