↓ Skip to main content

Collection of non-meconium stool on fecal occult blood cards is an effective method for fecal microbiota studies in infants

Overview of attention for article published in Microbiome, September 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 (84th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
10 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
41 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
Collection of non-meconium stool on fecal occult blood cards is an effective method for fecal microbiota studies in infants
Published in
Microbiome, September 2017
DOI 10.1186/s40168-017-0333-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Wendy S.W. Wong, Nicole Clemency, Elisabeth Klein, Marina Provenzano, Ramaswamy Iyer, John E. Niederhuber, Suchitra K. Hourigan

Abstract

Effective methods are needed to collect fecal samples from children for large-scale microbiota studies. Stool collected on fecal occult blood test (FOBT) cards that can be mailed provides an effective solution; however, the quality of sequencing resulting from this method is unknown. The aim of this study is to compare microbiota metrics of 16S ribosomal RNA (rRNA) gene sequencing from stool and meconium collected on FOBT cards with stool collected in an Eppendorf tube (ET) under different conditions. Eight stool samples from children in diapers aged 0 month-2 years and three meconium samples were collected and stored as follows: (1) ≤ 2 days at room temperature (RT) in an ET, (2) 7 days at - 80 °C in an ET, (3) 3-5 days at RT on a FOBT card, (4) 7 days at RT on a FOBT card, and (5) 7 days at - 80 °C on a FOBT card. Samples stored at - 80 °C were frozen immediately. Each specimen/condition underwent 16S rRNA gene sequencing with replicates on the Illumina MiSeq. Alpha and beta diversity measures and relative abundance of major phyla were compared between storage conditions and container (ET vs. FOBT card), with pairwise comparison between different storage conditions and the "standard" of 7 days at - 80 °C in an ET and fresh stool in an ET. Stool samples clustered mainly by individual diaper (P < 10(-5), Adonis), rather than by storage condition (P = 0.42) or container (P = 0.16). However, meconium samples clustered more by container (P = 0.002) than by individual diaper (P = 0.009) and storage condition (P = 0.02). Additionally, there were no differences in alpha diversity measures and relative abundance of major phyla after Bonferroni correction between stool stored on a FOBT card at RT for 7 days with stool stored in an ET tube at - 80 °C; differences in alpha diversity were seen however when compared to fresh stool in an ET. Overall, based on the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), the different storage containers/conditions are reliable in preserving the microbial memberships and slightly less reliable in preserving the alpha diversity and relative microbial composition of infant stool. Acknowledging certain limitations, FOBT cards may be a useful tool in large-scale stool microbiota studies in children requiring outpatient follow-up where only small amounts of stool can be obtained, but should not be used when studying meconium.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 41 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 34%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 15%
Student > Bachelor 4 10%
Other 3 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 7 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 24%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 22%
Immunology and Microbiology 7 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 12%
Neuroscience 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 8 20%
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 03 May 2018.
All research outputs
#2,636,840
of 24,885,505 outputs
Outputs from Microbiome
#1,037
of 1,705 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#48,141
of 320,873 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Microbiome
#40
of 58 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 39th percentile – i.e., 39% 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 320,873 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 58 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.