Cited by 125Gut microbiota and healthGastrointestinal motility and disordersInflammatory Bowel Disease

Gut microbiome as a clinical tool in gastrointestinal disease management: are we there yet?

Quigley, Eamonn M. M.·2017·Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology

Abstract

Spurred on by ever-evolving developments in analytical methodology, the microbiome, and the gut microbiome in particular, has become the hot topic in biomedical research. Ingenious experiments in animal models have revealed the extent to which the gut microbiota sustains health and how its disruption might contribute to disease pathogenesis. Not surprisingly, associations between the microbiota and disease states in humans have been the subject of considerable interest and many links proposed. However, with rare exceptions, the incrimination of an altered microbiota in disease pathogenesis seems premature at this time given our incomplete understanding of the composition of the gut microbiota in health and the effect of many confounding factors in the interpretation of supposedly abnormal microbial signatures. Future studies must account for these variables and the bidirectionality of host-microorganism interactions in health and disease. In this Perspectives, the status of microbiota signatures in the clinical arena (for facilitating diagnosis or refining prognosis) will be critically assessed and guidance toward future progress provided.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/nrgastro.2017.29

Cites

89 of 89 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Factors known to influence gut microbiome composition, such as age, geography, hormone status, and sex, overlap with variable drug pharmacokinetics and impact the relative abundances of genes coding for xenobiotic-metabolizing enzymes.

    “Factors that are known to influence the composition of the gut microbiome, such as age and geography, also overlap with variable drug pharmacokinetics and impact on the relative abundances of genes coding for xenobiotic-metabolizing enzymes (Das et al., 2016;Quigley, 2017).”

    From Gut reactions: Breaking down xenobiotic–microbiome interactions (2019) · cites this paper as Quigley, 2017

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Quigley, E. M. M.
Affiliations
Houston Methodist (US)
Corresponding author
Quigley, Eamonn M. M.
Venue
Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology
Published
2017-03-30
Volume
14
Issue
5
Pages
315-320
ISSN
  • 1759-5045 (ISSN-L)
  • 1759-5053
OpenAlex
W2601263590
Cited by
125
References
89
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 5
FWCI
1.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gut microbiota and health
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Gastroenterology › Gastrointestinal motility and disorders
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Inflammatory Bowel Disease
Keywords
gut microbiota, gastrointestinal diseases, clinical translation, microbiota signature, diagnosis, prognosis, host-microbe interactions, confounding factors, pathogenesis, dysbiosis
MeSH terms
Gastrointestinal Diseases, Humans, Nutritional Physiological Phenomena, Gastrointestinal Tract, Microbiota

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review