Cited by 21Oral microbiology and periodontitis researchGut microbiota and healthGenetic factors in colorectal cancer

Investigation of Fusobacterium Nucleatum in saliva and colorectal mucosa: a pilot study

Open access
Idrissi Janati, Amal, Karp, Igor, Von Renteln, Daniel, Bouin, Mickael, Liu, Younan, Tran, Simon D., Emami, Elham·2022·Scientific Reports

Abstract

As evidence has been linking the oral bacterium Fusobacterium nucleatum (F. nucleatum) to colorectal tumorigenesis, we aimed to produce preliminary data on the expression of F. nucleatum in both oral and colorectal body sites in cases diagnosed with colorectal neoplasms (CRN) and CRN-free controls. We conducted a pilot hospital-based case–control study among patients who underwent colonoscopy examination. Saliva samples and biopsies from healthy colon mucosa from CRN cases and CRN-free controls, and from tumors in cases, were collected, as well as data on periodontal condition and potential CRN risk factors. A total of 22 CRN cases and 21 CRN-free controls participated in this study, with a total of 135 biospecimens collected and analyzed by qPCR for detection and quantification of F. nucleatum. The detection rate of F. nucleatum was 95% in saliva samples and 18% in colorectal mucosa specimens. The median (95% CI) salivary F. nucleatum level was 0.35 (0.15–0.82) and 0.12 (0.05–0.65) in case and control groups, respectively, with a Spearman correlation of 0.64 (95% CI 0.2–0.94) between F. nucleatum level in saliva and healthy colorectal mucosa in controls. Our study results support the need for and the feasibility of further studies that aim to investigate the association between oral and colorectal levels of F. nucleatum in CRN cases and controls. Clinical Relevance: Considering the current evidence linking F. nucleatum to colorectal carcinogenesis, investigating the role of oral F. nucleatum expression in its colorectal enrichment is crucial for colorectal cancer screening and prevention avenues.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41598-022-09587-x

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Based on reported target strain abundance in saliva (<10^7 cells/mL for each target species) and average saliva volume, the total amount of postbiotic cells required for efficient coaggregation was estimated to be 10^9 bacterial cells/g of product.

    “Based on the reported target strain abundance in saliva (<107 cells/mL saliva for each of the target species) [43–46] and the average saliva volume in the mouth under stimulated conditions [47,48], we estimated that the total amount of postbiotic cells required for efficient coaggregation would be 109 bacterial cells/g of product.”

    From Coaggregation of oral pathogens by postbiotic lactobacilli (2025) · cites this paper as [43]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [42]Xuan K Is periodontal disease associated with increased risk of colorectal cancer? A meta-analysis Int. J. Dent. Hyg. 2021 19 1 50 61 10.1111/idh.12483 33269543 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Idrissi Janati, A., Karp, I., Von Renteln, D., Bouin, M., Liu, Y., Tran, S. D., & Emami, E.
Affiliations
  • Western University (CA)
  • McGill University (CA)
Corresponding author
Emami, Elham
Venue
Scientific Reports
Published
2022-04-04
Volume
12
Issue
1
Pages
5622-5622
ISSN
2045-2322 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4226064710
Cited by
21
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 2
FWCI
3.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Scientific Reports (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Fonds de Recherche du Québec - Santé (Doctoral scholarship)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Dentistry › Periodontics › Oral microbiology and periodontitis research
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gut microbiota and health
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Genetic factors in colorectal cancer
Keywords
Fusobacterium nucleatum, colorectal neoplasia, colorectal cancer, saliva, colorectal mucosa, oral microbiota, colorectal carcinogenesis, periodontal condition, colorectal cancer screening, colorectal cancer prevention
MeSH terms
Humans, Intestinal Mucosa, Pilot Projects, Saliva, Colorectal Neoplasms, Case-Control Studies, Fusobacterium nucleatum

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