Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 431

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Comparative assessment of human and farm animal faecal microbiota using real-time quantitative PCR

Open access
Furet, Jean-Pierre, Firmesse, Olivier, Gourmelon, Michèle, Bridonneau, Chantal, Tap, Julien, Mondot, Stanislas, Doré, Joël, Corthier, Gérard·2009·FEMS Microbiology Ecology

Abstract

Pollution of the environment by human and animal faecal pollution affects the safety of shellfish, drinking water and recreational beaches. To pinpoint the origin of contaminations, it is essential to define the differences between human microbiota and that of farm animals. A strategy based on real-time quantitative PCR (qPCR) assays was therefore developed and applied to compare the composition of intestinal microbiota of these two groups. Primers were designed to quantify the 16S rRNA gene from dominant and subdominant bacterial groups. TaqMan probes were defined for the qPCR technique used for dominant microbiota. Human faecal microbiota was compared with that of farm animals using faecal samples collected from rabbits, goats, horses, pigs, sheep and cows. Three dominant bacterial groups (Bacteroides/Prevotella, Clostridium coccoides and Bifidobacterium) of the human microbiota showed differential population levels in animal species. The Clostridium leptum group showed the lowest differences among human and farm animal species. Human subdominant bacterial groups were highly variable in animal species. Partial least squares regression indicated that the human microbiota could be distinguished from all farm animals studied. This culture-independent comparative assessment of the faecal microbiota between humans and farm animals will prove useful in identifying biomarkers of human and animal faecal contaminations that can be applied to microbial source tracking methods.

Overview

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 · 10.1111/j.1574-6941.2009.00671.x

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 431

Metadata

Authors
Furet, J.-P., Firmesse, O., Gourmelon, M., Bridonneau, C., Tap, J., Mondot, S., Doré, J., & Corthier, G.
Venue
FEMS Microbiology Ecology
Published
2009-06
Volume
68
Issue
3
Pages
351-362
ISSN
  • 0168-6496 (ISSN-L)
  • 1574-6941
OpenAlex
W2104816934
Cited by
431
References
1
FWCI
15.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparative assessment of human and farm animal faecal microbiota using real-time quantitative PCR. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1574-6941.2009.00671.x
The paper
Furet, J.-P., Firmesse, O., Gourmelon, M., Bridonneau, C., Tap, J., Mondot, S., Doré, J., & Corthier, G. (2009). Comparative assessment of human and farm animal faecal microbiota using real-time quantitative PCR. FEMS Microbiology Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-6941.2009.00671.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.