The DOI matches its Crossref record; 55 of the 55 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 6 of the 13 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
The commensal microbiome is associated with anti-PD-1 efficacy in metastatic melanoma patients
Open accessAbstract
Good bacteria help fight cancer Resident gut bacteria can affect patient responses to cancer immunotherapy (see the Perspective by Jobin). Routy et al. show that antibiotic consumption is associated with poor response to immunotherapeutic PD-1 blockade. They profiled samples from patients with lung and kidney cancers and found that nonresponding patients had low levels of the bacterium Akkermansia muciniphila . Oral supplementation of the bacteria to antibiotic-treated mice restored the response to immunotherapy. Matson et al. and Gopalakrishnan et al. studied melanoma patients receiving PD-1 blockade and found a greater abundance of “good” bacteria in the guts of responding patients. Nonresponders had an imbalance in gut flora composition, which correlated with impaired immune cell activity. Thus, maintaining healthy gut flora could help patients combat cancer. Science , this issue p. 91 , p. 104 , p. 97 ; see also p. 32
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
26 Own result · 6 Own interpretation · 4 No full text of the sources · 4 Own method · 2 Supported · 2 Supported so far · 1 Not checked yet · accuracy not yet measured
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Two additional studies have identified an association of the commensal microbiome with anti–PD-1 mAb efficacy in different solid cancers (7,14).”
§ The commensal microbiome is associated with anti-PD-1 efficacy in metastatic melanoma patients > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [7] source
- Supportedcites [14] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The opening summary and patient-cohort results report an association between gut microbiome composition and response to anti-PD-1 therapy in melanoma, a solid cancer. This paper supports the claim as one of the two cited studies; it need not establish the findings of the other study. Page numbers are not supplied in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.92)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To determine whether the difference in tumor control could be attributed to host immunity, interferon-γ (IFN-γ) enzyme-linked immunosorbent spot (ELISPOT) of ex vivo SIY-stimulated splenocytes was performed and indicated an increased frequency of activated T cells from R microbiota-reconstituted mice 3 weeks after inoculation with B16.SIY melanoma cells (Fig. 3C).”
§ The commensal microbiome is associated with anti-PD-1 efficacy in metastatic melanoma patients > Abstract
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A significant association was observed between commensal microbial composition and clinical response.”
- Also stated in: § Abstract · hedged
“Together, our data suggest that the composition of the commensal microbiota in patients is associated with therapeutic efficacy of anti–PD-1 monoclonal antibody (mAb).”
§ The commensal microbiome is associated with anti-PD-1 efficacy in metastatic melanoma patients > Abstract
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Abstract · hedged
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“After removing OTUs present in less than 10% of the samples, the 16S sequencing revealed 62 OTUs of different abundance in R versus NR [P < 0.05, unadjusted, permutation test with Quantitative Insights Into Microbial Ecology (QIIME)] (table S2).”
§ The commensal microbiome is associated with anti-PD-1 efficacy in metastatic melanoma patients > Abstract
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Quantitative PCR results for these 10 species were integrated into a summation quantitative PCR score for each patient, which was significantly higher in responders (P = 0.004) (Fig. 2D).”
§ The commensal microbiome is associated with anti-PD-1 efficacy in metastatic melanoma patients > Abstract
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The human microbiota-colonized mouse groups segregated into two phenotypes with respect to tumor growth rate: (i) a faster growing group and (ii) a slower growing group (Fig. 3A).”
§ The commensal microbiome is associated with anti-PD-1 efficacy in metastatic melanoma patients > Abstract
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A principal component analysis (PCA) of the 63 OTUs revealed separation of R from NR (Fig. 1B).”
§ The commensal microbiome is associated with anti-PD-1 efficacy in metastatic melanoma patients > Abstract
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Hierarchical clustering of samples based on relative abundance of these OTUs revealed that most patients were accurately grouped according to clinical response (fig. S2).”
§ The commensal microbiome is associated with anti-PD-1 efficacy in metastatic melanoma patients > Abstract
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, the ability of the human microbiota to support improved tumor control in mice usually, but not always, paralleled the clinical response to anti–PD-1 seen in the donor patient.”
§ The commensal microbiome is associated with anti-PD-1 efficacy in metastatic melanoma patients > Abstract
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the microbiota parameters still markedly separated responders and nonresponders.”
§ The commensal microbiome is associated with anti-PD-1 efficacy in metastatic melanoma patients > Abstract
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 10
- It may state two separate claims as one. 17
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“prior work in mice has indicated that some commensals have the potential to be immune-inhibitory—for example, through the induction of FoxP3+ regulatory T cells (11,12).”
§ The commensal microbiome is associated with anti-PD-1 efficacy in metastatic melanoma patients > Abstract
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [11] source
The Abstract reports that indigenous Clostridium species promoted the accumulation of Foxp3+ regulatory T cells in the colons of mice. It also describes intestinal Foxp3+ Tregs as immunosuppressive, supporting the claim's qualified description of some commensals as potentially immune-inhibitory. (LLM, conf=0.93)
- Supportedcites [12] source
The Abstract reports that colonizing germ-free animals with the commensal B. fragilis induces Foxp3+ regulatory T cells and increases their suppressive capacity. The Discussion links this Treg induction to protection from experimental colitis, supporting the claim's example of immune inhibition in mice. (LLM, conf=0.94)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Tumor-intrinsic activation of the Wnt/β-catenin pathway (15) and deletion or mutation of Pten (16) have been shown to lead to deficient T cell infiltration into the tumor microenvironment and resistance to checkpoint blockade immunotherapy.”
§ The commensal microbiome is associated with anti-PD-1 efficacy in metastatic melanoma patients > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [15] source
- Supportedcites [16] source
Citation (16) is attached to the PTEN part of the sentence, not the Wnt/β-catenin part. The Results report that PTEN deletions and loss-of-function mutations are enriched in non-T-cell-inflamed melanomas, that PTEN-loss tumors have less CD8+ T-cell infiltration, and that patients with PTEN-absent tumors had poorer tumor-size responses to anti-PD-1 treatment. No page numbers are available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.92)
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“There were 16 responders (from here on, referred to as R) and 26 nonresponders (NR), yielding a response rate of 38%, which is in line with published clinical data of anti–PD-1 therapy in metastatic melanoma patients (5, 6).”
§ The commensal microbiome is associated with anti-PD-1 efficacy in metastatic melanoma patients > Abstract
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [5] source
The citing paper reports the 38% rate for its own patients; it cites this source for the comparison with published anti–PD-1 melanoma results. In Results > Clinical Activity, the source reports melanoma response rates of 19–41% across dose levels, a range that includes 38%. Its overall melanoma response rate was 28%, not 38%. (LLM, conf=0.90)
- Supportedcites [6] source
The Rates of Response section reports pembrolizumab response rates of 33.7% and 32.9% in patients with advanced melanoma. The citing paper's 38% is its own result; the cited trial supports the comparison to published anti-PD-1 clinical data, not an exact 38% rate. (LLM, conf=0.91)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Anti–PD-L1 was markedly efficacious in mice colonized with R microbiota yet completely ineffective in NR-derived mice (Fig. 3F), demonstrating a profound impact of the commensal microbiota on immunotherapy efficacy in vivo.”
§ The commensal microbiome is associated with anti-PD-1 efficacy in metastatic melanoma patients > Abstract
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When plotted against the absolute change in tumor size as assessed with RECIST, a clean correlation was observed so that patients with a ratio over 1.5 all showed clinical response (Fig. 2E).”
§ The commensal microbiome is associated with anti-PD-1 efficacy in metastatic melanoma patients > Abstract
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: OTUs more abundant in responders are beneficial and those more abundant in nonresponders are non-beneficial.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Exome sequencing followed by enumeration of nonsynonymous somatic mutations showed a trend of higher frequency in R, as did levels of PD-L1 and PD-1 mRNA (fig. S6, C to E) and enumeration of baseline CD8+ T cells by means of immunohistochemistry (fig. S6F). Although these trends not reaching statistical significance level of 0.05 were likely limited by sample size, the microbiota parameters still”
§ The commensal microbiome is associated with anti-PD-1 efficacy in metastatic melanoma patients > Abstract
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Potential species matches were identified for 43 of the original 63 OTUs (table S4).”
§ The commensal microbiome is associated with anti-PD-1 efficacy in metastatic melanoma patients > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Interrogation of fecal DNA from these mice by means of quantitative PCR recapitulated the results from our analysis of patients. Of the PCR reactions validated in patients, six were observed in re-constituted mice, with the same pattern of enrichment as was seen in patients (Fig. 2G).”
§ The commensal microbiome is associated with anti-PD-1 efficacy in metastatic melanoma patients > Abstract
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Two of three mouse cohorts reconstituted with R fecal material had slower baseline tumor growth, and two of the three cohorts reconstituted from NR showed faster baseline tumor growth.”
§ The commensal microbiome is associated with anti-PD-1 efficacy in metastatic melanoma patients > Abstract
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Analysis of the tumor microenvironment also showed a significantly greater number of SIY–specific CD8+ T cells, but not of FoxP3+CD4+ regulatory T cells, in these mice (Fig. 3, D and E), which is consistent with increased priming of tumor antigen-specific CD8+ T cells.”
§ The commensal microbiome is associated with anti-PD-1 efficacy in metastatic melanoma patients > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A BLAST search of the 63 OTUs against the NCBI database of bacterial sequences returned for most OTUs multiple species with ≥98% identity (table S3).”
§ The commensal microbiome is associated with anti-PD-1 efficacy in metastatic melanoma patients > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we found that B16.SIY melanoma tumor growth in GF mice was similar to that in specific pathogen–free (SPF) mice (both from Taconic), and colonization of GF mice with feces from Taconic SPF mice did not affect this baseline growth rate (fig. S8).”
§ The commensal microbiome is associated with anti-PD-1 efficacy in metastatic melanoma patients > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“One Bifidobacteriaceae OTU was significantly more abundant in R, and a second Bifidobacteriaceae OTU (559527) had borderline significance (P = 0.058, unadjusted) and was included in the analyses (total = 63 OTUs).”
§ The commensal microbiome is associated with anti-PD-1 efficacy in metastatic melanoma patients > Abstract
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Groups C and D, which did not show the same pattern of tumor control as the therapeutic outcome in the original human donors, showed a large degree of difference of microbiota composition from the original human donors (fig. S9). In agreement, a binary Bray-Curtis dissimilarity index for each donor/recipient pair was highest, at 0.7, for cohorts C and D versus 0.5 to 0.6 for the rest of the groups”
§ The commensal microbiome is associated with anti-PD-1 efficacy in metastatic melanoma patients > Abstract
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“For example, Akkermansia muciniphila OTU (185186), in line with the study of anti–PD-1 efficacy in epithelial cancers by Routy et al. (7), was detected by means of 16S sequencing in four patients, and all were responders, but statistical analysis of the entire cohort is limited by the number of samples above the detection threshold.”
§ The commensal microbiome is associated with anti-PD-1 efficacy in metastatic melanoma patients > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [7] source
plaincorrelationaln = 4- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We conclude that whereas reconstitution of GF mice with human fecal material often recapitulates the microbial composition and the phenotype of the human donor, in some cases there is a high degree of drift so that some bacteria expand and others contract to a degree that is sufficient to change phenotype.”
§ The commensal microbiome is associated with anti-PD-1 efficacy in metastatic melanoma patients > Abstract
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“No major differences in patient characteristics were observed in R versus NR, except a borderline difference in prior (but not current) smoking history (table S1).”
§ The commensal microbiome is associated with anti-PD-1 efficacy in metastatic melanoma patients > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Decreased regulatory T cells, increased Batf3 DCs, and augmented TH1responses would all be expected to improve immune-mediated tumor control.”
§ The commensal microbiome is associated with anti-PD-1 efficacy in metastatic melanoma patients > Abstract
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Clinical response rate was determined in a blinded manner from biomarker results by using Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1.”
§ The commensal microbiome is associated with anti-PD-1 efficacy in metastatic melanoma patients > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These results suggest a reduced spontaneous immune-mediated tumor control inherent to GF mice, which makes them suitable recipients for human-derived microbiota, with an opportunity to detect improved antitumor immunity depending on microbial composition.”
§ The commensal microbiome is associated with anti-PD-1 efficacy in metastatic melanoma patients > Abstract
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“An increased frequency of the Batf3-lineage dendritic cells (DCs) and greater T helper cell 1 (TH1) responses were also found with bacteria currently identified to be more abundant in responders (13).”
§ The commensal microbiome is associated with anti-PD-1 efficacy in metastatic melanoma patients > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [13] source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Germline polymorphisms in immune regulatory genes also have the potential to influence the magnitude of spontaneous anti-tumor T cell responses (17).”
§ The commensal microbiome is associated with anti-PD-1 efficacy in metastatic melanoma patients > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [17] source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This list of species is likely an underestimate of the total number of entities showing differential abundance in R versus NR because of the stringency of this composite analysis.”
§ The commensal microbiome is associated with anti-PD-1 efficacy in metastatic melanoma patients > Abstract
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper relies on this without support.
OTUs more abundant in responders are beneficial and those more abundant in nonresponders are non-beneficial.
“the total numbers of potentially “beneficial” and “non-beneficial” OTUs were scored for each patient (fig. S5), and a ratio was calculated.”
“a ratio of “beneficial” OTUs to “nonbeneficial” OTUs was the strongest predictor of clinical response.”
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Intestinal dysbiosis, broadly defined as an imbalance in the composition or function of the gut microbiota, is a significant contributor to resistance against immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapies.1–16,”
From Gut dysbiosis in oncology: a risk factor for immunoresistance (2026) · cites this paper as [7]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Recently, the gut microbiota has emerged as a potent new factor associated with the efficacy of anti–CTLA4, anti–PD-1, and anti–PD-L1 treatment (8-14).”
From Enterococcus peptidoglycan remodeling promotes checkpoint inhibitor cancer immunotherapy (2021) · cites this paper as [13]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Multiple analyses of the commensal microbiome from human cohorts treated with immunotherapies targeting PD-1 have revealed that the bacterial genus Enterococcus is enriched in responding patients (12, 13).”
From Enterococcus peptidoglycan remodeling promotes checkpoint inhibitor cancer immunotherapy (2021) · cites this paper as [13]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Studies in mouse models have provided compelling evidence that gut microbiota modifications resulting from faecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) improve ICI response rates38,42,91; however, the magnitude of these antitumour responses depends of factors such as the mouse strain or provider, mouse sex and individual experimental conditions106.”
From Gut OncoMicrobiome Signatures (GOMS) as next-generation biomarkers for cancer immunotherapy (2023) · cites this paper as [91]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“However, there is limited concordance among species identified across studies, which included small numbers of patients and used different analytical approaches, not always adjusted for multiple testing4,5,12,13.”
From Intestinal microbiota signatures of clinical response and immune-related adverse events in melanoma patients treated with anti-PD-1 (2022) · cites this paper as [5]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Several studies, small in size and using variable analytical methods, suggest the gut microbiome may be a novel, modifiable biomarker for tumor response rates, but the specific bacteria or bacterial communities putatively impacting ICI responses have been inconsistent across the studied populations.”
From A Uniform Computational Approach Improved on Existing Pipelines to Reveal Microbiome Biomarkers of Nonresponse to Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors (2021) · cites this paper as [5]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Multiple studies have reported significant differences in microbial diversity and composition between responding and non-responding melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and renal cell carcinoma (RCC) patients treated with anti-PD-1 alone or in combination with anti-CTLA-4 agents (ipilimumab).2,4-8”
From Faecalibacterium prausnitzii strain EXL01 boosts efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors (2024) · cites this paper as [7]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“These effects were mediated by increased densities of CD8+ T-cells and reduced FoxP3+CD4+ Tregs in the tumor microenvironment”
From The Influence of the Gut Microbiome on Cancer, Immunity, and Cancer Immunotherapy (2018) · cites this paper as Matson et al., 2018
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Bifidobacterium, Akkermansia, and Roseburia have been associated with improved tumor immunotherapy in clinic34–37.”
From Combining gut microbiota modulation and chemotherapy by capecitabine-loaded prebiotic nanoparticle improves colorectal cancer therapy (2023) · cites this paper as [36]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Gut bacteria modulate the response to immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) treatment in cancer”
From Dietary fiber and probiotics influence the gut microbiome and melanoma immunotherapy response (2021) · cites this paper as [3]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Over the past decade, following the epidemiological demonstration of the negative effect of antibiotics on the efficacy of ICIs13,42,90, specific microbial taxa have been associated with response or resistance to ICIs across distinct cancer types26,38–40,42,91–100.”
From Gut OncoMicrobiome Signatures (GOMS) as next-generation biomarkers for cancer immunotherapy (2023) · cites this paper as [91]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“We next tested the generalizability of the balance described in Fig. 2a by computing it for patients from six independent melanoma cohorts5,7–10,12. Despite small sample sizes and large heterogeneity in terms of DNA isolation protocols and sequencing platforms (Supplementary Table 6), this analysis showed that the balance achieves a comparable AUC in several of the independent cohorts (Extended”
From Longitudinal gut microbiome changes in immune checkpoint blockade-treated advanced melanoma (2024) · cites this paper as [10]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Increasing evidence suggests that the gut microbiome may modulate the efficacy of cancer immunotherapy.”
From A non-antibiotic-disrupted gut microbiome is associated with clinical responses to CD19-CAR-T cell cancer immunotherapy (2023) · cites this paper as [3]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Besides, reconstitution of germ-free mice with fecal material from responding patients could lead to improved tumor control, augmented T cell responses, and greater efficacy of anti-PD-L1 therapy.14”
From Gut microbiota and metabolites associate with outcomes of immune checkpoint inhibitor–treated unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (2022) · cites this paper as [14]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“In human melanoma patients undergoing immunotherapy, gut microbiome composition has been significantly associated with clinical response [9–12]”
From Relating the gut metagenome and metatranscriptome to immunotherapy responses in melanoma patients (2019) · cites this paper as [10]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“antitumor immunity was enhanced in germ-free mice receiving fecal transfer from the responding patients [9, 10].”
From Relating the gut metagenome and metatranscriptome to immunotherapy responses in melanoma patients (2019) · cites this paper as [10]
In the citing paper
“The three studies all demonstrated that gut microbiota composition and diversity were predictive of response to ICI immunotherapy [31–33].”
From Gut microbiota influence immunotherapy responses: mechanisms and therapeutic strategies (2022) · cites this paper as [33]
In the citing paper
“A similar finding was that fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) from ICI responding patients to germ-free or antibiotic-treated mice could improve tumor control and ameliorate responses to ICI, whereas FMT from non-responders failed to do so [31–33].”
From Gut microbiota influence immunotherapy responses: mechanisms and therapeutic strategies (2022) · cites this paper as [33]
In the citing paper
“Moreover, specific gut microbes, such as Bifidobacterium [16, 33, 51, 141], Akkermansia [31, 38], Enterococcus [15, 33, 141], Faecalibacterium [49, 142], and Ruminococcaceae [32], play the role of immune adjuvants in ICI immunotherapy.”
From Gut microbiota influence immunotherapy responses: mechanisms and therapeutic strategies (2022) · cites this paper as [33]
In the citing paper
“Recently, several studies have indicated that FMT could augment the antitumor effect of ICI and overcome resistance to immunotherapy [31–33].”
From Gut microbiota influence immunotherapy responses: mechanisms and therapeutic strategies (2022) · cites this paper as [33]
In the citing paper
“Previous studies have suggested that the gut microbiome influences the response to checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) in patients with cancer.”
From Nivolumab plus ipilimumab with or without live bacterial supplementation in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a randomized phase 1 trial (2022) · cites this paper as [4]
In the citing paper
“in preclinical models, transplantation of fecal material enriched with Bifidobacterium spp. alone (even without CPIs) was sufficient to delay tumor growth4,5.”
From Nivolumab plus ipilimumab with or without live bacterial supplementation in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a randomized phase 1 trial (2022) · cites this paper as [4]
In the citing paper
“The intestinal microbiota has been shown to directly impact on the efficacy of specific cancer immune therapies1–3.”
From Microbial short-chain fatty acids modulate CD8+ T cell responses and improve adoptive immunotherapy for cancer (2021) · cites this paper as [2]
In the citing paper
“Multiple landmark studies have identified a role for the gut microbiome in modifying ICI treatment response1,2”
From Gut microbiota-derived hexa-acylated lipopolysaccharides enhance cancer immunotherapy responses (2025) · cites this paper as [1]
In the citing paper
“Although multiple studies have reported that a favorable gut microbiome is associated with response to anti–PD-1 in cancer patients, its precise composition is not yet fully understood (10–12).”
From Fecal microbiota transplant overcomes resistance to anti–PD-1 therapy in melanoma patients (2021) · cites this paper as [11]
In the citing paper
“As previously reported1,2, broad-spectrum antibiotics significantly abrogated anti-PD-1-induced tumour reduction”
From Gut microbiota-derived hexa-acylated lipopolysaccharides enhance cancer immunotherapy responses (2025) · cites this paper as [1]
In the citing paper
“administration of certain gut commensals or fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) promotes anti–PD-1 efficacy in melanoma-bearing mice (10–12).”
From Fecal microbiota transplant overcomes resistance to anti–PD-1 therapy in melanoma patients (2021) · cites this paper as [11]
In the citing paper
“Specifically in melanoma, key bacterial species belonging to various phyla, including Actinobacteria (Bifidobacteriaceae spp. and Coriobacteriaceae spp.) and Firmicutes (Ruminococcaceae spp. and Lachnospiraceae spp.), are associated with favorable response to mAbs targeting PD-1 in cancer patients, although limited concordance among the identified species has been reported in different studies (10”
From Fecal microbiota transplant overcomes resistance to anti–PD-1 therapy in melanoma patients (2021) · cites this paper as [11]
In the citing paper
“In mice, composition of the gut microbiome modulates therapeutic activity of anti–PD-1 and anti–programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1)”
From Fecal microbiota transplant overcomes resistance to anti–PD-1 therapy in melanoma patients (2021) · cites this paper as [11]
In the citing paper
“the detection of potential NlpC/p60 orthologs in other genera such as Lactobacillus (Fig. 2C, Table S5), which has also been identified in immunotherapy-responsive patients (13), may provide additional specific microbiota correlations to predict and improve patient outcomes.”
From Enterococcus peptidoglycan remodeling promotes checkpoint inhibitor cancer immunotherapy (2021) · cites this paper as [13]
In the citing paper
“consistent with enhanced priming of a tumor antigen-specific immune response (9, 13).”
From Enterococcus peptidoglycan remodeling promotes checkpoint inhibitor cancer immunotherapy (2021) · cites this paper as [13]
In the citing paper
“single studies in patients with melanoma receiving ICIs identified an enrichment of species such as F. prausnitzii, Bifidobacterium longum and Bacteroides caccae in samples from patients with a response (‘responders’)38,44,91, although the concordance of these microbiome characteristics with treatment response across studies was low97.”
From Gut OncoMicrobiome Signatures (GOMS) as next-generation biomarkers for cancer immunotherapy (2023) · cites this paper as [91]
In the citing paper
“Our meta-analysis of microbial sequencing data from nine independent αPD-1-treated melanoma cohorts82–88 revealed a higher abundance of pfl, a key enzyme in bacterial formate production, linked to ICI efficacy.”
From Exercise-induced microbiota metabolite enhances CD8 T cell antitumor immunity promoting immunotherapy efficacy (2025) · cites this paper as [83]
In the citing paper
“The intestinal microbiome has emerged as a tumor-extrinsic predictive biomarker to immune checkpoint blockade (ICB)1–6.”
From Intestinal microbiota signatures of clinical response and immune-related adverse events in melanoma patients treated with anti-PD-1 (2022) · cites this paper as [5]
In the citing paper
“Administration of certain gut commensals promotes efficacy of anti-programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) therapy in mice, providing evidence that microbiota can drive immunotherapy outcomes4–6.”
From Intestinal microbiota signatures of clinical response and immune-related adverse events in melanoma patients treated with anti-PD-1 (2022) · cites this paper as [5]
In the citing paper
“Several studies have examined the stool composition of patients on checkpoint blockade with melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and renal cell cancer (RCC) (5–10). These studies have implicated increased alpha-diversity (8), along with specific members of each of the major bacterial phyla colonizing humans”
From A Uniform Computational Approach Improved on Existing Pipelines to Reveal Microbiome Biomarkers of Nonresponse to Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors (2021) · cites this paper as [5]
In the citing paper
“While individually significant, a feature of these studies is that each has largely identified different sets of microbes and, overall, there is a lack of consensus regarding the microbial signals associated with clinical response and/or whether putative microbiota signals are tumor-specific or impacted by other clinical metadata.”
From A Uniform Computational Approach Improved on Existing Pipelines to Reveal Microbiome Biomarkers of Nonresponse to Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors (2021) · cites this paper as [5]
In the citing paper
“These results indicate that data from our standardized methodology for 16S rRNA amplicon data produces comparable relative abundance profiles, including for high-interest species such as Faecalibacterium prausnitzii and Akkermansia muciniphila (Fig S1).”
From A Uniform Computational Approach Improved on Existing Pipelines to Reveal Microbiome Biomarkers of Nonresponse to Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors (2021) · cites this paper as [5]
In the citing paper
“In contrast, the gut microbiota of non-responding patients seemed to be less diverse, with the genera Bacteroides (phylum Bacteroidetes), Ruminococci and Roseburia (both Firmicutes) being prominent.”
From A Uniform Computational Approach Improved on Existing Pipelines to Reveal Microbiome Biomarkers of Nonresponse to Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors (2021) · cites this paper as [5]
In the citing paper
“In contrast, B. thetaiotaomicron was reported as enriched in R in the Frankel and Matson cohorts (5,7) whereas, using a consistent re-analysis approach for all cohorts, this species was enriched in NR.”
From A Uniform Computational Approach Improved on Existing Pipelines to Reveal Microbiome Biomarkers of Nonresponse to Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors (2021) · cites this paper as [5]
In the citing paper
“The gut microbiome has been shown to have multiple effects on tumor biology, such as the transformation process, tumor progression, and the response to anticancer therapies including immunotherapy (21-29).”
From The human tumor microbiome is composed of tumor type–specific intracellular bacteria (2020) · cites this paper as [24]
In the citing paper
“For example, several bacterial biomarkers have been reported for response to checkpoint inhibitors in non-GI cancer indications (Frankel et al., 2017; Gopalakrishnan et al., 2018; Matson et al., 2018; Peters et al., 2019; Routy et al., 2018).”
From Gut microbiome stability and dynamics in healthy donors and patients with non-gastrointestinal cancers (2021) · cites this paper as Matson et al., 2018
In the citing paper
“Furthermore, melanoma patients treated with anti-PD-L1 had higher levels of Bifdobacterium longum, Collinsella aerofaciens, and Enterococcus faecium, highlighting the importance of the microbiome [122].”
From Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Cancer Therapy (2022) · cites this paper as [122]
In the citing paper
“as the gut and tumour microbiota can affect the survival of patients with cancer and their responses to therapy8,14,40–42,50”
From Identification of bacteria-derived HLA-bound peptides in melanoma (2021) · cites this paper as [41]
In the citing paper
“The role of the gut microbiome in modulating tumor responses to immunotherapy in melanoma [5–7], non-small cell lung cancer, renal cell carcinoma, and urothelial carcinoma [6, 8] has received increased attention across a series of studies in recent years.”
From Gut microbiome affects the response to anti-PD-1 immunotherapy in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (2019) · cites this paper as [5]
In the citing paper
“Microbial taxa associated with response to ICB in cancer patients differed among different reports (Gopalakrishnan et al., 2018; Matson et al., 2018; Routy et al., 2018).”
From Microbiota triggers STING-type I IFN-dependent monocyte reprogramming of the tumor microenvironment (2021) · cites this paper as Matson et al., 2018
In the citing paper
“Specific antitumor effects of microbiota have been associated with changes in T cell activation and/or recruitment into the tumor or tumor-draining lymph nodes (Matson et al., 2018; Routy et al., 2018; Shi et al., 2020a; Sivan et al., 2015; Tanoue et al., 2019; Vetizou et al., 2015).”
From Microbiota triggers STING-type I IFN-dependent monocyte reprogramming of the tumor microenvironment (2021) · cites this paper as Matson et al., 2018
In the citing paper
“These studies suggest that gut bacteria influences the activation of the immune system, promoting cancer-associated inflammation and ultimately affecting tumor responses to therapies.”
From Tumor Microbiome Diversity and Composition Influence Pancreatic Cancer Outcomes (2019) · cites this paper as Matson et al., 2018
In the citing paper
“The key role of the gut microbiota as a host factor mediating tumor responses to chemotherapy and immunotherapy in patients with melanoma and lung cancers has been recently highlighted”
From Tumor Microbiome Diversity and Composition Influence Pancreatic Cancer Outcomes (2019) · cites this paper as Matson et al., 2018
In the citing paper
“Bifidobacterium-treated mice showed increased IFN-γ production, followed by stronger tumor-specific T cell responses and slower tumor growth [36].”
From Gut microbiota-mediated immunomodulation in tumor (2021) · cites this paper as [36]
In the citing paper
“Recolonized germ-free mice with fecal samples from responders or dominant microbiota in responders could improve antitumor effects of ICIs [36, 94].”
From Gut microbiota-mediated immunomodulation in tumor (2021) · cites this paper as [36]
In the citing paper
“Responses to ICTs have been correlated with commensal gut flora, and there appear to be substantial differences in the diversity and composition in patients who respond to ICT versus nonresponders (205,206).”
From The Next Decade of Immune Checkpoint Therapy (2021) · cites this paper as [205]
In the citing paper
“Moreover, observations in humans and mice of gut microbes that stratify therapy response, particularly immunotherapy (16, 17, 21, 26), have not uncommonly shown varying taxonomic differences that persist despite uniform bioinformatic re-analyses, although there is greater concordance when examining functional profiles (161, 162).”
From The microbiome and human cancer (2021) · cites this paper as [21]
In the citing paper
“The composition of the commensal microbiota in patients is associated with the therapeutic efficacy of anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody.42”
In the citing paper
“Very recent reports highlighted that the composition of gut microbiota may dictate, at least in part, the anticancer activity of ICI.”
From Negative association of antibiotics on clinical activity of immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with advanced renal cell and non-small-cell lung cancer (2018) · cites this paper as [22]
In the citing paper
“The microbiome has been described to majorly impact tumor immunity and response to ICI10–17”
From Dietary tryptophan metabolite released by intratumoral Lactobacillus reuteri facilitates immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment (2023) · cites this paper as [13]
In the citing paper
“Previously, we demonstrated that differential bacterial signatures comprise the gut microbiome of responders versus non-responders to ICI therapy”
From Fecal microbiota transplantation for refractory immune checkpoint inhibitor-associated colitis (2018) · cites this paper as [12]
In the citing paper
“and additionally showed that modulation of the gut microbiome of germ-free mice via FMT from patients could alter anti-tumor immunity and response to ICI therapy in gnotobiotic mice11–13.”
From Fecal microbiota transplantation for refractory immune checkpoint inhibitor-associated colitis (2018) · cites this paper as [12]
In the citing paper
“Given these considerations, it is perhaps even more striking that bacteria generally associated with health (such as Clostridiales, Ruminococcacae, Faecalibacterium spp., Akkermansia muciniphila, B. fragilis,a n dBifidobacteria) (13, 14, 18-20) or immunogenicity (Enterococci, Collinsella, and Alistipes)( 11, 13, 14, 20) were found to be abundant in responding patients.”
From The microbiome in cancer immunotherapy: Diagnostic tools and therapeutic strategies (2018) · cites this paper as [20]
In the citing paper
“One of the striking findings that distinguishes cancer patient responders from nonresponders after PD-1 blockade immunotherapy is the ratio of putatively favorable to unfavorable bacteria (20).”
From The microbiome in cancer immunotherapy: Diagnostic tools and therapeutic strategies (2018) · cites this paper as [20]
In the citing paper
“Notably, fecal microbial transplantation (FMT) o ff e c e sf r o mp a t i e n t s( w h os h o w e dc l i n i c a lr esponse to immune checkpoint blockade) transferred a”
From The microbiome in cancer immunotherapy: Diagnostic tools and therapeutic strategies (2018) · cites this paper as [20]
In the citing paper
“16S ribosomal RNA (rRNA)-based sequencing of gene amplicons and shotgun DNA sequencing of patient stool samples have identified subsets of bacteria more abundant in responding versus nonresponding patients.”
From The microbiome in cancer immunotherapy: Diagnostic tools and therapeutic strategies (2018) · cites this paper as [20]
In the citing paper
“To date, Bifidobacteria spp.(15, 20), Akkermansia muciniphilia (14), E. hirae (16), and Bacteroides spp.(13) have been shown to improve antitumor T cell responses and support better tumor control in vivo.”
From The microbiome in cancer immunotherapy: Diagnostic tools and therapeutic strategies (2018) · cites this paper as [20]
In the citing paper
“A meta-analysis found that high abundance of Faecalibacterium genus was the strongest signal associated with response to ICI, using either anti-PD-1 or anti-CTLA-4 antibodies.5–7,12,13”
From Faecalibacterium prausnitzii strain EXL01 boosts efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors (2024) · cites this paper as [7]
In the citing paper
“In patients with cancer, specific taxa, including F. prausnitzii, A. muciniphila and Bifidobacteria, have been associated with improved clinical responses to ICI.2,6,7”
From Faecalibacterium prausnitzii strain EXL01 boosts efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors (2024) · cites this paper as [7]
In the citing paper
“In this context, the gut microbiota has been involved in response to cancer treatments, and in particular to immunotherapy.2,6,7,32”
From Faecalibacterium prausnitzii strain EXL01 boosts efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors (2024) · cites this paper as [7]
In the citing paper
“The effects of the gut microbiota on the anti-tumor response has been demonstrated in preclinical models as well as in patients with melanoma, renal cell carcinoma and NSCLC”
From Hallmarks of response, resistance, and toxicity to immune checkpoint blockade (2021) · cites this paper as Matson et al., 2018
In the citing paper
“The gut and tumor microbiome have been associated with anti-tumor responses and, in some cases, response to immune checkpoint blockade”
From Hallmarks of response, resistance, and toxicity to immune checkpoint blockade (2021) · cites this paper as Matson et al., 2018
In the citing paper
“Thomas Gajewski in Chicago, Jennifer Wargo at the MD Anderson Cancer Centre, and our laboratory at the Gustave Roussy Cancer Centre in Paris later published seminal studies in the same 2018 issue of Science, demonstrating direct links between gut microbiota composition and the success of ICB in different cancer populations, including melanoma, non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and urothelial and”
From Microbiota-centered interventions to boost immune checkpoint blockade therapies (2025) · cites this paper as Matson et al., 2018
In the citing paper
“higher abundances of the commensals Bifidobacterium longum, Collinsella aerofaciens, and Enterococcus faecium stimulate a more favorable T cell-mediated response to anti-PD-1 therapy in both preclinical models and patients suffering from metastasized melanoma.190–192”
From Interaction between microbiota and immunity in health and disease (2020) · cites this paper as [190]
In the citing paper
“Gut microbes such as Akkermansia muciniphila, Faecalibacterium prausnitzii and Bifidobacterium longum have been associated with improved responses to immune checkpoint blockade (ICB)1–3”
From A non-antibiotic-disrupted gut microbiome is associated with clinical responses to CD19-CAR-T cell cancer immunotherapy (2023) · cites this paper as [3]
In the citing paper
“These microbes were also previously reported to be associated with better response to ICB immunotherapy2,3,38,39.”
From A non-antibiotic-disrupted gut microbiome is associated with clinical responses to CD19-CAR-T cell cancer immunotherapy (2023) · cites this paper as [3]
In the citing paper
“mice that received responder-stool growing tumors at slower rate and having markedly improved efficacy to anti-PD- L1 immunotherapy when compared to mice that received non-responder stool”
From The Influence of the Gut Microbiome on Cancer, Immunity, and Cancer Immunotherapy (2018) · cites this paper as Matson et al., 2018
In the citing paper
“patients who responded to anti-PD-1 therapy had enrichment of Bifidobacterium longum, Collinsella aerofaciens and Enterococcus faecium in baseline fecal samples”
From The Influence of the Gut Microbiome on Cancer, Immunity, and Cancer Immunotherapy (2018) · cites this paper as Matson et al., 2018
In the citing paper
“at lower levels of taxonomy within these phyla these generalizations do not apply, as some taxa within Firmicutes have been associated with a lack of response (Roseburia, Streptococcus)”
From The Influence of the Gut Microbiome on Cancer, Immunity, and Cancer Immunotherapy (2018) · cites this paper as Matson et al., 2018
In the citing paper
“Bacteroidetes have also been associated with response (such as Akkermansia muciniphila, Bifidobacterium longum and Bifidobacterium adolescentis, and Colinsela aerofaciens) and non-response (such as Actinomyces viscosus, Garnderella vaginalis) (Frankel et al., 2017, Gopalakrishnan et al., 2018, Matson et al., 2018, Routy et al., 2018).”
From The Influence of the Gut Microbiome on Cancer, Immunity, and Cancer Immunotherapy (2018) · cites this paper as Matson et al., 2018
In the citing paper
“The microbiota is emerging as a determinant of responses to various anticancer therapies, including immunotherapy122–125.”
From Enhancing cancer immunotherapy using antiangiogenics: opportunities and challenges (2018) · cites this paper as [125]
In the citing paper
“Mice that were transplanted with stool from patients responding to anti-PD-1 antibodies had higher levels of CD8 T-cell density in tumor tissue.”
From Immune-related adverse events and anti-tumor efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors (2019) · cites this paper as [31]
In the citing paper
“Furthermore, mice transplanted with stool from responding patients also had higher levels of CD8 T-cell concentrations in the gut than those transplanted with stool from non-responders.”
From Immune-related adverse events and anti-tumor efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors (2019) · cites this paper as [31]
In the citing paper
“Significant differences in microbial diversity and composition have been noted between responding and non-responding melanoma patients treated with anti-PD-1 therapy; different studies suggest different species may be enriched in responding versus non-responding patients [30, 31].”
From Immune-related adverse events and anti-tumor efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors (2019) · cites this paper as [31]
In the citing paper
“They collected stool materials from 42 patients with metastatic melanoma before administering PD-1 blockade, and the clinical response rate was 38%, showing that there were 16 responders (R) and 26 non-responders (NR).”
From Gut Microbiome as a Potential Factor for Modulating Resistance to Cancer Immunotherapy (2020) · cites this paper as [55]
In the citing paper
“As expected, PD-1 inhibitor exerted its antitumor activity in mice colonized with R bacteria but was ineffective in NR bacteria colonized mice, thus confirming in vivo the influence of gut microbiome on human immunity.”
From Gut Microbiome as a Potential Factor for Modulating Resistance to Cancer Immunotherapy (2020) · cites this paper as [55]
In the citing paper
“The authors selected 10 bacterial species that were different between R and NR, 8 of those were found to be more abundant in R (including Bifidobacterium, also observed in preclinical studies).”
From Gut Microbiome as a Potential Factor for Modulating Resistance to Cancer Immunotherapy (2020) · cites this paper as [55]
In the citing paper
“For instance, some researchers calculated the proportion of “beneficial” and “non-beneficial” operational taxonomic units and their ratio for every patient and reached a limit conclusion—a ratio of over 1.5 indicated clinical benefit (55).”
From Gut Microbiome as a Potential Factor for Modulating Resistance to Cancer Immunotherapy (2020) · cites this paper as [55]
In the citing paper
“Along the same line, Matson et al. [172] performed a metagenomics characterization of stools samples from melanoma patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors, further corroborating the finding that responders showed a different microbiome compared to those not responding to therapy.”
From Gut Microbiota and Cancer: From Pathogenesis to Therapy (2019) · cites this paper as [172]
In the citing paper
“Multiple translational studies, published in 2018, further support the pivotal role of the gut microbiome in modulating the response to immune checkpoint blockade [170,171,172].”
From Gut Microbiota and Cancer: From Pathogenesis to Therapy (2019) · cites this paper as [172]
In the citing paper
“They identified and functionally proven in vivo the importance of Bifidobacterium longum, Enterococcus faecium and Collinsella aerofaciens in ameliorating anti-PD-L1 efficacy [172].”
From Gut Microbiota and Cancer: From Pathogenesis to Therapy (2019) · cites this paper as [172]
In the citing paper
“Given the multiplicity of effects that gut microbiome may play on the host’s immune system, it is not surprising that emerging studies strongly linked the patients’ microbiome composition with the intrinsic efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors-based immunotherapy, in the treatments of different solid tumors [170,171,172].”
From Gut Microbiota and Cancer: From Pathogenesis to Therapy (2019) · cites this paper as [172]
In the citing paper
“It was reported that the gut microbiota of immunotherapy-sensitive patients was distinct from that of immunotherapy-resistant populations [311, 312].”
From Combination strategies with PD-1/PD-L1 blockade: current advances and future directions (2022) · cites this paper as [312]
Citations
Cites
Controlling the False Discovery Rate: A Practical and Powerful Approach to Multiple Testing
Benjamini, Y., & Hochberg, Y. (1995) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology · doi:10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.x · Cited by 109,482
QIIME allows analysis of high-throughput community sequencing data
Caporaso, J. G., Kuczynski, J., Stombaugh, J., Bittinger, K., Bushman, F. D., Costello, E. K., Fierer, N., Peña, A. G., Goodrich, J. K., Gordon, J. I., et al. (2010) · Nature Methods · doi:10.1038/nmeth.f.303 · Cited by 34,887
PD-1 and PD-L1 Immune Checkpoint Blockade to Treat Breast Cancer
Hartkopf, A. D., Taran, F., Wallwiener, M., Walter, C. B., Krämer, B., Grischke, E., & Brucker, S. Y. (2016) · Breast Care · doi:10.1159/000453569 · Cited by 30,989
Search and clustering orders of magnitude faster than BLAST
Edgar, R. C. (2010) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btq461 · Cited by 21,098
A global reference for human genetic variation
The 1000 Genomes Project Consortium, authors, C., Auton, A., Abecasis, G. R., Steering committee, Altshuler, D. M., Durbin, R. M., Abecasis, G. R., Bentley, D. R., Chakravarti, A., et al. (2015) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature15393 · Cited by 18,247
ANNOVAR: functional annotation of genetic variants from high-throughput sequencing data
Wang, K., Li, M., & Hakonarson, H. H. (2010) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/gkq603 · Cited by 14,724
Safety, activity, and immune correlates of anti–PD-1 antibody in cancer
Topalian, S. L., Hodi, F. S., Brahmer, J. R., Gettinger, S. N., Smith, D. C., McDermott, D. F., Powderly, J. D., Carvajal, R. D., Sosman, J. A., Atkins, M. B., et al. (2012) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1200690 · Cited by 12,628
Aligning sequence reads, clone sequences and assembly contigs with BWA-MEMPreprint
Li, H. (2013) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1303.3997 · Cited by 10,846
Global patterns of 16S rRNA diversity at a depth of millions of sequences per sample
Caporaso, J. G., Lauber, C. L., Walters, W. A., Berg-Lyons, D., Lozupone, C., Turnbaugh, P. J., Fierer, N., & Knight, R. D. (2010) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1000080107 · Cited by 9,944
Near-optimal probabilistic RNA-seq quantification
Bray, N. L., Pimentel, H., Melsted, P., & Pachter, L. (2016) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/nbt.3519 · Cited by 9,723
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 2,801–2,900 of 3,140
Heirali, A., Chen, B., Wong, M., Schneeberger, P. H. H., Rey, V., Spreafico, A., Xu, W., & Coburn, B. A. (2021) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2021.04.27.441693
Un nouveau monde microbien chez l’homme : les candidate phyla radiation (CPR)
Naud, S. (2021) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/2c6ab74fz802bz4a59z8eb9z97ba8ac4edd6
Malignes Melanom und Adipositas: eine Übersichtsarbeit
Zidane, M., Theurich, S., & Schlaak, M. S. (2023) · Aktuelle Dermatologie · doi:10.1055/a-2086-2939
Chandra, J., Wang, H., Hossain, T., Tillett, B. J., Berman, C., Nissen, M. D., Joseph, S. R., Simpson, F., Walpole, E. T., McCaffrey, E., et al. (2026) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-10134278/v1
Microbiological aspects of microbiome analysis
Ansari, S. K., Prakash, H., & Raghav, A. (2026) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-443-40551-8.00008-1
Microbiota as a modulator of drug response: targeting microbial–drug crosstalk in cancer therapy
Zhao, T., Liu, M., Qiu, L. X., Zhang, H., Zhang, N., Liu, Z., Xia, Z., Luo, P., Huang, J., & Cheng, Q. (2026) · Gut Microbes · doi:10.1080/19490976.2026.2651930 · Cited by 1
Mechanisms of resistance to melanoma immunotherapy
Řandová, L., & Kodet, O. (2023) · Onkologie · doi:10.36290/xon.2023.012
Joo, M.-K., Tak, J., Ha, S., Yoon, K., Namgoong, J., & Kim, H. O. (2026) · Frontiers in Microbiology · doi:10.3389/fmicb.2026.1835588
Ruppin, E., & Sinha, S. (2019) · Faculty Opinions – Post-Publication Peer Review of the Biomedical Literature · doi:10.3410/f.736361337.793564548
Хамидов, Ф., Jalolov, O., Nematov, U., Ilmira, U., Mavlyuda, Q., Sayfullayevna, S. M., Alkhawaja, A. S., Gulkhayyo, J., & Siahmansouri, H. (2026) · Seminars in Oncology · doi:10.1016/j.seminoncol.2026.152564
Abedi, A., Moghaddam, M. M., Kachuei, R., & Fooladi, A. A. I. (2026) · Journal of Physiology and Biochemistry · doi:10.1007/s13105-026-01171-5
Variable Selection for High Dimensional Metagenomic Data
Wang, P., & Jiang, H. (2019) · ICSA book series in statistics · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-15310-6_2
Checkmate with Checkpoint Inhibitors: Hope and Hype
Bajpai, J., & Chiplunkar, S. V. (2019) · Indian Journal of Medical and Paediatric Oncology · doi:10.4103/ijmpo.ijmpo_103_19
“[27] Accumulating evidence in preclinical models and patients suggests that gut microbiome affects the therapeutic efficacy of cancer immunotherapy, particularly, of the ICIs.”
BackgroundInfluentialChen, J., & Vitetta, L. (2019) · Cellular Immunology · doi:10.1016/j.cellimm.2019.103957
Fan, Y., Du, L., Luo, Q., Mei, T., Zhou, A., Liu, H., Khan, M. Q., Faxian, G., & Dong, J. (2026) · Frontiers in Immunology · doi:10.3389/fimmu.2026.1932225
Malignes Melanom und Adipositas: eine Übersichtsarbeit
Zidane, M., Theurich, S., & Schlaak, M. S. (2023) · TumorDiagnostik & Therapie · doi:10.1055/a-2037-1458
“Auch beim malignen Melanom wird das Darmmikrobiom als Komponente der Tumormikroumgebung angesehen, die den Metabolismus der Tumorzelle beeinflusst und sowohl bei der Krebspathogenese, der Antitumor-Immunität und beim Therapieansprechen auf Immuntherapien eine Rolle spielt [54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64].”
BackgroundHaque, I., Kambhampati, S., & Banerjee, S. K. (2026) · Cancers · doi:10.3390/cancers18050826
“Preclinical and early clinical studies suggest that intratumoral microbiomes can impact tumor progression and the host’s immune response, thereby significantly shaping immunosurveillance and affecting the efficacy and safety of cancer immunotherapy [45–48].”
Gut Microbiome and Immune Responses in Gastrointestinal Cancer
Laube, R., & Liu, K. (2023) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-981-19-4492-5_11 · Cited by 1
Yi, Y., Shen, L., Shi, W., Xia, F., Zhang, H., Wang, Y., Zhang, J., Wang, Y., Sun, X., Zhang, Z., et al. (2023) · doi:10.1158/1078-0432.c.6529952
Microbiome testing in gastrointestinal cancers: From microbial signatures to clinical translation
Nikitina, D., Morkūnas, E., Šabanas, P., Jonaitis, P., Urbonas, T., Gedgaudiene, G., Gedgaudas, R., Kupčinskienė, K., Macas, A., Simenas, Š., et al. (2026) · Best Practice & Research Clinical Gastroenterology · doi:10.1016/j.bpg.2026.102127
Mikrobiom und der Einfluss auf das Immunsystem (luminal, mukosal, systemisch)
Beimert, A., Anz, D., & Piseddu, I. (2024) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-662-68455-9_16
Potential mechanisms of action of the gut microbiota in antitumour immunity and immunotherapyPreprint
Yin, Q., Ni, J., & Ying, J.-E. (2024) · doi:10.22541/au.170664260.07438524/v1
Cancer Immunotherapy and Toxicity: Biomarkers, Mechanisms and Translational Insights
Lohinai, Z., & Biswas, A. (2026) · IntechOpen eBooks · doi:10.5772/intechopen.1017474
Chen, J., & Qiu, M. (2026) · Gut Medicine · doi:10.1002/gtm2.70023
Perspective Chapter: Microbiome Predictive Value for Immunotherapy Response
Gales, L. N., Ghencea, I. A., Serban, E. C., & Trifanescu, O. G. (2026) · Pharmaceutical science. · doi:10.5772/intechopen.1017715
Gu, Z., Zhang, M., Shen, F., Chen, J., Gu, Y., Gong, Y., Xue, Q., Zhou, H., Liu, Y., Shao, S., et al. (2026) · International Journal of Nanomedicine · doi:10.2147/ijn.s582600 · Cited by 1
Nicklin, A. D., Jordan, A., Price, C. A., Rowe, M., Ilker, N., Mitchell, L. J., Stentz, R., Carding, S. R., Hall, L. J., & Robinson, S. D. (2026) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.64898/2026.06.08.731027
“Similarly, a patient's gut microbiota composition, including Bifidobacterium , has been linked to clinical responses to immune checkpoint blockade in melanoma 25, 26 .”
Abdelkader, M. S., & Salama, M. (2023) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-981-19-3949-5_6-1
Data from A View on Drug Development for Cancer Prevention
Reynolds, A. R., Moschetta, M., Yohannes, A. R., Walcott, F. L., Ashford, M. B., Szűcs, Z., Sarbajna, T., Hadfield, J., Harrison, E., Challis, B., et al. (2023) · doi:10.1158/2159-8290.c.6602824
Scharl, M. M., Truscello, L., Morsy, Y., Hubeli, B., Bürki, M., Ferreira, D. M., Esposito, M., Ramelyte, E., Mangana, J., Gomez, J. P., et al. (2026) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-9278584/v1
The Microbiome and Cancer: A Dangerous Liaison
Meisel, A. (2021) · healthbook TIMES Oncology Hematology · doi:10.36000/hbt.oh.2021.08.035
Pizzutilo, E. G., Romanò, R., Roazzi, L., Agostara, A. G., Oresti, S., Zeppellini, A., Giannetta, L. G., Cerea, G., Signorelli, D., Siena, S., et al. (2023) · doi:10.1158/0008-5472.c.6742369
Microscopie électronique à balayage appliquée en microbiologie clinique : le grand retour !
Haddad, G. (2022) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/0fdc30ffz897az4e11z8b14z2ad50de7751c
Pinon, L., Debache, A., Thuaud, A., Tiraboschi, L., Vella, G., Riou-Ramon, J., Cordier, C., Helal, C., Hersen, P., Rescigno, M., et al. (2026) · Communications Biology · doi:10.1038/s42003-026-10675-1
Yoo, E., & Uchida, A. M. (2026) · Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology · doi:10.1111/jgh.70242
“As pointed out by the authors, checkpoint immuno-therapy efficacy is modulated by several factors including tumor genomic factors and the patient's microbiome, and clinical trials dissecting mechanisms and efficacy are well underway [4, 5].”
Darmbakterien — eine neue Waffe in der Onkologie?
Heßdörfer, E. E. (2018) · Uro-News · doi:10.1007/s00092-018-1951-x
The complexity of cancer immunotherapy illustrated through skin tumors
Vieco-Martí, I., López-Carrasco, A., de la Cruz‐Merino, L., Noguera, R., & Naranjo, T. Á. (2022) · The International Journal of Biological Markers · doi:10.1177/03936155221088884
“Two independent studies have shown that PD1 IT responders in melanoma patients had different gut microbiome profiles to non-responders.(66,67) Furthermore, one of these studies demonstrated that transplantation of PD1 responders’ fecal microbiota into germ-free mice lead to reduced melanoma tumor size and improved res…”
ResultDanlos, F. (2021) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/ff8cb58bzc391z43f8zbd32zc8c4b2cdc725
Microbial Determinants of Immune Activation and Clinical Outcome in Lung Tumor SubtypesPreprint
Valdés, I., Alberto, M., Martínez, E., Francisco, P. B., Paulina, T., Daniel, C. R., Barbara, M., Carolina, P., Estefanía, N.-L., Hector, G., et al. (2025) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-6979772/v1
Resistance to PD-1/PD-L1 blockade: Mechanism and pharmacological strategies
Kim, A. M. J., Lee, N., Chen, H., & Lim, S. (2026) · Pharmacological Research · doi:10.1016/j.phrs.2026.108404
Gut microbiome as a tumor promoter and tumor suppressor
Yadav, T., Syal, R., & Tripathi, C. (2023) · Microsphere · doi:10.59118/yqei2382
Qiao, S., Yang, L., Hao, H., Ding, Q., Ding, F., Chen, Z., Zhang, J., He, Y., Li, M., Xu, J., et al. (2026) · Advanced Science · doi:10.1002/advs.202519942
“In melanoma patients responding to PD-1 blockade, higher Akk abundance correlated with improved outcomes, and fecal microbiota transplantation from responders enhanced anti-tumor immunity and anti-PD-L1 efficacy in germ-free mice [ 12 ].”
Gupta, A. K. (2026) · International Journal of Molecular and Immuno Oncology · doi:10.25259/ijmio_8_2026
Amin, I., Elgebaly, A. S., Mohamed, H. H., Abuelhaded, K., Alam-ElDein, K. M., Ibrahim, A. K., Farag, S. A., Adel, A., Hamdy, M., Elkhawanky, M., et al. (2026) · Clinical & Translational Oncology · doi:10.1007/s12094-026-04500-8
(2021) · Microbiology Australia · doi:10.1071/mav42n2
Pang, T., Zhou, X., & Ge, Z. (2026) · Metabolites · doi:10.3390/metabo16090638
“Although the microbial taxa associated with treatment efficacy are not entirely consistent across cohorts, these findings collectively support an influence of microbiota status on responses to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) [12,84].”
Properties of Bifidobacteria and Their Use for Scientific and Practical Purposes
Николаева, Л. И. (2021) · Biotekhnologiya · doi:10.21519/0234-2758-2021-37-3-3-10
Rejili, M., Farahani, N., Alimohammadi, M., & Hushmandi, K. (2026) · Discover Oncology · doi:10.1007/s12672-026-05260-1 · Cited by 1
A single-strain dropout screen reveals mechanistic links between microbial ecology and metabolismPreprint
Zeng, X., Meng, X., Weakley, A. M., Higginbottom, S. K., Lopez, E. M., Cabrera, A. V., Gray, I. J., DeFelice, B. C., Terasaki, M., Zhao, A., et al. (2026) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.64898/2026.05.23.727446
Cancer immunotherapy : efficacy and safety of a melanin-based vaccine
Cuzzubbo, S. (2021) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/2e1d38a6z8d99z458dza769zb7bccda2b709
Wu, C., Ke, Y., Wan, L., & Xie, X. (2021) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3982290
Fukuhara, M., Sahay, B., Fanger, G. R., & Freguia, C. F. (2026) · Cancer Immunology Immunotherapy · doi:10.1007/s00262-026-04480-2
“We previously demonstrated that the Entero-coccus-secreted Antigen A (SagA), a conserved NlpC/p60 peptidoglycan hydrolase, generates immunostimulatory peptidoglycan fragments, or muropeptides, leading to enhanced efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors through Nod2-dependent signaling [6, 8, 9].”
Genetic profiling of biofilm-associated cancers: Towards personalized medicine
Roy, S., Ghosh, S., Hansda, S., Karmakar, S., Ghosh, G., & Ghosh, S. (2026) · Progress in molecular biology and translational science · doi:10.1016/bs.pmbts.2026.07.002
Review: Heterogeneity in precision oncology — R1/PR6
Tomasik, B., Garbicz, F., Braun, M., et al. (2023) · Cambridge Prisms Precision Medicine · doi:10.1017/pcm.2023.23.pr6
Cancer pharmacomicrobiomics: Targeting microbiota to optimize cancer therapy outcomes
Punuri, S. V., Dagar, W., Vodnala, S., Bhyan, B., & Jangra, S. (2026) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-443-33206-7.00011-x
Novel biomarkers for melanoma immunotherapy
Wong, N. M. A. (2020) · Minerva Access (University of Melbourne)
Phylogeny-Informed Random Forests for Human Microbiome Studies
(2025) · doi:10.1101/2025.11.04.686494
“The dataset included 257 subjects (168 non-respondents; 89 respondents) and 986 microbial features, collected from five different studies [30, 31, 32, 33, 34].”
Phylogeny-informed random forests for human microbiome studies
Koh, H. (2026) · Microbiology Spectrum · doi:10.1128/spectrum.03451-25
Consideration on the Standardization and Industrialization of Human Microbiome Technologies in Japan
Jibiki, T., Sengoku, S., & Kodama, K. (2022) · Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET) · doi:10.23919/picmet53225.2022.9882682
“, melanoma), may potentially be affected by the structure of the intestinal flora of such patients [9].”
BackgroundTakada, K., Cortellini, A., Takamori, S., Mizuki, F., Pinato, D. J., & Shimokawa, M. (2026) · Thoracic Cancer · doi:10.1111/1759-7714.70300
FUNDAMENTAL ONCOLOGY IN 2018: AN OVERVIEW OF THE MOST INTERESTING DISCOVERIES
Имянитов, Е. Н. (2019) · Practical oncology · doi:10.31917/2001001
Microbiome of Genitourinary Tumors: Especially in Prostate Cancer and Kidney Cancer
Min, K., Yun, S. J., Park, H., & Ha, Y. (2021) · Journal of Urologic Oncology · doi:10.22465/kjuo.2021.19.3.136
Mechanisms of action of intestinal microorganisms and advances in head and neck tumors
Su, X., Fa-qiang, M., & Jin, F. (2025) · Discover Oncology · doi:10.1007/s12672-025-02035-y
“…PD-1 inhibition using therapeutic antibodies, Bifidobacterium longum, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Enterococcus faecalis (Enterococcus faecalis) were increased in abundance, suggesting that certain microorganisms in the gut may play a supportive role in enhancing the effects of PD-1 inhibition [64].”
Prospect of interdisciplinary research on gut microbiota and colorectal cancer immunotherapy
Lu, Y., Zhang, Z., Chen, L., Xue, P., Zhang, Y., Li, Y., & Guo, H. (2025) · Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology · doi:10.1016/j.critrevonc.2025.104832 · Cited by 1
Sauerbruch, T. (2018) · Faculty Opinions – Post-Publication Peer Review of the Biomedical Literature · doi:10.3410/f.733283448.793551759
Role du microbiote intestinal et avec anticorps anti-PD1 induit immunesurveillance du cancer du rein
Derosa, L. (2019) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/e3d7f456z3645z487az8659zc864d2b57698
Malignes Melanom und Adipositas: eine Übersichtsarbeit
Zidane, M., Theurich, S., & Schlaak, M. S. (2022) · Adipositas - Ursachen Folgeerkrankungen Therapie · doi:10.1055/a-1849-6722
Nanoparticle pharmacomicrobiomics: Reprogramming the microbiome–immune axis for cancer immunotherapy
Siddiqua, K. S., Farooqui, S. A., Zhang, Y., Wang, L., Zhang, G., Jiang, F., & 文庭池 (2026) · Pharmacological Research · doi:10.1016/j.phrs.2026.108481
Subgroup identification using virtual twins for human microbiome studiesPreprint
Koh, H. (2022) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-1548419/v1
Odenwald, M. A., Lin, H., Lehmann, C. J., Dylla, N. P., Ramanswamy, R., Moran, A., Hutchison, A. L., Stutz, M. R., Cruz, M. D., Adler, E., et al. (2023) · medRxiv · doi:10.1101/2023.02.14.23285927
Emerging Biomarkers of Response to Immunotherapy: Host Characteristics in Breast Cancer
Mathesh, V., & Reddy, S. M. (2025) · Cancer immunotherapy · doi:10.1007/13905_2024_44
THE IMPACT OF ANTIBIOTIC THERAPY ON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF IMMUNOTHERAPY: A REVIEW OF CURRENT EVIDENCE
Zdobylak, D., Kowalska, M., Zieba, A., Domin, M., Całka, J., Ścibisz, K., Ollik, K., Harenza, K., Taranowicz, M., & Kowalczyk, O. (2026) · International Journal of Innovative Technologies in Social Science · doi:10.31435/ijitss.1(49).2026.4882
FÖRÄLDER TILL EN ÄNGEL : Upplevelser av välbefinnande och lidande efter att barn avlidit i cancer
Gunnarsson, A. B., & Nylander, L. (2011) · KTH Publication Database DiVA (KTH Royal Institute of Technology)
The Microbiome and Central Nervous System Tumors
Gregory, T. A., & Weathers, S.-P. S. (2023) · Advances in Oncology · doi:10.1016/j.yao.2023.01.007
南部, 隆. (2020) · 日本歯科保存学雑誌 · doi:10.11471/shikahozon.63.127
Abo, H., Kim, S.-E. G., Ngo, V. L., Kuczma, M., & Gewirtz, A. T. (2026) · Mucosal Immunology · doi:10.1016/j.mucimm.2026.100382
Mikrobiom und Immuntherapien bei Tumorerkrankungen
Holler, E., Weber, D., Heudobler, D., Wolff, D., & Herr, W. (2020) · Wiener klinisches Magazin · doi:10.1007/s00740-019-00324-1
Proteomic biomarker technology for cancer immunotherapy
Fankhauser, R. G., DePatie, N., Berryman, R., Lucero, O. M., & Kulkarni, R. P. (2021) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-323-90949-5.00007-3
Repurposing Drugs in Oncology: Current Evidence and Future Traits
Gharote, M. A. (2026) · Journal of GMC Nagpur · doi:10.5005/jgmc-11030-0021
Luo, Z., Xu, D., Wang, Z., Wu, L., Ou, C., & Ou, Z. (2026) · Genes & Diseases · doi:10.1016/j.gendis.2026.102270 · Cited by 1
Immunotherapy for Gastrointestinal Malignancies
Uğraklı, M., Karaağaç, M., & Artaç, M. (2024) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-80962-1_218-2
Gut microbiota analysis and faecal transplantation to improve surgical outcomes
Cunningham, A., & Harris, D. A. (2023) · British journal of surgery · doi:10.1093/bjs/znad102
Wu, Z., & Liao, Z. (2026) · Mathematics · doi:10.3390/math14142455
Sleilaty, C., Hnein, M., Lattouf, T., Gemayel, T., Attieh, F., Kreidy, T., Sarkis, K., Bark, M., Hoteit, M., Chebly, A., et al. (2026) · Toxins · doi:10.3390/toxins18090361
“%) than the 26 non-responders (62%); A. muciniphila showed a consistent, though not independently significant, association with response, having been detected exclusively in responding patients [117,118].”
The Dual Role of the Gut Microbiota in Cancer Chemoresistance
Tahmasebi, H., Bahar, A., Khazaei, M., & Arabestani, M. R. (2026) · MicrobiologyOpen · doi:10.1002/mbo3.70357 · Cited by 2
“It was observed that recipient mice showed better tumor control than those receiving microbiota from non-responder patients, thereby confirming a possible causal link between the two (Matson et al. 2018).”
From Womb to World: Unravelling the Microbiota′s Impact on Health and Disease
Poterico, J. A., Babu, R. V., Jaramillo‐Valverde, L., Sánchez, C., Alayo, E. C., Valdivia‐Silva, J., & Guio, H. (2026) · International Journal of Microbiology · doi:10.1155/ijm/9228548
“Faecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) from treat-ment responders or supplementation with bacterial taxa depleted in nonresponders into mice enhanced the efficacy of anti-PD1 treatment, accompanied by improved antitumor T cell responses [93, 96].”
Peptidoglycan Suppresses Melanoma Growth in a Murine Model with Local Immune Activation
Ichikawa, A., Nakanishi, T., Nishimura, M., Ichishi, M., Matsushima, Y., Kondo, M., & Yamanaka, K. (2026) · International Journal of Molecular Sciences · doi:10.3390/ijms27198584
Messaoudene, M., Derosa, L., Belkaïd, W., & Routy, B. (2018) · médecine/sciences · doi:10.1051/medsci/20183408009
Pharmacomicrobiomics in inflammatory skin diseases: past, present, and the future
Khang, J., Martinez, R., Brag, K., & McGee, J. S. (2026) · Frontiers in Microbiology · doi:10.3389/fmicb.2025.1745985 · Cited by 1
“…enrichment of species within the Ruminococcaceae family, including Faecalibacterium prausnitzii , as well as Bifidobacterium longum and Collinsella aerofaciens (Limeta et al., 2020; Barragan-Carrillo et al., 2025; Lim et al., 2024; Lu et al., 2022; Matson et al., 2018; Gopalakrishnan et al., 2018).”
Probiotics Based Anticancer Immunity in Skin Cancer
Kingkaew, E., & Tanasupawat, S. (2023) · BENTHAM SCIENCE PUBLISHERS eBooks · doi:10.2174/9789815124781123030006
Adam, M., Venugopal, A., Almohana, A., Awadallah, M., Purohit, P., Abid, A., Jose, E., Rajendiran, A., Banka, P., Ilipilla, C., et al. (2026) · Cell Cycle · doi:10.1080/15384101.2026.2725418
Le microbiote intestinal influence la réponse aux immunothérapies
de Nonneville, A. T. (2019) · Bulletin du Cancer · doi:10.1016/j.bulcan.2018.12.004
Kittakoop, P. (2021) · Biochemistry · doi:10.5772/intechopen.92840
Microbiome-Based Therapeutics in Oncology: Expanding Indications Beyond C. difficile
Al-Omari, A., Kheshman, A., Morkos, P., Davanzo, K., & Monday, L. (2026) · Onco · doi:10.3390/onco6030047
Metadata
- Authors
- Matson, V., Fessler, J., Bao, R., Chongsuwat, T., Zha, Y., Alegre, M.-L., Luke, J. J., & Gajewski, T. F.
- Affiliations
- University of Chicago (US)
- Corresponding author
- Matson, Vyara
- Fessler, Jessica
- Bao, Riyue
- Gajewski, Thomas F.
- ORCID
- Venue
- Science
- Published
- 2018-01-05
- Volume
- 359
- Issue
- 6371
- Pages
- 104-108
- ISSN
- 0036-8075 (ISSN-L)
- 1095-9203
- PMC
- PMC6707353
- OpenAlex
- W2782333299
- Cited by
- 3,107
- References
- 55
- Citations by year
- 2026: 342 · 2025: 355 · 2024: 351 · 2023: 406 · 2022: 440 · 2021: 403 · 2020: 366 · 2019: 280 · 2018: 158
- FWCI
- 113.20
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Science (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- National Cancer Institute (T32 CA009594)
- Melanoma Research Alliance (CA210098)
- University of Chicago Medicine Comprehensive Cancer Center
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer Immunotherapy and Biomarkers
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gut microbiota and health
- Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Immunology › T-cell and B-cell Immunology
- Keywords
- gut microbiota, anti-PD-1 therapy, metastatic melanoma, Akkermansia muciniphila, antibiotic use, cancer immunotherapy response, gut dysbiosis, lung cancer, kidney cancer, immune cell activity
- MeSH terms
- Gastrointestinal Microbiome, Bifidobacterium longum, Animals, Antibodies, Monoclonal, Feces, Humans, Immunotherapy, Melanoma, RNA, Ribosomal, 16S, Skin Neoplasms, T-Lymphocytes, Enterococcus faecium, Mice, Programmed Cell Death 1 Receptor
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-09-28, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-09-28 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
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
