Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 447

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 38 of the 38 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Same Exposure but Two Radically Different Responses to Antibiotics: Resilience of the Salivary Microbiome versus Long-Term Microbial Shifts in Feces

Open access
Zaura, Egija, Brandt, Bernd W., Teixeira de Mattos, M. Joost, Buijs, Mark J., Caspers, Martien P. M., Rashid, Mamun-Ur, Weintraub, Andrej, Nord, Carl Erik, Savell, Ann, Hu, Yanmin, Coates, Antony R., Hubank, Mike, Spratt, David A., Wilson, Michael, Keijser, Bart J. F., Crielaard, Wim·2015·mBio

Abstract

Due to the spread of resistance, antibiotic exposure receives increasing attention. Ecological consequences for the different niches of individual microbiomes are, however, largely ignored. Here, we report the effects of widely used antibiotics (clindamycin, ciprofloxacin, amoxicillin, and minocycline) with different modes of action on the ecology of both the gut and the oral microbiomes in 66 healthy adults from the United Kingdom and Sweden in a two-center randomized placebo-controlled clinical trial. Feces and saliva were collected at baseline, immediately after exposure, and 1, 2, 4, and 12 months after administration of antibiotics or placebo. Sequences of 16S rRNA gene amplicons from all samples and metagenomic shotgun sequences from selected baseline and post-antibiotic-treatment sample pairs were analyzed. Additionally, metagenomic predictions based on 16S rRNA gene amplicon data were performed using PICRUSt. The salivary microbiome was found to be significantly more robust, whereas the antibiotics negatively affected the fecal microbiome: in particular, health-associated butyrate-producing species became strongly underrepresented. Additionally, exposure to different antibiotics enriched genes associated with antibiotic resistance. In conclusion, healthy individuals, exposed to a single antibiotic treatment, undergo considerable microbial shifts and enrichment in antibiotic resistance in their feces, while their salivary microbiome composition remains unexpectedly stable. The health-related consequences for the gut microbiome should increase the awareness of the individual risks involved with antibiotic use, especially in a (diseased) population with an already dysregulated microbiome. On the other hand, understanding the mechanisms behind the resilience of the oral microbiome toward ecological collapse might prove useful in combating microbial dysbiosis elsewhere in the body. IMPORTANCE Many health care professionals use antibiotic prophylaxis strategies to prevent infection after surgery. This practice is under debate since it enhances the spread of antibiotic resistance. Another important reason to avoid nonessential use of antibiotics, the impact on our microbiome, has hardly received attention. In this study, we assessed the impact of antibiotics on the human microbial ecology at two niches. We followed the oral and gut microbiomes in 66 individuals from before, immediately after, and up to 12 months after exposure to different antibiotic classes. The salivary microbiome recovered quickly and was surprisingly robust toward antibiotic-induced disturbance. The fecal microbiome was severely affected by most antibiotics: for months, health-associated butyrate-producing species became strongly underrepresented. Additionally, there was an enrichment of genes associated with antibiotic resistance. Clearly, even a single antibiotic treatment in healthy individuals contributes to the risk of resistance development and leads to long-lasting detrimental shifts in the gut microbiome.

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 · 10.1128/mbio.01693-15

Cites

38 of 38 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 38 references

Cited by

See all 447

Metadata

Authors
Zaura, E., Brandt, B. W., Teixeira de Mattos, M. J., Buijs, M. J., Caspers, M. P. M., Rashid, M.-U., Weintraub, A., Nord, C. E., Savell, A., Hu, Y., Coates, A. R., Hubank, M., Spratt, D. A., Wilson, M., Keijser, B. J. F., & Crielaard, W.
Venue
mBio
Published
2015-12-31
Volume
6
Issue
6
Pages
e01693-15
ISSN
  • 2150-7511 (ISSN-L)
  • 2161-2129
OpenAlex
W2174506646
Cited by
447
References
38
FWCI
12.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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: Same Exposure but Two Radically Different Responses to Antibiotics: Resilience of the Salivary Microbiome versus Long-Term Microbial Shifts in Feces. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1128/mbio.01693-15
The paper
Zaura, E., Brandt, B. W., Teixeira de Mattos, M. J., Buijs, M. J., Caspers, M. P. M., Rashid, M.-U., Weintraub, A., Nord, C. E., Savell, A., Hu, Y., Coates, A. R., Hubank, M., Spratt, D. A., Wilson, M., Keijser, B. J. F., & Crielaard, W. (2015). Same Exposure but Two Radically Different Responses to Antibiotics: Resilience of the Salivary Microbiome versus Long-Term Microbial Shifts in Feces. mBio. https://doi.org/10.1128/mbio.01693-15

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.