The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Comparison of methods for fecal microbiome biospecimen collection
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Effective means are needed to efficiently collect fecal samples for microbiome analysis in large-scale epidemiological studies. Using twenty-four fecal aliquots prepared from three healthy individuals, we compared the following four fecal sample collection methods for assessment of human gut microbiome: 1) fecal occult blood test cards, held at room temperature for three days, 2) Eppendorf tubes, at room temperature for three days, 3) Eppendorf tubes with RNAlater, at room temperature, and 4) as controls, samples immediately frozen at -80°C. The 24 samples were assayed by 16S rRNA gene sequencing to compare overall microbiome structure and taxon distributions according to collection method. RESULTS: Storing fecal occult blood test card samples at room temperature for three days did not affect total DNA purity and relative 16S rRNA bacterial gene contents, compared with fresh frozen collection. Overall microbiome structure, based on phylogenetic UniFrac index, differed significantly by subject (p = 0.001), but microbiome structure (p = 0.497) and relative abundance of major microbial taxa (phyla) (p > 0.05) did not differ significantly by collection method. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that low-cost fecal occult blood test card collection may be a feasible means of sample collection for fecal microbiome assessment in large-scale population-based studies.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Cited by
Current challenges and best-practice protocols for microbiome analysis
Bharti, R., & Grimm, D. G. (2021) · Briefings in Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bib/bbz155 · Cited by 592
The Madness of Microbiome: Attempting To Find Consensus “Best Practice” for 16S Microbiome Studies
Pollock, J., Glendinning, L., Wisedchanwet, T., & Watson, M. (2018) · Applied and Environmental Microbiology · doi:10.1128/aem.02627-17 · Cited by 575
Current Sampling Methods for Gut Microbiota: A Call for More Precise Devices
Tang, Q., Jin, G., Wang, G., Liu, T., Liu, X., Wang, B., & Cao, H. (2020) · Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology · doi:10.3389/fcimb.2020.00151 · Cited by 455
Colorectal Cancer and the Human Gut Microbiome: Reproducibility with Whole-Genome Shotgun Sequencing
Vogtmann, E., Hua, X., Zeller, G., Sunagawa, S., Voigt, A. Y., Hercog, R., Goedert, J. J., Shi, J., Bork, P., & Sinha, R. (2016) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0155362 · Cited by 366
Boers, S. A., Jansen, R., & Hays, J. P. (2019) · European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1007/s10096-019-03520-3 · Cited by 283
Metadata
- Authors
- Dominianni, C., Wu, J., Hayes, R. B., & Ahn, J.
- Venue
- BMC Microbiology
- Published
- 2014-04-23
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 103-103
- ISSN
- 1471-2180 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2049933107
- Cited by
- 170
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 5.84
- 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: Comparison of methods for fecal microbiome biospecimen collection. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/1471-2180-14-103
- The paper
- Dominianni, C., Wu, J., Hayes, R. B., & Ahn, J. (2014). Comparison of methods for fecal microbiome biospecimen collection. BMC Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2180-14-103
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.