Cited by 236Gut microbiota and healthMicrobial Community Ecology and PhysiologyBacterial Identification and Susceptibility Testing

The contribution of culturomics to the repertoire of isolated human bacterial and archaeal species

Open access
Bilen, Melhem, Dufour, Jean-Charles, Lagier, Jean-Christophe, Cadoret, Fréderic, Daoud, Ziad, Dubourg, Grégory, Raoult, Didier·2018·Microbiome

Abstract

After a decade of research and metagenomic analyses, our knowledge of the human microbiota appears to have reached a plateau despite promising results. In many studies, culture has proven to be essential in describing new prokaryotic species and filling metagenomic gaps. In 2015, only 2172 different prokaryotic species were reported to have been isolated at least once from the human body as pathogens or commensals. In this review, we update the previous repertoire by reporting the different species isolated from the human body to date, increasing it by 28% to reach a total of 2776 species associated with human beings. They have been classified into 11 different phyla, mostly the Firmicutes, Proteobacteria, Bacteroidetes, and Actinobacteria. Finally, culturomics contributed up to 66.2% towards updating this repertoire by reporting 400 species, of which 288 were novel. This demonstrates the need to continue the culturing work, which seems essential in order to decipher the hidden human microbial content.

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 · 10.1186/s40168-018-0485-5

Cites

90 of 90 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

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

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

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • These species have been classified into 11 different phyla, with Proteobacteria, Firmicutes, Actinobacteria and Bacteroidetes comprising over 90% of the microbiome.

    “These have been classified into 11 different phyla with Proteobacteria, Firmicutes, Actinobacteria and Bacteroidetes comprising over 90% of the microbiome (Bilen et al., 2018;Hu-gon et al., 2015;Li et al., 2014)”

    From The Microbiota-Gut-Brain Axis (2019) · cites this paper as Bilen et al., 2018

    The Abstract says the 2,776 species isolated from humans were classified into 11 phyla, mostly the four named. Table 1 in “The human bacterial repertoire: where do we stand?” lists 2,614 species in those four phyla—about 94% of the isolated-species repertoire. It does not establish that they comprise over 90% of the microbiome as a whole. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Current combined Human Microbiome Project and MetaHIT data estimate that there are at least 2776 prokaryotic species isolated from human fecal matter.

    “Current combined Human Microbiome Project and MetaHIT data estimate that there are at least 2776 prokaryotic species that have been isolated from human fecal matter.”

    From The Microbiota-Gut-Brain Axis (2019) · cites this paper as Bilen et al., 2018

    In “The human bacterial repertoire: where do we stand?” (page unavailable), the paper reports 2,776 species isolated at least once from the human body, not from fecal matter. The Conclusion says these species came from different body sites. The paper derives the total by adding its data to Hugon et al.’s 2015 repertoire, not by combining Human Microbiome Project and MetaHIT data. (LLM, conf=0.89)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

3 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bilen, M., Dufour, J.-C., Lagier, J.-C., Cadoret, F., Daoud, Z., Dubourg, G., & Raoult, D.
Affiliations
  • University of Balamand (LB)
  • Inserm (FR)
  • Aix-Marseille Université (FR)
  • Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Marseille (FR)
  • King Abdulaziz University (SA)
Corresponding author
Raoult, Didier
Venue
Microbiome
Published
2018-05-24
Volume
6
Issue
1
Pages
94-94
ISSN
2049-2618 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2807527107
Cited by
231
References
90
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 38 · 2022: 27 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 36 · 2019: 31 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 1
FWCI
2.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Microbiome (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
IHU Méditerranée Infection
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gut microbiota and health
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Microbial Community Ecology and Physiology
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Clinical Biochemistry › Bacterial Identification and Susceptibility Testing
Keywords
culturomics, human microbiota, new species, Firmicutes, Proteobacteria, Bacteroidetes, actinobacteria
MeSH terms
Firmicutes, Bacillota, Gastrointestinal Microbiome, Archaea, Bacteria, DNA, Bacterial, Humans, DNA, Archaeal, Proteobacteria, Actinobacteria, Bacteroidetes, Metagenomics

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