Cited by 572Gut microbiota and healthOral microbiology and periodontitis researchMicrobial Community Ecology and Physiology

A Core Human Microbiome as Viewed through 16S rRNA Sequence Clusters

Open access
Huse, Susan M., Ye, Yuzhen, Zhou, Yanjiao, Fodor, Anthony A.·2012·PLoS ONE

Abstract

We explore the microbiota of 18 body sites in over 200 individuals using sequences amplified V1-V3 and the V3-V5 small subunit ribosomal RNA (16S) hypervariable regions as part of the NIH Common Fund Human Microbiome Project. The body sites with the greatest number of core OTUs, defined as OTUs shared amongst 95% or more of the individuals, were the oral sites (saliva, tongue, cheek, gums, and throat) followed by the nose, stool, and skin, while the vaginal sites had the fewest number of OTUs shared across subjects. We found that commonalities between samples based on taxonomy could sometimes belie variability at the sub-genus OTU level. This was particularly apparent in the mouth where a given genus can be present in many different oral sites, but the sub-genus OTUs show very distinct site selection, and in the vaginal sites, which are consistently dominated by the Lactobacillus genus but have distinctly different sub-genus V1-V3 OTU populations across subjects. Different body sites show approximately a ten-fold difference in estimated microbial richness, with stool samples having the highest estimated richness, followed by the mouth, throat and gums, then by the skin, nasal and vaginal sites. Richness as measured by the V1-V3 primers was consistently higher than richness measured by V3-V5. We also show that when such a large cohort is analyzed at the genus level, most subjects fit the stool "enterotype" profile, but other subjects are intermediate, blurring the distinction between the enterotypes. When analyzed at the finer-scale, OTU level, there was little or no segregation into stool enterotypes, but in the vagina distinct biotypes were apparent. Finally, we note that even OTUs present in nearly every subject, or that dominate in some samples, showed orders of magnitude variation in relative abundance emphasizing the highly variable nature across individuals.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0034242

Cites

14 of 14 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?

  • The composition of the skin microflora varies in different regions of the body and, to lesser degrees, in different individuals and from time to time.

    “The composition of the skin microflora varies in different regions of the body and, to lesser degrees, in different individuals and from time to time.8”

    From The Innate Immune System in Acute and Chronic Wounds (2016) · cites this paper as [8]

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [2]Aargaard K, Petrosino J, Keitel W, Watson M, Katancik J, et al. (in review) A Comprehensive Strategy for Sampling the Human Microbiome. Nature

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Huse, S. M., Ye, Y., Zhou, Y., & Fodor, A. A.
Affiliations
  • Marine Biological Laboratory (US)
  • Indiana University Bloomington (US)
  • Washington University in St. Louis (US)
  • University of North Carolina at Charlotte (US)
Corresponding author
Huse, Susan M.
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2012-06-13
Volume
7
Issue
6
Pages
e34242
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2120083902
Cited by
572
References
14
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 43 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 52 · 2020: 55 · 2019: 44 · 2018: 49 · 2017: 33 · 2016: 46 · 2015: 47 · 2014: 65 · 2013: 45 · 2012: 17
FWCI
22.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Digital Commons@Becker (Washington University School of Medicine) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • IUScholarWorks (Indiana University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (0960626)
  • National Institutes of Health
  • U.S. Public Health Service (NIH-NHGRI U54HG004968)
  • National Human Genome Research Institute (NIH 1R01HG004908, U54HG004968, R01HG004908)
  • National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (UH2DK083993)
  • Common Fund
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gut microbiota and health
  • Health Sciences › Dentistry › Periodontics › Oral microbiology and periodontitis research
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Microbial Community Ecology and Physiology
Keywords
human microbiome, core microbiome, 16S rRNA, OTU diversity, microbial richness, oral microbiota, vaginal microbiota, Lactobacillus, body site comparison, Human Microbiome Project
MeSH terms
Humans, Reference Values, RNA, Ribosomal, 16S, Metagenome

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