Cited by 370Gut microbiota and healthOral microbiology and periodontitis researchClostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens research

Colorectal Cancer and the Human Gut Microbiome: Reproducibility with Whole-Genome Shotgun Sequencing

Open access
Vogtmann, Emily, Hua, Xing, Zeller, Georg, Sunagawa, Shinichi, Voigt, Anita Y., Hercog, Rajna, Goedert, James J., Shi, Jianxin +2 more·2016·PLOS ONE

Abstract

Accumulating evidence indicates that the gut microbiota affects colorectal cancer development, but previous studies have varied in population, technical methods, and associations with cancer. Understanding these variations is needed for comparisons and for potential pooling across studies. Therefore, we performed whole-genome shotgun sequencing on fecal samples from 52 pre-treatment colorectal cancer cases and 52 matched controls from Washington, DC. We compared findings from a previously published 16S rRNA study to the metagenomics-derived taxonomy within the same population. In addition, metagenome-predicted genes, modules, and pathways in the Washington, DC cases and controls were compared to cases and controls recruited in France whose specimens were processed using the same platform. Associations between the presence of fecal Fusobacteria, Fusobacterium, and Porphyromonas with colorectal cancer detected by 16S rRNA were reproduced by metagenomics, whereas higher relative abundance of Clostridia in cancer cases based on 16S rRNA was merely borderline based on metagenomics. This demonstrated that within the same sample set, most, but not all taxonomic associations were seen with both methods. Considering significant cancer associations with the relative abundance of genes, modules, and pathways in a recently published French metagenomics dataset, statistically significant associations in the Washington, DC population were detected for four out of 10 genes, three out of nine modules, and seven out of 17 pathways. In total, colorectal cancer status in the Washington, DC study was associated with 39% of the metagenome-predicted genes, modules, and pathways identified in the French study. More within and between population comparisons are needed to identify sources of variation and disease associations that can be reproduced despite these variations. Future studies should have larger sample sizes or pool data across studies to have sufficient power to detect associations that are reproducible and significant after correction for multiple testing.

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.0155362

Cites

31 of 31 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?

  • Whole-genome shotgun metagenomic sequencing provides more comprehensive taxonomic and functional characterization than 16S rRNA sequencing.

    “In contrast to 16S rRNA sequencing, whole-genome shotgun metagenomic sequencing provides more comprehensive taxonomic and functional characterization, encompassing broader genomic content and enabling higher-resolution bacterial community profiling.”

    From Microbiome meets immunotherapy: unlocking the hidden predictors of immune checkpoint inhibitors (2025) · cites this paper as [147]

    The Introduction says whole-genome shotgun sequencing provides bacterial composition profiles and estimates of functional potential, including gene-level associations unavailable from the 16S rRNA data. The Bioinformatics section reports taxonomic profiles from species to phylum, while the Discussion reports different taxon-detection rates between methods. The paper does not establish that shotgun sequencing generally provides higher-resolution taxonomic profiling; it says the reasons for the observed detection differences are unclear. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Besides Fusobacterium, other oral bacteria and periodontal disease markers are enriched in colorectal tumors and feces, including Porphyromonas, Peptostreptococcus, and Parvimonas micra.

    “Besides Fusobacterium, other oral bacteria and markers of periodontal disease are enriched in colorectal tumors and feces of patients, including the genera of Porphyromonas and Peptostreptococcus, and Parvimonas micra.15, 35, 37, 38, 53”
  • Fecal microbiome studies using 16S rRNA or shotgun metagenomic sequencing found Fusobacterium nucleatum increased in fecal samples from colorectal cancer or adenoma patients compared with controls.

    “studies of fecal microbiomes that used either 16s rRNA or shotgun metagenomic sequencing found that F nucleatum to be increased in fecal samples from patients with CRC or adenoma compared with controls (Table 1).15, 18, 35–39”
  • Compared with controls, colorectal cancer patients had lower abundances of Bifidobacterium and Lactobacillus spp. and other short-chain fatty acid-producing bacteria such as Clostridium, Roseburia, Lachnospiraceae, and Faecalibacterium prausnitzii.

    “several studies have shown that compared with controls, patients with CRC had lower abundances of Bifidobacterium and Lactobacillus spp,16, 18 and other SCFA-producing bacteria, such as the genera Clostridium and Roseburia, the family Lachnospiraceae, and Faecalibacterium prausnitzii.15, 35, 37, 45, 53, 129”

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

1 of the 32 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Vogtmann, E., Hua, X., Zeller, G., Sunagawa, S., Voigt, A. Y., Hercog, R., Goedert, J. J., Shi, J., Bork, P., & Sinha, R.
Affiliations
  • National Cancer Institute (US)
  • European Molecular Biology Laboratory (DE)
  • German Cancer Research Center (DE)
Corresponding author
Vogtmann, Emily
Venue
PLOS ONE
Published
2016-05-12
Volume
11
Issue
5
Pages
e0155362
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2377027462
Cited by
366
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 32 · 2025: 42 · 2024: 46 · 2023: 34 · 2022: 44 · 2021: 44 · 2020: 53 · 2019: 25 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 23 · 2016: 3
FWCI
12.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • MDC Repository (Max-Delbrueck-Center for Molecular Medicine) (acceptedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Online Publication Service of Würzburg University (Würzburg University) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
Funders
  • National Cancer Institute (Intramural Research Program)
  • European Research Council (268985)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gut microbiota and health
  • Health Sciences › Dentistry › Periodontics › Oral microbiology and periodontitis research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › Clostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens research
Keywords
colorectal cancer, gut microbiota, metagenomics, 16S rRNA, whole genome shotgun sequencing, reproducibility, Fusobacterium, Porphyromonas, Clostridia, fecal microbiota, cross-population comparison
MeSH terms
Gastrointestinal Microbiome, District of Columbia, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, RNA, Ribosomal, 16S, Colorectal Neoplasms, Reproducibility of Results, Genome, Human, Case-Control Studies, Sequence Analysis, DNA

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