Cited by 700Gut microbiota and healthGastrointestinal motility and disordersAnimal Nutrition and Physiology

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 73 of the 73 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 46 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

The composition of the gut microbiota shapes the colon mucus barrier

Open access
Jakobsson, Hedvig E, Rodríguez‐Piñeiro, Ana M, Schütte, André, Ermund, Anna, Boysen, Preben, Bemark, Mats, Sommer, Felix, Bäckhed, Fredrik, Hansson, Gunnar C, Johansson, Malin EV·2015·The EMBO Reports

Abstract

Two C57BL/6 mice colonies maintained in two rooms of the same specific pathogen-free (SPF) facility were found to have different gut microbiota and a mucus phenotype that was specific for each colony. The thickness and growth of the colon mucus were similar in the two colonies. However, one colony had mucus that was impenetrable to bacteria or beads the size of bacteria-which is comparable to what we observed in free-living wild mice-whereas the other colony had an inner mucus layer penetrable to bacteria and beads. The different properties of the mucus depended on the microbiota, as they were transmissible by transfer of caecal microbiota to germ-free mice. Mice with an impenetrable mucus layer had increased amounts of Erysipelotrichi, whereas mice with a penetrable mucus layer had higher levels of Proteobacteria and TM7 bacteria in the distal colon mucus. Thus, our study shows that bacteria and their community structure affect mucus barrier properties in ways that can have implications for health and disease. It also highlights that genetically identical animals housed in the same facility can have rather distinct microbiotas and barrier structures.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.15252/embr.201439263

Cites

73 of 73 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 of 46 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

Show all 69 claims

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 43
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 22
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1
56 of 56
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The two C57BL/6 colonies are genetically identical.

    “It also highlights that genetically identical animals housed in the same facility can have rather distinct microbiotas and barrier structures.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Before this study, the possibility that microbiota stimulates the host to develop a more protective mucus layer had not been explored.

    “The possibility that the microbiota stimulates the host to develop a mucus layer with improved protective properties has not been explored.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Colonization of germ-free mice with caecal microbiota from a room reproduces that room's relevant microbiota composition.

    “germ-free mice were colonized with caecal microbiota from mice in the two rooms.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Housing colonized germ-free mice in the corresponding room does not introduce room-specific effects that confound the mucus phenotype.

    “The separate groups of colonized mice were subsequently housed in either room.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Free-living wild mice provide a valid reference for a normal protective colon mucus phenotype.

    “The mucus phenotypes were compared with wild normally free-living mice caught in their natural habitat to elucidate the protective properties of natural occurring mucus.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The gut microbiota is required for gut inflammation.

    “The gut microbiota is a prerequisite for inflammation in the gut and an imbalance in the microbiota in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) has been suggested 35.”
6 of 6

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?

Self-check

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

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Ki67 result cites the lamina propria panel

    Minor

    The text cites Fig. 4F for the increase in Ki67-labelled cells, but the figure caption identifies panel F as the lamina propria cell count. It assigns the Ki67-positive cell count to panel G.

  • Helicobacteraceae genus exceeds its reported class abundance

    Minor

    For Room 2 distal colon lumen, Table 1 reports 1% for the Helicobacteraceae genus but only 0.02% for its parent class, Epsilonproteobacteria. A genus cannot have greater relative abundance than the class containing it.

  • Immune-cell count cites the Ki67 panel

    Minor

    The text cites Fig. 4G for the lamina propria immune-cell count, but the figure caption identifies panel G as the Ki67-positive cell count. The caption assigns the lamina propria count to panel F.

3 of 3

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 73 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 501–600 of 685

Metadata

Authors
Jakobsson, H. E., Rodríguez‐Piñeiro, A. M., Schütte, A., Ermund, A., Boysen, P., Bemark, M., Sommer, F., Bäckhed, F., Hansson, G. C., & Johansson, M. E.
Affiliations
  • University of Gothenburg (SE)
  • Norwegian University of Life Sciences (NO)
  • Sahlgrenska University Hospital (SE)
Corresponding author
Johansson, Malin EV
Venue
The EMBO Reports
Published
2014-12-18
Volume
16
Issue
2
Pages
164-177
ISSN
  • 1469-221X (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-3178
OpenAlex
W2103108588
Cited by
700
References
73
Citations by year
2026: 29 · 2025: 38 · 2024: 67 · 2023: 58 · 2022: 103 · 2021: 93 · 2020: 78 · 2019: 65 · 2018: 52 · 2017: 49 · 2016: 37 · 2015: 31
FWCI
15.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Update notices
addendum (2015-08-25)
Open access
Locations
  • EMBO Reports (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Swedish Research Council (7461, 21027, 22220‐01‐5)
  • The Sahlgrenska Academy
  • National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (U01AI095473, U01AI095776‐03:9006862)
  • The Swedish Cancer Foundation
  • The Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation
  • IngaBritt and Arne Lundberg Foundation
  • Sahlgren's University Hospital
  • Wilhelm and Martina Lundgren's Foundation
  • Assar Gabrielsson's foundation
  • Clas Groschinskys foundation
  • Torsten och Ragnar Söderbergs Stiftelser
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gut microbiota and health
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Gastroenterology › Gastrointestinal motility and disorders
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Animal Science and Zoology › Animal Nutrition and Physiology
Keywords
gut microbiota, mucus permeability, mucus layer thickness, Proteobacteria, germ-free mice, C57BL/6 mice, host-microbe interactions
MeSH terms
Animals, Female, Intestinal Mucosa, Mice, Inbred C57BL, Mucus, RNA, Ribosomal, 16S, Specific Pathogen-Free Organisms, Mice, Microbiota

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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-07, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-07 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

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