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 accessAbstract
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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
69 Own result · 31 Not checked yet · 17 Own interpretation · 5 No basis given · 3 Own method
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
- Also stated in: § Bacterial composition in the two husbandries · boosted
“The microbiota throughout the gut thus clearly differed between the two colonies housed in adjacent rooms in the same animal facility.”
§ The composition of the gut microbiota shapes the colon mucus barrier > Abstract
boostedn = 6- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Bacterial composition in the two husbandries · boosted
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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 composition of the gut microbiota shapes the colon mucus barrier > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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 composition of the gut microbiota shapes the colon mucus barrier > Abstract
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ The composition of the gut microbiota shapes the colon mucus barrier > Abstract
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ The composition of the gut microbiota shapes the colon mucus barrier > Abstract
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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 composition of the gut microbiota shapes the colon mucus barrier > Abstract
plaincorrelationaln = 6- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Nevertheless, these mice often had an even more developed mucus layer than observed in Room 1, which further supports the influence of the microbiota on mucus and that the Room 1 can be considered as a reasonable model.”
§ The composition of the gut microbiota shapes the colon mucus barrier > Discussion
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A good separation of bacteria and epithelium by a stratified inner mucus layer was only present in mice from Room 1 (Fig4A).”
§ The composition of the gut microbiota shapes the colon mucus barrier > Results > Bacteria penetration in mucus and histology of mice in different husbandries
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The Clostridia class was significantly more abundant in ileum mucus and caecum samples of Room 2 (Fig1E, Table1).”
§ The composition of the gut microbiota shapes the colon mucus barrier > Results > Bacterial composition in the two husbandries
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Proteobacteria was also generally more abundant in Room 2 (Supplementary Fig S4, Table1).”
§ The composition of the gut microbiota shapes the colon mucus barrier > Results > Bacterial composition in the two husbandries
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 43
- Probably not a substantial claim. 22
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The thickness and growth of the colon mucus were similar in the two colonies.”
- Also stated in: § Differences in the mucus quality in mice from the two husbandries · plain
“The thickness of the inner mucus layer as well as the mucus growth did not differ significantly between the two rooms on either food (Fig3B).”
§ The composition of the gut microbiota shapes the colon mucus barrier > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Differences in the mucus quality in mice from the two husbandries · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Immunohistochemistry revealed that the bacteria were separated from the epithelium by a well-stratified mucus layer in Room 1, but bacteria were in close proximity to the epithelium of mice colonized with microbiota from Room 2 (Fig5D).”
§ The composition of the gut microbiota shapes the colon mucus barrier > Results > The two different mucus phenotypes were reproduced by colonization of germ-free mice
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“On Food A, the mice bred in Room 1 were significantly heavier compared to mice bred in Room 2 (P = 0.022, Supplementary Fig S1A).”
§ The composition of the gut microbiota shapes the colon mucus barrier > Results > Bacterial composition in the two husbandries
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The small intestinal mucus is normally easily removed by aspiration, and the thickness was measured before (pre) and after (post) aspiration. No differences were observed between the rooms or diets (Fig3A).”
§ The composition of the gut microbiota shapes the colon mucus barrier > Results > Differences in the mucus quality in mice from the two husbandries
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The major difference between the lumen- and mucus-associated microbiota was found in the distal colon where the phyla Deferribacteres had higher abundance in both rooms (Supplementary Fig S4, Table1).”
§ The composition of the gut microbiota shapes the colon mucus barrier > Results > Bacterial composition in the two husbandries
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When bacteria were localized in relation to the colon mucus using fluorescent in situ hybridization, bacteria penetrated the inner mucus layer at distinct locations. A separation between epithelium and bacteria was observed in other areas and most bacteria were still not in direct contact with the epithelial surface.”
§ The composition of the gut microbiota shapes the colon mucus barrier > Results > Bacteria penetration in mucus and histology of mice in different husbandries
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Within this phylum, the classes Betaproteobacteria and Epsilonproteobacteria were found at higher levels in the mucus of mice in Room 2 and Epsilonproteobacteria were significantly more abundant in distal colon lumen and caecum (Fig1D, Table1).”
§ The composition of the gut microbiota shapes the colon mucus barrier > Results > Bacterial composition in the two husbandries
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The dominant genus within this class contributing to this difference was the genus Allobaculum, which was also found in higher relative abundances at all locations and significantly so in the lumen samples (Fig2B, Table1).”
§ The composition of the gut microbiota shapes the colon mucus barrier > Results > Bacterial composition in the two husbandries
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Altering the diet from weaning gave some shift in the microbiota, but less than the difference between the two rooms.”
§ The composition of the gut microbiota shapes the colon mucus barrier > Results > Bacterial composition in the two husbandries
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A tendency towards longer crypts in mice from Room 2 was also observed, but this did not reach significance (Fig4D).”
§ The composition of the gut microbiota shapes the colon mucus barrier > Results > Bacteria penetration in mucus and histology of mice in different husbandries
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The inner mucus layer was after fixation observed to be thinner, and stratification was not evident in sections from animals fed Food B in both rooms, but the difference between the two rooms remained (Fig4B).”
§ The composition of the gut microbiota shapes the colon mucus barrier > Results > Bacteria penetration in mucus and histology of mice in different husbandries
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The stool of mice fed Food A was hard and formed distinct pellets, while the stool in animals fed Food B had a looser consistency and did not form hard pellets.”
§ The composition of the gut microbiota shapes the colon mucus barrier > Results > Bacterial composition in the two husbandries
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When bacterial diversity was studied (Supplementary Figs S2 and S3), the ileum showed the lowest diversity and the distal colon the highest.”
§ The composition of the gut microbiota shapes the colon mucus barrier > Results > Bacterial composition in the two husbandries
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The labelled cells were significantly increased in mice from Room 2 as compared to Room 1 (Fig4F and H).”
§ The composition of the gut microbiota shapes the colon mucus barrier > Results > Bacteria penetration in mucus and histology of mice in different husbandries
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
In the paper
“Principal Coordinates Unweighted UniFrac analysis 20 showed separation of ileum and colon samples along the first component, whereas the two rooms clearly separated along PC2 on Food A (Fig1A and B).”
§ The composition of the gut microbiota shapes the colon mucus barrier > Results > Bacterial composition in the two husbandries
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [20] Lozupone C, Knight R (2005) UniFrac: a new phylogenetic method for comparing microbial communities. Appl Environ Microbiol 71: 8228–8235 source
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Inflammatory markers as S100a8, S100a9 and eosinophil cationic protein 3 were not detected and no difference in albumin or alpha 2-macroglobulin was found between the groups.”
§ The composition of the gut microbiota shapes the colon mucus barrier > Results > Bacteria penetration in mucus and histology of mice in different husbandries
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As shown before, mice from Room 1 secreted mucus that was impenetrable to the beads, whereas the mucus on explants from mice housed in Room 2 was more penetrable (Fig3C).”
§ The composition of the gut microbiota shapes the colon mucus barrier > Results > Differences in the mucus quality in mice from the two husbandries
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Mucus penetrability phenotypes were again different as a more penetrable inner mucus layer was observed in mice colonized with microbiota from Room 2, while mice colonized with microbiota from Room 1 showed a mucus layer impervious to beads (Fig5B and C).”
§ The composition of the gut microbiota shapes the colon mucus barrier > Results > The two different mucus phenotypes were reproduced by colonization of germ-free mice
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All mice on Food B showed higher relative abundances of the phylum Proteobacteria at all locations along the gut and in both rooms with significant differences in ileum lumen, ileum mucus and caecum in Room 1, and in distal colon lumen in both rooms (Supplementary Fig S5, Supplementary Table S1).”
§ The composition of the gut microbiota shapes the colon mucus barrier > Results > Bacterial composition in the two husbandries
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Mice given food B showed increased penetrability in both groups, but a difference still remained between Room 1 and 2 mice (Fig3C).”
§ The composition of the gut microbiota shapes the colon mucus barrier > Results > Differences in the mucus quality in mice from the two husbandries
plaindirectn = 2- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To analyse the reasons for the different mucus properties, proteomic analyses were performed showing no major differences between the rooms and a high correlation of the proteins identified in the two rooms (Supplementary Fig S6D and E).”
§ The composition of the gut microbiota shapes the colon mucus barrier > Results > Bacteria penetration in mucus and histology of mice in different husbandries
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In ileum mucus, the dominant genus within the Clostridia class was Candidatus arthromitus (segmented filamentous bacteria, SFB), which was also found in higher levels in Room 2 (Table1). SFB also showed a small but significant difference between the rooms in the distal colon with higher levels in Room 2.”
§ The composition of the gut microbiota shapes the colon mucus barrier > Results > Bacterial composition in the two husbandries
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The thickness of the inner mucus layer as well as the mucus growth did not differ significantly between the two rooms on either food (Fig3B).”
§ The composition of the gut microbiota shapes the colon mucus barrier > Results > Differences in the mucus quality in mice from the two husbandries
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The number of these cells was higher in the Room 2 animals; however, it did not reach significance (Fig4G and Supplementary Fig S7A), but there was no major difference in the overall histology between the groups (Supplementary Fig S7B and C).”
§ The composition of the gut microbiota shapes the colon mucus barrier > Results > Bacteria penetration in mucus and histology of mice in different husbandries
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Our study corroborates previous studies showing an association between altered diets and an increase in Erysipelotrichi and Allobaculum, but various effects are shown for fat-enriched diets 29, 30, 31, 32.”
§ The composition of the gut microbiota shapes the colon mucus barrier > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [29] Everard A, Lazarevic V, Gaia N, Johansson M, Stahlman M, Backhed F, Delzenne NM, Schrenzel J, Francois P, Cani PD (2014) Microbiome of prebiotic‐treated mice reveals novel targets involved in host response during obesity. ISME J 8: 2116–2130 source
- Not checked yetcites [30] Islam KB, Fukiya S, Hagio M, Fujii N, Ishizuka S, Ooka T, Ogura Y, Hayashi T, Yokota A (2011) Bile acid is a host factor that regulates the composition of the cecal microbiota in rats. Gastroenterology 141: 1773–1781 source
- Not checked yetcites [31] Martinez I, Wallace G, Zhang C, Legge R, Benson AK, Carr TP, Moriyama EN, Walter J (2009) Diet‐induced metabolic improvements in a hamster model of hypercholesterolemia are strongly linked to alterations of the gut microbiota. Appl Environ Microbiol 75: 4175–4184 source
- Not checked yetcites [32] Turnbaugh PJ, Ridaura VK, Faith JJ, Rey FE, Knight R, Gordon JI (2009) The effect of diet on the human gut microbiome: a metagenomic analysis in humanized gnotobiotic mice. Sci Transl Med 1: 6ra14 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We have also observed different inner mucus phenotypes in animals from different vendors, further emphasizing the need for standardization and caution.”
§ The composition of the gut microbiota shapes the colon mucus barrier > Discussion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Even though the present study reveals subtle differences in the microbiota between the two mouse colonies, an increased inflammatory tone was observed in Room 2.”
§ The composition of the gut microbiota shapes the colon mucus barrier > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Muc2-deficient mice totally lack a protective inner mucus layer and have direct contact of bacteria with the epithelium and these mice develop severe colitis 14.”
§ The composition of the gut microbiota shapes the colon mucus barrier > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [14] Johansson ME, Phillipson M, Petersson J, Velcich A, Holm L, Hansson GC (2008) The inner of the two Muc2 mucin‐dependent mucus layers in colon is devoid of bacteria. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105: 15064–15069 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The different properties of the mucus depended on the microbiota, as they were transmissible by transfer of caecal microbiota to germ-free mice.”
- Also stated in: § The two different mucus phenotypes were reproduced by colonization of germ-free mice · plain
“The composition of intestinal microbiota thus has a major influence on the properties of the inner colon mucus barrier.”
§ The composition of the gut microbiota shapes the colon mucus barrier > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Colonization of germ-free mice with caecal microbiota from a room reproduces that room's relevant microbiota composition.
- Rests on an assumption: Housing colonized germ-free mice in the corresponding room does not introduce room-specific effects that confound the mucus phenotype.
- Also stated in: § The two different mucus phenotypes were reproduced by colonization of germ-free mice · plain
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, our study shows that bacteria and their community structure affect mucus barrier properties in ways that can have implications for health and disease.”
§ The composition of the gut microbiota shapes the colon mucus barrier > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The mucus is structurally built around the MUC2 mucin that after secretion from the goblet cell expands dramatically and forms sheets of MUC2 networks that stack and form the stratified mucus layer 16.”
§ The composition of the gut microbiota shapes the colon mucus barrier > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [16] Ambort D, Johansson ME, Gustafsson JK, Nilsson HE, Ermund A, Johansson BR, Koeck PJ, Hebert H, Hansson GC (2012) Calcium and pH‐dependent packing and release of the gel‐forming MUC2 mucin. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109: 5645–5650 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Deficiencies in decorating the mucus with O-glycans cause a faster degradation of the Muc2 mucin network resulting in increased bacterial contact with the cell surface and development of spontaneous colitis 19.”
§ The composition of the gut microbiota shapes the colon mucus barrier > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [19] Fu J, Wei B, Wen T, Johansson ME, Liu X, Bradford E, Thomsson KA, McGee S, Mansour L, Tong M et al (2011) Loss of intestinal core 1‐derived O‐glycans causes spontaneous colitis in mice. J Clin Invest 121: 1657–1666 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It was thus concluded that the two C57BL/6 mice strains bred separately had stable, but different microbiota that were vertically transmitted.”
§ The composition of the gut microbiota shapes the colon mucus barrier > Results > Bacterial composition in the two husbandries
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Nevertheless, these mice often had an even more developed mucus layer than observed in Room 1, which further supports the influence of the microbiota on mucus and that the Room 1 can be considered as a reasonable model.”
§ The composition of the gut microbiota shapes the colon mucus barrier > Discussion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The two colonies were maintained on different diets with different composition, but we controlled for the impact of diet, at least within one generation of offspring, by feeding the mice in the two colonies the same chow (Food A, standard chow or Food B, autoclaved chow) from weaning.”
§ The composition of the gut microbiota shapes the colon mucus barrier > Results > Bacterial composition in the two husbandries
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The exoglycosidases are usually arranged in specialized genetic loci for utilizing specific types of substrates as, for example, starch (Sus) and xylose-containing polysaccharides (PUL) 27.”
§ The composition of the gut microbiota shapes the colon mucus barrier > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [27] Larsbrink J, Rogers TE, Hemsworth GR, McKee LS, Tauzin AS, Spadiut O, Klinter S, Pudlo NA, Urs K, Koropatkin NM et al (2014) A discrete genetic locus confers xyloglucan metabolism in select human gut Bacteroidetes. Nature 506: 498–502 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, free-living mice have mucus that is even better developed, thicker and more stratified with bacteria further separated from the epithelium than in Room 1.”
§ The composition of the gut microbiota shapes the colon mucus barrier > Results > Differences in the mucus quality in mice from the two husbandries
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Free-living wild mice provide a valid reference for a normal protective colon mucus phenotype.
In the paper
“The commensal bacteria live in the non-attached and expanded outer mucus of colon 26, where they can cleave off and utilize mucin glycans as energy source.”
§ The composition of the gut microbiota shapes the colon mucus barrier > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [26] Johansson ME, Holmen Larsson JM, Hansson GC (2010) Microbes and Health Sackler Colloquium: the two mucus layers of colon are organized by the MUC2 mucin, whereas the outer layer is a legislator of host‐microbial interactions. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108: 4659–4665 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The protein differences were small and not likely to explain the variable mucus properties.”
§ The composition of the gut microbiota shapes the colon mucus barrier > Results > Bacteria penetration in mucus and histology of mice in different husbandries
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Ulcerative colitis (UC) patients with active disease have bacteria in contact with the epithelium, whereas patients with UC in remission show a more mixed picture 15.”
§ The composition of the gut microbiota shapes the colon mucus barrier > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [15] Johansson ME, Gustafsson JK, Holmen‐Larsson J, Jabbar KS, Xia L, Xu H, Ghishan FK, Carvalho FA, Gewirtz AT, Sjovall H et al (2014) Bacteria penetrate the normally impenetrable inner colon mucus layer in both murine colitis models and patients with ulcerative colitis. Gut 63: 281–291 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The origin of the germ-free mice is more related to the origin of the animals in Room 2, but as they still were able to form a functional mucus barrier upon colonization with flora from animals in Room 1, genetic influences are less likely.”
§ The composition of the gut microbiota shapes the colon mucus barrier > Discussion
hedgedSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“TM7 and the genus Prevotella are also increased in mice deficient in the inflammasome component Nlrp6 and suggested to be associated with inflammation 51.”
§ The composition of the gut microbiota shapes the colon mucus barrier > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [51] Hu B, Elinav E, Huber S, Strowig T, Hao L, Hafemann A, Jin C, Wunderlich C, Wunderlich T, Eisenbarth SC et al (2013) Microbiota‐induced activation of epithelial IL‐6 signaling links inflammasome‐driven inflammation with transmissible cancer. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 110: 9862–9867 source
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“However, it is considered to foster a normal intestinal homeostasis in healthy mice, something that is in contrast to the here observed less developed colon mucus 52.”
§ The composition of the gut microbiota shapes the colon mucus barrier > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [52] Schnupf P, Gaboriau‐Routhiau V, Cerf‐Bensussan N (2013) Host interactions with Segmented Filamentous Bacteria: an unusual trade‐off that drives the post‐natal maturation of the gut immune system. Semin Immunol 25: 342–351 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Certain bacteria can, in contrast to promoting well-developed mucus, also destroy the mucus and its protective properties.”
§ The composition of the gut microbiota shapes the colon mucus barrier > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [36] Bergstrom KS, Kissoon‐Singh V, Gibson DL, Ma C, Montero M, Sham HP, Ryz N, Huang T, Velcich A, Finlay BB et al (2010) Muc2 protects against lethal infectious colitis by disassociating pathogenic and commensal bacteria from the colonic mucosa. PLoS Pathog 6: e1000902 source
- Not checked yetcites [37] van der Post S, Subramani DB, Backstrom M, Johansson ME, Vester‐Christensen MB, Mandel U, Bennett EP, Clausen H, Dahlen G, Sroka A et al (2013) Site‐specific O‐glycosylation on the MUC2 mucin protein inhibits cleavage by the Porphyromonas gingivalis secreted cysteine protease (RgpB). J Biol Chem 288: 14636–14646 source
- Not checked yetcites [38] Zarepour M, Bhullar K, Montero M, Ma C, Huang T, Velcich A, Xia L, Vallance BA (2013) The mucin Muc2 limits pathogen burdens and epithelial barrier dysfunction during Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium colitis. Infect Immun 81: 3672–3683 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The TM7 phylum is also found in human stool samples at low levels 47 and proposed to play a role in intestinal inflammation 48.”
§ The composition of the gut microbiota shapes the colon mucus barrier > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [47] Segata N, Haake SK, Mannon P, Lemon KP, Waldron L, Gevers D, Huttenhower C, Izard J (2012) Composition of the adult digestive tract bacterial microbiome based on seven mouth surfaces, tonsils, throat and stool samples. Genome Biol 13: R42 source
- Not checked yetcites [48] Kuehbacher T, Rehman A, Lepage P, Hellmig S, Folsch UR, Schreiber S, Ott SJ (2008) Intestinal TM7 bacterial phylogenies in active inflammatory bowel disease. J Med Microbiol 57: 1569–1576 source
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The class Deltaproteobacteria contains sulphur-reducing bacteria (SRB) that are also found at higher frequencies in patients with IBD as compared to healthy individuals 41.”
§ The composition of the gut microbiota shapes the colon mucus barrier > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [41] Verma R, Verma AK, Ahuja V, Paul J (2010) Real‐time analysis of mucosal flora in patients with inflammatory bowel disease in India. J Clin Microbiol 48: 4279–4282 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Mouse colitis models typically show features like crypt elongation due to increased cell proliferation, infiltration of immune cells in lamina propria, thickening of muscularis propria and weight loss, all criteria used for scoring colitis 33, 34.”
§ The composition of the gut microbiota shapes the colon mucus barrier > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [33] Sellon RK, Tonkonogy S, Schultz M, Dieleman LA, Grenther W, Balish E, Rennick DM, Sartor RB (1998) Resident enteric bacteria are necessary for development of spontaneous colitis and immune system activation in interleukin‐10‐deficient mice. Infect Immun 66: 5224–5231 source
- Not checked yetcites [34] Van der SM, de Koning BA, De Bruijn AC, Velcich A, Meijerink JP, Van Goudoever JB, Buller HA, Dekker J, Van Seuningen I, Renes IB et al (2006) Muc2‐deficient mice spontaneously develop colitis, indicating that MUC2 is critical for colonic protection. Gastroenterology 131: 117–129 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“This phylum has been linked to inflammatory conditions of the mouth such as periodontitis 46.”
§ The composition of the gut microbiota shapes the colon mucus barrier > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [46] Liu B, Faller LL, Klitgord N, Mazumdar V, Ghodsi M, Sommer DD, Gibbons TR, Treangen TJ, Chang YC, Li S et al (2012) Deep sequencing of the oral microbiome reveals signatures of periodontal disease. PLoS ONE 7: e37919 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“This is a phylum, with no cultivated representatives, commonly found in the oral flora at low levels 44, 45.”
§ The composition of the gut microbiota shapes the colon mucus barrier > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [44] Brinig MM, Lepp PW, Ouverney CC, Armitage GC, Relman DA (2003) Prevalence of bacteria of division TM7 in human subgingival plaque and their association with disease. Appl Environ Microbiol 69: 1687–1694 source
- Not checked yetcites [45] Podar M, Abulencia CB, Walcher M, Hutchison D, Zengler K, Garcia JA, Holland T, Cotton D, Hauser L, Keller M (2007) Targeted access to the genomes of low‐abundance organisms in complex microbial communities. Appl Environ Microbiol 73: 3205–3214 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For the microbiota analysis, significant differences were conducted using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test, and P-values were converted to false discovery rate values (Q-values) to correct for multiple testing in the R software (http://www.r-project.org/).”
§ The composition of the gut microbiota shapes the colon mucus barrier > Materials and Methods > Statistical analysis
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The TM7 phylum has also been found in mice more susceptible to colitis caused by Helicobacter hepaticus 49.”
§ The composition of the gut microbiota shapes the colon mucus barrier > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [49] Yang I, Eibach D, Kops F, Brenneke B, Woltemate S, Schulze J, Bleich A, Gruber AD, Muthupalani S, Fox JG et al (2013) Intestinal microbiota composition of interleukin‐10 deficient C57BL/6J mice and susceptibility to Helicobacter hepaticus‐induced colitis. PLoS ONE 8: e70783 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The phylum Proteobacteria has been associated with human Crohn's disease 40.”
§ The composition of the gut microbiota shapes the colon mucus barrier > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [40] Gophna U, Sommerfeld K, Gophna S, Doolittle WF, Veldhuyzen van Zanten SJ (2006) Differences between tissue‐associated intestinal microfloras of patients with Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis. J Clin Microbiol 44: 4136–4141 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Species of lower taxonomic levels within the Proteobacteria phylum have been correlated with colitis in a maternally transmitted fashion 39.”
§ The composition of the gut microbiota shapes the colon mucus barrier > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [39] Garrett WS, Gallini CA, Yatsunenko T, Michaud M, DuBois A, Delaney ML, Punit S, Karlsson M, Bry L, Glickman JN et al (2010) Enterobacteriaceae act in concert with the gut microbiota to induce spontaneous and maternally transmitted colitis. Cell Host Microbe 8: 292–300 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is obvious from this study that the microbiota influences the properties of the mucus barrier and that this can be observed within the same animal house with animals of identical genetic background.”
§ The composition of the gut microbiota shapes the colon mucus barrier > Discussion
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The microbiota mucus sample strategy used may have reduced the observed differences in mucus microbiota as the amounts of attached mucus were not controlled for.”
§ The composition of the gut microbiota shapes the colon mucus barrier > Discussion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“In especially the core 1 deficient mice, the inner mucus layer was more vulnerable and quickly dissolved allowing bacteria to reach the epithelium and by this trigger inflammation 19.”
§ The composition of the gut microbiota shapes the colon mucus barrier > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [19] Fu J, Wei B, Wen T, Johansson ME, Liu X, Bradford E, Thomsson KA, McGee S, Mansour L, Tong M et al (2011) Loss of intestinal core 1‐derived O‐glycans causes spontaneous colitis in mice. J Clin Invest 121: 1657–1666 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
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.”
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?
In the citing paper
“The presence of bacteria along the GI tract is critical for the maintenance of the intestinal barrier, which facilitates the exchange of nutrients, water, and electrolytes and prevents the passage of harmful substances and pathogens from the intestinal lumen into the bloodstream (Jakobsson et al., 2015).”
From Microbiome–microglia connections via the gut–brain axis (2019) · cites this paper as Jakobsson et al., 2015
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.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ The composition of the gut microbiota shapes the colon mucus barrier > Results > Bacteria penetration in mucus and histology of mice in different husbandries
“The labelled cells were significantly increased in mice from Room 2 as compared to Room 1 (Fig4F and H).”
§ The composition of the gut microbiota shapes the colon mucus barrier > Results > Bacteria penetration in mucus and histology of mice in different husbandries
“F The number of cells in lamina propria between two crypts, as shown in Supplementary Fig S7, was counted in sections from mice in the two rooms on Food A (n = 10).”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ The composition of the gut microbiota shapes the colon mucus barrier > Results > Bacterial composition in the two husbandries
“| Epsilonproteobacteria | – | < 1 | – | < 1 | –* | 0.02 (0.1)* | < 1 | 2 (5) | –** | 2 (2)** |”
§ The composition of the gut microbiota shapes the colon mucus barrier > Results > Bacterial composition in the two husbandries
“| Unknown genus (family Helicobacteraceae) | – | < 1 | < 1 | < 1 | –*** | 1 (1)*** | 0.002 (0.006) | 2 (5) | –*** | 2 (2)*** |”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ The composition of the gut microbiota shapes the colon mucus barrier > Results > Bacteria penetration in mucus and histology of mice in different husbandries
“The number of these cells was higher in the Room 2 animals; however, it did not reach significance (Fig4G and Supplementary Fig S7A)”
§ The composition of the gut microbiota shapes the colon mucus barrier > Results > Bacteria penetration in mucus and histology of mice in different husbandries
“G The number of Ki67-positive cells per crypt was significantly different in distal colon of mice housed in Room 1 and Room 2 on Food A.”
Citations
Cites
QIIME allows analysis of high-throughput community sequencing data
Caporaso, J. G., Kuczynski, J., Stombaugh, J., Bittinger, K., Bushman, F. D., Costello, E. K., Fierer, N., Peña, A. G., Goodrich, J. K., Gordon, J. I., et al. (2010) · Nature Methods · doi:10.1038/nmeth.f.303 · Cited by 34,887 · cited 1×
“Post-processing of pyrosequencing data was done using QIIME software 1.7.0 package [54].”
InfluentialSearch and clustering orders of magnitude faster than BLAST
Edgar, R. C. (2010) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btq461 · Cited by 21,098
Cox, J., & Mann, M. (2008) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/nbt.1511 · Cited by 14,855 · cited 1×
“Data from the MS/MS experiments were analysed with the MaxQuant 1.2.2.5 software [63].”
InfluentialStructure, function and diversity of the healthy human microbiome
The Human Microbiome Project Consortium (2012) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature11234 · Cited by 11,726
A human gut microbial gene catalogue established by metagenomic sequencing
MetaHIT Consortium, Qin, J., Li, R., Raes, J., Arumugam, M., Burgdorf, K. S., Manichanh, C., Nielsen, T., Pons, N., Levenez, F., et al. (2010) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature08821 · Cited by 11,624 · cited 1×
“The microbiota is diverse and typically made up of in total 500–1,000 species with at least 160 species that are shared among individuals with two phyla, the Bacteroidetes and Firmicutes being dominant [2,3].”
UniFrac: a New Phylogenetic Method for Comparing Microbial Communities
Lozupone, C., & Knight, R. (2005) · Applied and Environmental Microbiology · doi:10.1128/aem.71.12.8228-8235.2005 · Cited by 8,227 · cited 3×
“Principal Coordinates Unweighted UniFrac analysis [20] showed separation of ileum and colon samples along the first component, whereas the two rooms clearly separated along PC2 on Food A (Fig 1A and B).”
Global quantification of mammalian gene expression control
Schwanhäusser, B., Busse, D., Li, N., Dittmar, G., Schuchhardt, J., Wolf, J., Chen, W., & Selbach, M. (2011) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature10098 · Cited by 6,566 · cited 1×
“Relative protein amounts were quantified in ppm by intensity-based absolute quantification (iBAQ) [64].”
The gut microbiota as an environmental factor that regulates fat storage
Bäckhed, F., Ding, H., Wang, T., Hooper, L. V., Koh, G. Y., Nagy, A., Semenkovich, C. F., & Gordon, J. I. (2004) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0407076101 · Cited by 6,245 · cited 1×
“Germ-free mice were colonized with caecal flora from mice in the two rooms and treated as conventional animals onwards [53].”
Self-citationFastTree: Computing Large Minimum Evolution Trees with Profiles instead of a Distance Matrix
Price, M. N., Dehal, P. S., & Arkin, A. P. (2009) · Molecular Biology and Evolution · doi:10.1093/molbev/msp077 · Cited by 5,602 · cited 2×
“The GG taxonomies were used to generate summaries of the taxonomic distributions of OTUs across different levels (phylum, order, family, genus and species A phylogenetic tree was built with FastTree [57] and used for estimates of a -diversity (Rarefaction curves, Chao1 [58], Shannon diversity [59]) and b -diversity (u…”
Nonparametric estimation of the number of classes in a population
Chao, A. (1984) · Scandinavian Journal of Statistics · Cited by 4,263
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 601–685 of 685
Defining Microbial Signatures of Gut Dysbiosis in Models of Anxiety-related Disorders
Fields, C. T. (2022) · Digital Archive @ GSU · doi:10.57709/14866301
Microbiota, the brain and epigenetics
Louwies, T., Johnson, A. C., Orock, A. M., Yuan, T., & Meerveld, B. G. (2019) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-816843-1.00026-6
ARE THEY ALSO MIND COLONIZERS? EXPLORING THE ASSOCIATION BETWEEN GUT MICROBIOTA AND DEPRESSION
Ayeni, F. A., & Fadeyi, T. E. (2020) · FUDMA Journal of Sciences · doi:10.33003/fjs-2020-0402-24
Obstructive Sleep Apnea and the Gut Microbiome
Morales, E. J. D. C. (2018)
Multi-omic analysis reveals the anti-aging impact of sulforaphane on the microbiome and metabolomePreprint
Jun, S., Cheema, A. K., Bose, C., Boerma, M., Palade, P., Awasthi, S., & Singh, S. P. (2020) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-43818/v1
Gómez-Chavarín, M. (2017) · Archivos de Neurociencias · doi:10.31157/archneurosciencesmex.v22i2.153 · Cited by 3
Chen, Y., Li, J., Menon, R., Jayaraman, A., Lee, K., Huang, Y., Dashwood, W. M., Zhang, K., Sun, D., & Dashwood, R. H. (2021) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-143373/v1
Surgery and stomas in Crohn's disease
Kalman, T. D. (2021) · Linköping University medical dissertations · doi:10.3384/diss.diva-172781
Modulating the immune system and intestinal barrier integrity with functional oligosaccharides
Figueroa‐Lozano, S. (2021) · University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) · doi:10.33612/diss.151659844
Lin, Z. (2018) · TSpace (University of Toronto)
Gut Microbiota in Brain diseases
Salami, M. (2021) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-819265-8.00040-1
Francella, C., & Foster, J. A. (2021) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/0471266949.bmc297
The influence of diet patterns on Alzheimer’s risk: a concise systematic review
Machado, S. C., & Filho, I. J. Z. (2021) · International Journal of Nutrology · doi:10.54448/ijn21311
The Gut Microbiota in Epilepsy: Current Concepts of Mechanisms and Potential Therapeutics
Sulistyo, R. D. (2022) · European Journal of Biology and Biotechnology · doi:10.24018/ejbio.2022.3.1.331
Gore, R., Mohsenipour, M., Wood, J. L., et al. (2022) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2022.04.28.489964
Microplastiques dans notre alimentation: un focus sur la santé intestinale
Fournier, E., Etienne‐Mesmin, L., Blanquet‐Diot, S., & Mercier‐Bonin, M. (2022) · Cahiers de Nutrition et de Diététique · doi:10.1016/j.cnd.2022.03.001 · Cited by 1
The “Inner Tube of Life”: How Does the Gastrointestinal Tract Age?
Nicoletti, C., & Gulisano, M. (2019) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-99375-1_164
The “Inner Tube of Life”: How Does the Gastrointestinal Tract Age?
Nicoletti, C., & Gulisano, M. (2018) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-64597-1_164-1
Cotter, P. D., & Barton, W. (2019) · Faculty Opinions – Post-Publication Peer Review of the Biomedical Literature · doi:10.3410/f.731251101.793567413
Unlocking the mysterious interconnection between the gut microbiota and catestatin
González-Dávila, P. (2022) · University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) · doi:10.33612/diss.225406017
Yuan, N., Wang, Y., Pan, Q., Li, Z., Qi, X., Sun, S., Quji, S., Luobu, C., Luosang, D., Liu, Y., et al. (2022) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-1915804/v1
Porras, D. (2021) · Buleria (Universidad de León) · doi:10.18002/10612/13641
Reassessing the safety of dietary emulsifiers through the lens of gut microbiotaPreprint
Panyod, S., Wu, W., Chang, C.-T., et al. (2023) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-2731923/v1
Progress on the Role of “Gutbacteria-Gut-Liver Axis” in Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease
陈, 孟. (2023) · Medical Diagnosis · doi:10.12677/md.2023.132038
Gore, R., Mohsenipour, M., Wood, J. L., Balasuriya, G. K., Hill‐Yardin, E. L., & Franks, A. E. (2023) · Infection and Immunity · doi:10.1128/iai.00097-23 · Cited by 1
Jegatheesan, T., Moorthy, A. S., & Eberl, H. J. (2023) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4613787
Sex drives colonic mucin sialylation in wild micePreprint
Bennett, A., Mair, I., Muir, A., et al. (2023) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-3512708/v1
A Dispositional Account of Causation
Anjum, R. L., & Rocca, E. (2024) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780192863485.003.0005
Immunomodulation by specific HMOS and the relevance in allergy management
Zuurveld, M. (2024) · Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) · doi:10.33540/2065
Xia, B., Zhong, R., Wu, W., Luo, C., Meng, Q., Gao, Q., Zhao, Y., Chen, L., Zhang, S., Zhao, X., et al. (2022) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.20762916
Xia, B., Zhong, R., Wu, W., Luo, C., Meng, Q., Gao, Q., Zhao, Y., Chen, L., Zhang, S., Zhao, X., et al. (2022) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.20762949
The Effects of Pectin on the Gastrointestinal Tract in Humans
Хавкин, А. И., Михайлович, Н. К., Nikolaeva, V. D., Veremenko, A. S., Дмитриевна, Л. И., Platonova, P. Y., Novikova, M. F., Tumas, A. S., Евгеньевна, В. Е., & Shrayner, E. V. (2024) · Экспериментальная и клиническая гастроэнтерология · doi:10.31146/1682-8658-ecg-223-3-119-133
Gut microbiota metabolically mediate intestinal helminth infection in Zebrafish
Hammer, A. J., Gaulke, C. A., García-Jaramillo, M., Leong, C., Morre, J., Sieler, M. J., Stevens, J. F., Jiang, Y., Maier, C. S., Kent, M. L., et al. (2024) · bioRxiv · doi:10.1101/2024.07.26.605207 · Cited by 9
Prebiotics, Probiotics, Symbiotics and Postbiotics. Nutrition and Microbiota
Ruíz-Tóvar, J., & Llavero, C. (2024) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-65650-7_2
Yu, X., Cao, Y., Mao, C., et al. (2024) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-5360565/v1
Intestinal epithelial glycocalyx and intestinal disease
Gao, J.-W., Liu, Y.-D., & Jin, M.-X. (2024) · World Chinese Journal of Digestology · doi:10.11569/wcjd.v32.i12.887
Ali, A., & Mousa, W. K. (2025) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-981-96-1305-2_15
Yu, X., Cao, Y., Mao, C., Tao, C., & Chen, W. (2025) · Biochemical Genetics · doi:10.1007/s10528-025-11037-y
Sall, I., Foxall, R. L., Felth, L. C., Gaur, A., Whistler, J. L., & Whistler, C. A. (2025) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2025.06.01.657215
Microbiome: Friend or Friendly Foe
Reddy, L. B., & Saier, M. H. (2025) · Microbial Physiology · doi:10.1159/000548748 · Cited by 1
Gut3Gel: A high throughput mucus model to support intestinal microbiome research
Vargas, N. S., Antunes, M., Sobral, J., Silva, C., Sousa, F., Garbero, O. V., Kolková, A., Visai, L., Medana, C., Visentin, S., et al. (2025) · Gut Microbiology · doi:10.1016/j.gutmic.2025.100003 · Cited by 2
Maharana, K. C., Adsule, M., Rajkumar, M., Vishwas, G., & Singh, S. (2025) · Next research. · doi:10.1016/j.nexres.2025.101133
Effect of PEGylated Liposomalization of Oxaliplatin on the Gut Microbiota in Mice
Mogi, K., Morimoto, H., Yasukawa, T., Uozumi, Y., Ishida, T., & Nagasawa, K. (2025) · Biological and Pharmaceutical Bulletin · doi:10.1248/bpb.b25-00578
Sonkar, R. M., Gade, P. S., & Bhatt, P. (2026) · Archives of Microbiology · doi:10.1007/s00203-026-04755-3
Yang, X., Chen, H., Wu, T., Ji, Z.-Y., Wang, Z.-W., Liu, Z.-L., Yang, J.-K., Zhao, Y., Zhou, M., & Wang, X.-B. (2026) · Biochemical Pharmacology · doi:10.1016/j.bcp.2026.117841
Role of the gut-brain axis in early stress-induced emotional vulnerability
Rincel, M. (2017) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/5e8a972cz9ad1z42aezb89cze6474124ef90
Regulation of Kinesin-1 activity by Salmonella effectors PipB2 and SifA
Alberdi, M. (2018) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/174b67e6z6cc4z495dza1eaza51da62e6641
Vautheny, A. (2019) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/1812d71aze8d9z48d6z87d1z5a23a4e81953
Modification des gels de mucus par la délivrance de molécules composées de domaines CYS
Demouveaux, B. (2019) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/a53ee6edz1544z456fzb623z7eb9fd72d20a
Pocheron, A.-L. (2019) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/29969b86z2649z4b67zb315za23a1106f4ef
La signalisation insuline comme garant de la fonction barrière intestinale
Gueddouri, D. (2021) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/8371f5a7zb0c3z4f82z83e9z236d0eedb3f1
Rôle du microbiote dans les interactions hôte-pathogène dans la tuberculose
Dumas, A. (2018) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/6773a408zdb52z44bbzb51ez3998deaf3ded
Charlet, R. (2022) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/11b08f90z8d0dz43efz96ffzf2527c076034
Ex vivo imaging and enzymatic analysis of intestinal mucus
Nyström, E. E. L., Dolan, B., Birchenough, G. M. H., et al. (2026) · Methods in enzymology on CD-ROM/Methods in enzymology · doi:10.1016/bs.mie.2026.04.004
Self-citationMei, X., Yang, Y., Wen, Y., Zhang, X., Li, Z., Yang, T., & Li, L. (2026) · Frontiers in Nutrition · doi:10.3389/fnut.2026.1799829
The gut–brain–epigenetic axis in brain health
Louwies, T. (2026) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-443-15572-7.00057-7
Cao, X., Zhao, Y., Liu, J., Ma, Y., Zhang, S., Chen, L., & Zhao, Y. (2026) · Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry · doi:10.1021/acs.jafc.6c00184
Intestino irritable: una enfermedad orgánica en 2026
Díaz, J. A. U., Fernández, H. M., Ordoñez, J. S. F., Cheng, H. G. C., Espinoza‐Ríos, J., Parra, L. O., & Regino, W. O. (2026) · Revista de Gastroenterología del Perú · doi:10.47892/rgp.2026.462.2262
Li, Q., Fan, B., Xiao, Y., Zhang, Z., Zhao, S., Liao, B., Zeng, J., Shan, X., Ye, H., Wen, Y., et al. (2026) · Gut Microbes · doi:10.1080/19490976.2026.2698204
Sall, I., Foxall, R. L., Felth, L. C., Gaur, A., Whistler, J. L., & Whistler, C. A. (2026) · Gut Microbes · doi:10.1080/19490976.2026.2691347
Targeting the microbiota-gut-brain axis in neurodegeneration: Zebrafish-based investigations
verma, B., Kumar, R., Sharma, A., Kumar, N., Khan, Z., Ashique, S., Rani, R., Parihar, V. S., Antal, S., Mumtaz, et al. (2026) · Neurodegenerative Disease Management · doi:10.1080/17582024.2026.2705869
Microbiome and Diseases: Infection
Gerner, R. R., Almási, É. D. H., & Stecher, B. (2026) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-26410-7_14
Zhong, L., Purushothaman, B., Wang, X., Zhang, Y., Sun, X., Jiang, J., Karamveer, K., Zhang, Y., Tu, Q., & Boopathi, S. (2026) · Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology · doi:10.3389/fcimb.2026.1926528
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
- ORCID
- Venue
- The EMBO Reports
- Published
- 2014-12-18
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 164-177
- ISSN
- 1469-221X (ISSN-L)
- 1469-3178
- PMC
- PMC4328744
- 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
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- 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
