Cited by 418Gut microbiota and healthColorectal Cancer Screening and DetectionOral microbiology and periodontitis research

Molecular characterization of mucosal adherent bacteria and associations with colorectal adenomas

Open access
Shen, Xiang Jun, Rawls, John F., Randall, Thomas A., Burcall, Lauren, Mpande, Caroline, Jenkins, Natascha, Jovov, Biljana, Abdo, Zaid +2 more·2010·Gut Microbes

Abstract

The human large bowel is colonized by complex and diverse bacterial communities. However, the relationship between commensal bowel bacteria and adenomas (colorectal cancer precursors) is unclear. This study aimed to characterize adherent bacteria in normal colon and evaluate differences in community composition associated with colorectal adenomas. We evaluated adherent bacteria in normal colonic mucosa of 21 adenoma and 23 non-adenoma subjects enrolled in a cross sectional study. Terminal restriction fragment length polymorphism, clone sequencing and fluorescent in-situ hybridization analysis of the 16S rRNA genes were used to characterize adherent bacteria. A total of 335 clones were sequenced and processed for phylogenetic and taxonomic analysis. Differences in bacterial composition between cases and controls were evaluated by UniFrac and analysis of similarity matrix. Overall, Firmicutes (62%), Bacteroidetes (26%) and Proteobacteria (11%) were the most dominant phyla. The bacterial composition differed significantly between cases and controls (UniFrac p < 0.001). We observed significantly higher abundance of Proteobacteria (p < 0.05) and lower abundance of Bacteroidetes (p < 0.05) in cases compared to controls. At the genus level, case subjects showed increased abundance of Dorea spp. (p < 0.005), Faecalibacterium spp. (p < 0.05) and lower proportions of Bacteroides spp. (p < 0.03) and Coprococcus spp. (p < 0.05) than controls. Cases had higher bacterial diversity and richness than controls. These findings reveal that alterations in bacterial community composition associated with adenomas may contribute to the etiology of colorectal cancer. Extension of these findings could lead to strategies to manipulate the microbiota to prevent colorectal adenomas and cancer as well as to identify individuals at high risk.

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 · 10.4161/gmic.1.3.12360

Cites

62 of 62 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?

  • Colonic polyps demonstrate higher bacterial diversity and richness when compared with control patients, with higher abundance of mucosal Proteobacteria and lower abundance of Bacteroidetes.

    “colonic polyps demonstrate higher bacterial diversity and richness when compared with control patients, with higher abundance of mucosal Proteobacteria and lower abundance of Bacteroidetes.92”

    From The gut microbiota and host health: a new clinical frontier (2016) · cites this paper as [92]

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Shen, X. J., Rawls, J. F., Randall, T. A., Burcall, L., Mpande, C., Jenkins, N., Jovov, B., Abdo, Z., Sandler, R. S., & Keku, T. O.
Affiliations
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
  • University of Idaho (US)
Corresponding author
Keku, Temitope O.
Venue
Gut Microbes
Published
2010-05
Volume
1
Issue
3
Pages
138-147
ISSN
  • 1949-0976 (ISSN-L)
  • 1949-0984
OpenAlex
W2013354102
Cited by
418
References
62
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 37 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 34 · 2018: 28 · 2017: 25 · 2016: 30 · 2015: 37 · 2014: 23 · 2013: 37 · 2012: 21
FWCI
9.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
  • Gut Microbes (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Carolina Digital Repository (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) (submittedVersion)
  • UNC Libraries
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (DK-34987, CA106991)
  • National Cancer Institute (R01CA136887, K01CA093654, P50CA106991, R01CA044684, R01-CA-44684)
  • National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (R01DK081426, P30‐DK34987, P30DK034987, K01DK073695)
  • National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (P30ES010126)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gut microbiota and health
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Colorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
  • Health Sciences › Dentistry › Periodontics › Oral microbiology and periodontitis research
Keywords
colorectal adenoma, colonic mucosa, adherent bacteria, gut microbiota, bacterial community composition, colorectal cancer risk, Proteobacteria, Bacteroidetes, Firmicutes, Faecalibacterium, Dorea, Bacteroides, Coprococcus, bacterial diversity, 16S rRNA gene sequencing
MeSH terms
Adenoma, Bacteria, Bacterial Adhesion, Colon, Cross-Sectional Studies, DNA, Bacterial, Humans, Intestinal Mucosa, Male, Middle Aged, Molecular Sequence Data, Phylogeny, RNA, Ribosomal, 16S, Colorectal Neoplasms

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