326 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 31302202)
1. Storage and handling of human faecal samples affect the gut microbiome composition: A feasibility study.
Ezzy AC; Hagstrom AD; George C; Hamlin AS; Pereg L; Murphy AJ; Winter G
J Microbiol Methods; 2019 Sep; 164():105668. PubMed ID: 31302202
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. High-throughput DNA extraction strategy for fecal microbiome studies.
Isokääntä H; Tomnikov N; Vanhatalo S; Munukka E; Huovinen P; Hakanen AJ; Kallonen T
Microbiol Spectr; 2024 Jun; 12(6):e0293223. PubMed ID: 38747618
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Reliability of a participant-friendly fecal collection method for microbiome analyses: a step towards large sample size investigation.
Szopinska JW; Gresse R; van der Marel S; Boekhorst J; Lukovac S; van Swam I; Franke B; Timmerman H; Belzer C; Arias Vasquez A
BMC Microbiol; 2018 Sep; 18(1):110. PubMed ID: 30189859
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Effect of room temperature transport vials on DNA quality and phylogenetic composition of faecal microbiota of elderly adults and infants.
Hill CJ; Brown JR; Lynch DB; Jeffery IB; Ryan CA; Ross RP; Stanton C; O'Toole PW
Microbiome; 2016 May; 4(1):19. PubMed ID: 27160322
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Method Validation for Extraction of DNA from Human Stool Samples for Downstream Microbiome Analysis.
Neuberger-Castillo L; Hamot G; Marchese M; Sanchez I; Ammerlaan W; Betsou F
Biopreserv Biobank; 2020 Apr; 18(2):102-116. PubMed ID: 31999474
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Methodology challenges in studying human gut microbiota - effects of collection, storage, DNA extraction and next generation sequencing technologies.
Panek M; Čipčić Paljetak H; Barešić A; Perić M; Matijašić M; Lojkić I; Vranešić Bender D; Krznarić Ž; Verbanac D
Sci Rep; 2018 Mar; 8(1):5143. PubMed ID: 29572539
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Systematic Analysis of Impact of Sampling Regions and Storage Methods on Fecal Gut Microbiome and Metabolome Profiles.
Liang Y; Dong T; Chen M; He L; Wang T; Liu X; Chang H; Mao JH; Hang B; Snijders AM; Xia Y
mSphere; 2020 Jan; 5(1):. PubMed ID: 31915218
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Latitude in sample handling and storage for infant faecal microbiota studies: the elephant in the room?
Shaw AG; Sim K; Powell E; Cornwell E; Cramer T; McClure ZE; Li MS; Kroll JS
Microbiome; 2016 Jul; 4(1):40. PubMed ID: 27473284
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Are all faecal bacteria detected with equal efficiency? A study using next-generation sequencing and quantitative culture of infants' faecal samples.
Sjöberg F; Nookaew I; Yazdanshenas S; Gio-Batta M; Adlerberth I; Wold AE
J Microbiol Methods; 2020 Oct; 177():106018. PubMed ID: 32795633
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. An alternative storage method for characterization of the intestinal microbiota through next generation sequencing.
Ribeiro RM; Souza-Basqueira M; Oliveira LC; Salles FC; Pereira NB; Sabino EC
Rev Inst Med Trop Sao Paulo; 2018 Nov; 60():e77. PubMed ID: 30517247
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Validation of method for faecal sampling in cats and dogs for faecal microbiome analysis.
Langon X
BMC Vet Res; 2023 Dec; 19(1):274. PubMed ID: 38102642
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Assessment of the impact of different fecal storage protocols on the microbiota diversity and composition: a pilot study.
Moossavi S; Engen PA; Ghanbari R; Green SJ; Naqib A; Bishehsari F; Merat S; Poustchi H; Keshavarzian A; Malekzadeh R
BMC Microbiol; 2019 Jun; 19(1):145. PubMed ID: 31253096
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Sample storage conditions significantly influence faecal microbiome profiles.
Choo JM; Leong LE; Rogers GB
Sci Rep; 2015 Nov; 5():16350. PubMed ID: 26572876
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. The effect of storage conditions on microbial communities in stool.
Nel Van Zyl K; Whitelaw AC; Newton-Foot M
PLoS One; 2020; 15(1):e0227486. PubMed ID: 31935223
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. How should we store avian faecal samples for microbiota analyses? Comparing efficacy and cost-effectiveness.
Vargas-Pellicer P; Watrobska C; Knowles S; Schroeder J; Banks-Leite C
J Microbiol Methods; 2019 Oct; 165():105689. PubMed ID: 31425715
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Comparison of stool versus rectal swab samples and storage conditions on bacterial community profiles.
Bassis CM; Moore NM; Lolans K; Seekatz AM; Weinstein RA; Young VB; Hayden MK;
BMC Microbiol; 2017 Mar; 17(1):78. PubMed ID: 28359329
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Interpersonal Variations in Gut Microbiota Profiles Supersedes the Effects of Differing Fecal Storage Conditions.
Bundgaard-Nielsen C; Hagstrøm S; Sørensen S
Sci Rep; 2018 Nov; 8(1):17367. PubMed ID: 30478355
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Evaluating Protocols for Porcine Faecal Microbiome Recollection, Storage and DNA Extraction: from the Farm to the Lab.
Muiños-Bühl A; González-Recio O; Muñoz M; Óvilo C; García-Casco J; Fernández AI
Curr Microbiol; 2018 Jun; 75(6):651-657. PubMed ID: 29318340
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. [Variations of gut microbiome composition under different preservation solutions and periods].
Duan Y; Lü N; Cai F; Zhu B
Sheng Wu Gong Cheng Xue Bao; 2020 Dec; 36(12):2525-2540. PubMed ID: 33398951
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Gut microbiome comparability of fresh-frozen versus stabilized-frozen samples from hospitalized patients using 16S rRNA gene and shotgun metagenomic sequencing.
Ilett EE; Jørgensen M; Noguera-Julian M; Daugaard G; Murray DD; Helleberg M; Paredes R; Lundgren J; Sengeløv H; MacPherson C
Sci Rep; 2019 Sep; 9(1):13351. PubMed ID: 31527823
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
