184 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 32166902)
1. Reliability of stool microbiome methods for DNA yields and sequencing among infants and young children.
Antosca K; Hoen AG; Palys T; Hilliard M; Morrison HG; Coker M; Madan J; Karagas MR
Microbiologyopen; 2020 May; 9(5):e1018. PubMed ID: 32166902
[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. 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]
4. Collection of non-meconium stool on fecal occult blood cards is an effective method for fecal microbiota studies in infants.
Wong WSW; Clemency N; Klein E; Provenzano M; Iyer R; Niederhuber JE; Hourigan SK
Microbiome; 2017 Sep; 5(1):114. PubMed ID: 28870234
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Rapidly Processed Stool Swabs Approximate Stool Microbiota Profiles.
Bokulich NA; Maldonado J; Kang DW; Krajmalnik-Brown R; Caporaso JG
mSphere; 2019 Apr; 4(2):. PubMed ID: 30971445
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. Comparison of rectal swab, glove tip, and participant-collected stool techniques for gut microbiome sampling.
Short MI; Hudson R; Besasie BD; Reveles KR; Shah DP; Nicholson S; Johnson-Pais TL; Weldon K; Lai Z; Leach RJ; Fongang B; Liss MA
BMC Microbiol; 2021 Jan; 21(1):26. PubMed ID: 33446094
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. Quantifying technical confounders in microbiome studies.
Bartolomaeus TUP; Birkner T; Bartolomaeus H; Löber U; Avery EG; Mähler A; Weber D; Kochlik B; Balogh A; Wilck N; Boschmann M; Müller DN; Markó L; Forslund SK
Cardiovasc Res; 2021 Feb; 117(3):863-875. PubMed ID: 32374853
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. 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]
11. Comparison of Fecal Collection Methods on Variation in Gut Metagenomics and Untargeted Metabolomics.
Guan H; Pu Y; Liu C; Lou T; Tan S; Kong M; Sun Z; Mei Z; Qi Q; Quan Z; Zhao G; Zheng Y
mSphere; 2021 Oct; 6(5):e0063621. PubMed ID: 34523982
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Reproducibility, stability, and accuracy of microbial profiles by fecal sample collection method in three distinct populations.
Byrd DA; Chen J; Vogtmann E; Hullings A; Song SJ; Amir A; Kibriya MG; Ahsan H; Chen Y; Nelson H; Knight R; Shi J; Chia N; Sinha R
PLoS One; 2019; 14(11):e0224757. PubMed ID: 31738775
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Guided Protocol for Fecal Microbial Characterization by 16S rRNA-Amplicon Sequencing.
Di Segni A; Braun T; BenShoshan M; Farage Barhom S; Glick Saar E; Cesarkas K; Squires JE; Keller N; Haberman Y
J Vis Exp; 2018 Mar; (133):. PubMed ID: 29608151
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Evaluation of fecal DNA extraction protocols for human gut microbiome studies.
Lim MY; Park YS; Kim JH; Nam YD
BMC Microbiol; 2020 Jul; 20(1):212. PubMed ID: 32680572
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. 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]
17. Optimisation of methods for bacterial skin microbiome investigation: primer selection and comparison of the 454 versus MiSeq platform.
Castelino M; Eyre S; Moat J; Fox G; Martin P; Ho P; Upton M; Barton A
BMC Microbiol; 2017 Jan; 17(1):23. PubMed ID: 28109256
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Optimisation of 16S rRNA gut microbiota profiling of extremely low birth weight infants.
Alcon-Giner C; Caim S; Mitra S; Ketskemety J; Wegmann U; Wain J; Belteki G; Clarke P; Hall LJ
BMC Genomics; 2017 Nov; 18(1):841. PubMed ID: 29096601
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. 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]
20. Gut Microbiota Analysis Results Are Highly Dependent on the 16S rRNA Gene Target Region, Whereas the Impact of DNA Extraction Is Minor.
Rintala A; Pietilä S; Munukka E; Eerola E; Pursiheimo JP; Laiho A; Pekkala S; Huovinen P
J Biomol Tech; 2017 Apr; 28(1):19-30. PubMed ID: 28260999
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
