243 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 32374853)
1. 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]
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. 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]
5. Comparison of Fecal Collection Methods for Microbiome and Metabolomics Studies.
Wang Z; Zolnik CP; Qiu Y; Usyk M; Wang T; Strickler HD; Isasi CR; Kaplan RC; Kurland IJ; Qi Q; Burk RD
Front Cell Infect Microbiol; 2018; 8():301. PubMed ID: 30234027
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. Comparison of fecal and oral collection methods for studies of the human microbiota in two Iranian cohorts.
Wu Z; Hullings AG; Ghanbari R; Etemadi A; Wan Y; Zhu B; Poustchi H; Fahraji BB; Sakhvidi MJZ; Shi J; Knight R; Malekzadeh R; Sinha R; Vogtmann E
BMC Microbiol; 2021 Nov; 21(1):324. PubMed ID: 34809575
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. 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]
10. 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]
11. Microbial diversity in fecal samples depends on DNA extraction method: easyMag DNA extraction compared to QIAamp DNA stool mini kit extraction.
Mirsepasi H; Persson S; Struve C; Andersen LO; Petersen AM; Krogfelt KA
BMC Res Notes; 2014 Jan; 7():50. PubMed ID: 24447346
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Optimisation of sample storage and DNA extraction for human gut microbiota studies.
Kazantseva J; Malv E; Kaleda A; Kallastu A; Meikas A
BMC Microbiol; 2021 May; 21(1):158. PubMed ID: 34051731
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. 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]
14. 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]
15. 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]
16. Comparison of Methods To Collect Fecal Samples for Microbiome Studies Using Whole-Genome Shotgun Metagenomic Sequencing.
Byrd DA; Sinha R; Hoffman KL; Chen J; Hua X; Shi J; Chia N; Petrosino J; Vogtmann E
mSphere; 2020 Feb; 5(1):. PubMed ID: 32250964
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. The truth about metagenomics: quantifying and counteracting bias in 16S rRNA studies.
Brooks JP; Edwards DJ; Harwich MD; Rivera MC; Fettweis JM; Serrano MG; Reris RA; Sheth NU; Huang B; Girerd P; ; Strauss JF; Jefferson KK; Buck GA
BMC Microbiol; 2015 Mar; 15():66. PubMed ID: 25880246
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Comparison of DNA extraction methods for human gut microbial community profiling.
Lim MY; Song EJ; Kim SH; Lee J; Nam YD
Syst Appl Microbiol; 2018 Mar; 41(2):151-157. PubMed ID: 29305057
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Impact of DNA extraction methods on 16S rRNA-based profiling of bacterial communities in cheese.
Markusková B; Minarovičová J; Véghová A; Drahovská H; Kaclíková E
J Microbiol Methods; 2021 May; 184():106210. PubMed ID: 33774112
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Performance comparison of fecal preservative and stock solutions for gut microbiome storage at room temperature.
Park C; Yun KE; Chu JM; Lee JY; Hong CP; Nam YD; Jeong J; Han K; Ahn YJ
J Microbiol; 2020 Aug; 58(8):703-710. PubMed ID: 32583287
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
