125 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 34065976)
21. Cloacal Swabs Are Unreliable Sources for Estimating Lower Gastro-Intestinal Tract Microbiota Membership and Structure in Broiler Chickens.
Williams T; Athrey G
Microorganisms; 2020 May; 8(5):. PubMed ID: 32408567
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
22. Sequence-Based Characterization of Microalgal Microbiomes: Impact of DNA Extraction Protocol on Yield and Community Composition.
Roager L; Sonnenschein EC; Gram L
Microbiol Spectr; 2023 Mar; 11(2):e0340822. PubMed ID: 36975854
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
23. Reducing bias in microbiome research: Comparing methods from sample collection to sequencing.
Kool J; Tymchenko L; Shetty SA; Fuentes S
Front Microbiol; 2023; 14():1094800. PubMed ID: 37065158
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
24. No Guts About It: Captivity, But Not Neophobia Phenotype, Influences the Cloacal Microbiome of House Sparrows (
Kelly TR; Vinson AE; King GM; Lattin CR
Integr Org Biol; 2022; 4(1):obac010. PubMed ID: 35505795
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
25. Developing whole cell standards for the microbiome field.
Sergaki C; Anwar S; Fritzsche M; Mate R; Francis RJ; MacLellan-Gibson K; Logan A; Amos GCA
Microbiome; 2022 Aug; 10(1):123. PubMed ID: 35945640
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
26. Combining 16S rRNA gene variable regions enables high-resolution microbial community profiling.
Fuks G; Elgart M; Amir A; Zeisel A; Turnbaugh PJ; Soen Y; Shental N
Microbiome; 2018 Jan; 6(1):17. PubMed ID: 29373999
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
27. Comparison of Meconium DNA Extraction Methods for Use in Microbiome Studies.
Stinson LF; Keelan JA; Payne MS
Front Microbiol; 2018; 9():270. PubMed ID: 29515550
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
28. Optimizing 16S rRNA gene profile analysis from low biomass nasopharyngeal and induced sputum specimens.
Claassen-Weitz S; Gardner-Lubbe S; Mwaikono KS; du Toit E; Zar HJ; Nicol MP
BMC Microbiol; 2020 May; 20(1):113. PubMed ID: 32397992
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
29. The bacterial density of clinical rectal swabs is highly variable, correlates with sequencing contamination, and predicts patient risk of extraintestinal infection.
Chanderraj R; Brown CA; Hinkle K; Falkowski N; Woods RJ; Dickson RP
Microbiome; 2022 Jan; 10(1):2. PubMed ID: 34991717
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
30. Cloacal bacterial communities of tree swallows (Tachycineta bicolor): Similarity within a population, but not between pair-bonded social partners.
Hernandez J; Escallón C; Medina D; Vernasco BJ; Walke JB; Belden LK; Moore IT
PLoS One; 2020; 15(2):e0228982. PubMed ID: 32045456
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Temporal Dynamics of Cloacal Microbiota in Adult Laying Chickens With and Without Access to an Outdoor Range.
Schreuder J; Velkers FC; Bossers A; Bouwstra RJ; de Boer WF; van Hooft P; Stegeman JA; Jurburg SD
Front Microbiol; 2020; 11():626713. PubMed ID: 33584593
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. 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]
33. Controlling for Contaminants in Low-Biomass 16S rRNA Gene Sequencing Experiments.
Karstens L; Asquith M; Davin S; Fair D; Gregory WT; Wolfe AJ; Braun J; McWeeney S
mSystems; 2019 Jun; 4(4):. PubMed ID: 31164452
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. DNA extraction protocol impacts ocular surface microbiome profile.
Delbeke H; Casteels I; Joossens M
Front Microbiol; 2023; 14():1128917. PubMed ID: 37152736
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
35. Assessing age, breeding stage, and mating activity as drivers of variation in the reproductive microbiome of female tree swallows.
Hernandez J; Hucul C; Reasor E; Smith T; McGlothlin JW; Haak DC; Belden LK; Moore IT
Ecol Evol; 2021 Aug; 11(16):11398-11413. PubMed ID: 34429928
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
36. Protocols for metagenomic DNA extraction and Illumina amplicon library preparation for faecal and swab samples.
Vo AT; Jedlicka JA
Mol Ecol Resour; 2014 Nov; 14(6):1183-97. PubMed ID: 24774752
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
37. Rectal swabs are a reliable method of assessing the colonic microbiome.
Turner G; O'Grady M; Hudson D; Morgan X; Frizelle F; Purcell R
Int J Med Microbiol; 2022 Feb; 312(2):151549. PubMed ID: 35114582
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
38. Evaluating Established Methods for Rumen 16S rRNA Amplicon Sequencing With Mock Microbial Populations.
McGovern E; Waters SM; Blackshields G; McCabe MS
Front Microbiol; 2018; 9():1365. PubMed ID: 29988486
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
39. Evaluating rectal swab collection method for gut microbiome analysis in the common marmoset (Callithrix jacchus).
Artim SC; Sheh A; Burns MA; Fox JG
PLoS One; 2019; 14(11):e0224950. PubMed ID: 31697779
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
40. Improving the standards for gut microbiome analysis of fecal samples: insights from the field biology of Japanese macaques on Yakushima Island.
Hayakawa T; Sawada A; Tanabe AS; Fukuda S; Kishida T; Kurihara Y; Matsushima K; Liu J; Akomo-Okoue EF; Gravena W; Kashima M; Suzuki M; Kadowaki K; Suzumura T; Inoue E; Sugiura H; Hanya G; Agata K
Primates; 2018 Sep; 59(5):423-436. PubMed ID: 29942984
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
