| Title |
Mucosa-associated microbiota signature in colorectal cancer
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases, June 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10096-017-3026-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
R. Gao, C. Kong, L. Huang, H. Li, X. Qu, Z. Liu, P. Lan, J. Wang, H. Qin |
| Abstract |
The aim of this study was to explore the gut microbiota profiles of colorectal cancer (CRC) patients and to examine the relationship between gut microbiota and other key molecular factors involved in CRC tumorigenesis. In this study, a 16S rDNA sequencing platform was used to identify possible differences in the microbiota signature between CRC and adjacent normal mucosal tissue. Differences in the microbiota composition in different anatomical colorectal tumor sites and their potential association with KRAS mutation were also explored. In this study, the number of Firmicutes and Actinobacteria decreased, while the number of Fusobacteria increased in the gut of CRC patients. In addition, at the genus level, Fusobacterium was identified as the key contributor to CRC tumorigenesis. In addition, a different distribution of gut microbiota in ascending and descending colon cancer samples was observed. Lipopolysaccharide biosynthesis-associated microbial genes were enriched in tumor tissues. Our study suggests that specific mucosa-associated microbiota signature and function are significantly changed in the gut of CRC patients, which may provide insight into the progression of CRC. These findings could also be of value in the creation of new prevention and treatment strategies for this type of cancer. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 1 | 11% |
| Ireland | 1 | 11% |
| India | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 6 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 7 | 78% |
| Scientists | 2 | 22% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 87 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 87 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 23 | 26% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 14 | 16% |
| Unknown | 22 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 28 | 32% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 9 | 10% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 9 | 10% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 8% |
| Engineering | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 6 | 7% |
| Unknown | 25 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 June 2018.
All research outputs
#2,955,551
of 22,979,862 outputs
Outputs from European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases
#218
of 2,791 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#56,810
of 317,132 outputs
Outputs of similar age from European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases
#4
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,979,862 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,791 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 317,132 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 54 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.