↓ Skip to main content

Evidence for a distinct gut microbiome in kidney stone formers compared to non-stone formers

Overview of attention for article published in Urolithiasis, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#12 of 358)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
17 X users
patent
1 patent
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
128 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
110 Mendeley
Title
Evidence for a distinct gut microbiome in kidney stone formers compared to non-stone formers
Published in
Urolithiasis, April 2016
DOI 10.1007/s00240-016-0882-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joshua M. Stern, Saman Moazami, Yunping Qiu, Irwin Kurland, Zigui Chen, Ilir Agalliu, Robert Burk, Kelvin P. Davies

Abstract

The trillions of microbes that colonize our adult intestine are referred to as the gut microbiome (GMB). Functionally it behaves as a metabolic organ that communicates with, and complements, our own human metabolic apparatus. While the relationship between the GMB and kidney stone disease (KSD) has not been investigated, dysbiosis of the GMB has been associated with diabetes, obesity and cardiovascular disease. In this pilot study we sought to identify unique changes in the GMB of kidney stone patients compared to patients without KSD. With an IRB-approved protocol we enrolled 29 patients into our pilot study. 23 patients were kidney stone formers and six were non-stone forming controls. Specimens were collected after a 6h fast and were flash frozen in dry ice and then stored at -80 °C. Microbiome: determination of bacterial abundance was by analysis of 16 s rRNA marker gene sequences using next generation sequencing. Sequencing of the GMB identified 178 bacterial genera. The five most abundant enterotypes within each group made up to greater than 50 % of the bacterial abundance identified. Bacteroides was 3.4 times more abundant in the KSD group as compared to control (34.9 vs 10.2 %; p = 0.001). Prevotella was 2.8 times more abundant in the control group as compared to the KSD group (34.7 vs 12.3 %; p = 0.005). In a multivariate analysis including age, gender, BMI, and DM, kidney stone disease remained an increased risk for high prevalence for Bacteroides (OR = 3.26, p = 0.033), whereas there was an inverse association with Prevotella (OR = 0.37, p = 0.043). There were no statistically significant differences in bacterial abundance levels for Bacteroides or Prevotella when comparing patients with and without DM, obesity (BMI >30), HTN or HLD. 11 kidney stone patients completed 24 h urine analysis at the time of this writing. Looking at the bacterial genuses with at least 4 % abundance in the kidney stone group, Eubacterium was inversely correlated with oxalate levels (r = -0.60, p < 0.06) and Escherichia trended to an inverse correlation with citrate (r = -0.56, p < 0.08). We also compared bacterial abundance between uric acid (UA) stone formers (n = 5) and non UA stone formers (n = 18) and found no significant difference between them. We identified two genus of bacteria in the GMB that had significant association with KSD. Interestingly, components of the 24-h urine appear to be correlated to bacterial abundance. These preliminary studies for the first time associate differences in the GMB with kidney stone formation. Further studies are warranted to evaluate the potential causative role of preexisting dysbiosis in kidney stone disease.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 110 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
India 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Unknown 108 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 14%
Researcher 14 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 10%
Student > Bachelor 11 10%
Student > Postgraduate 9 8%
Other 24 22%
Unknown 26 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 30 27%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 16 15%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 12 11%
Immunology and Microbiology 7 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 5%
Other 8 7%
Unknown 31 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 02 September 2021.
All research outputs
#1,797,663
of 24,885,505 outputs
Outputs from Urolithiasis
#12
of 358 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,126
of 304,728 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Urolithiasis
#2
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,885,505 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 358 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 304,728 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 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.