ArticleFrontiers in microbiology2025
Absolute abundance calculation enhances the significance of microbiome data in antibiotic treatment studies.
Article in Frontiers in microbiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- The cervicovaginal gut microbiota axis as a key determinant of systemic physiology.Gut microbes · 2026Review
- Exposure to Environmental Microbes Alters Responsiveness of Tadpole Gut Microbiome to Dietary Tannins.Integrative zoology · 2026Article
- Gut dysbiosis in oncology: a risk factor for immunoresistance.Cell research · 2026Review
- Clinical and microbial correlates of response to lifestyle intervention in pediatric metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease.Gut pathogens · 2026Article
- Interpreting UniFrac with absolute abundance: a conceptual and practical guide.ISME communications · 2026Article
- An overview of the role of the gut microbiota in rheumatoid arthritis.Microbiome research reports · 2026Review
- Pharmacomicrobiomics.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2025Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The intestinal microbiota contributes to the colonization resistance of the gut towards bacterial pathogens. Antibiotic treatment often negatively affects the microbiome composition, rendering the host more susceptible for infections. However, a correct interpretation of such a perturbation requires quantitative microbiome profiling to reflect accurately the direction and magnitude of compositional changes within a microbiota. Standard 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing of microbiota samples offers compositional data in relative, but not absolute abundancies, and the presence of multiple copies of 16S rRNA genes in bacterial genomes introduces bias into compositional data. We explored whether improved sequencing data analysis influences the significance of the effect exerted by antibiotics on the faecal microbiota of young pigs using two veterinary antibiotics. Calculation of absolute abundances, either by flow cytometry-based bacterial cell counts or by spike-in of synthetic 16S rRNA genes, was employed and 16S rRNA gene copy numbers (GCN) were corrected. Results: Cell number determination exhibited large interindividual variability in two pig studies, using either tylosin or tulathromycin. Following tylosin application, flow cytometry-based cell counting revealed decreased absolute abundances of five families and ten genera. These results were not detectable by standard 16S analysis based on relative abundances. Here, GCN correction additionally uncovered significant decreases of Conclusion: Flow cytometry is a laborious method, but identified a higher number of significant microbiome changes in comparison to common compositional data analysis and even revealed to be superior to a spike-in method. Calculation of absolute abundances and GCN correction are valuable methods that should be standards in microbiome analyses in veterinary as well as human medicine.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.