ArticleScientific reports2026
Standardizing oral microbiome sampling for qPCR: methodological and exploratory insights into nutritional status.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Standardization of oral sample collection methods is essential for accurate and reproducible microbiota quantification. This methodological study aimed to evaluate different oral collection methods to identify the most consistent approach for bacterial quantification by qPCR using samples from adolescent individuals. In addition, to assess the biological applicability of the best method, an exploratory analysis compared bacterial profiles between eutrophic and overweight/obese adolescents and explored associations between bacterial abundance and body composition parameters. Samples of unstimulated saliva, cheek swabs, and biofilm were collected from the same individuals, and qPCR was used to quantify total bacteria (16 S rRNA gene), Bacillota, and Bacteroidota phyla. Unstimulated saliva produced the lowest variability in bacterial quantification compared with other methods (p < 0.05). Moderate correlations were observed between saliva and biofilm, whereas saliva and cheek swab showed weak associations. Although bacterial copy numbers tended to be higher in overweight/obese individuals, these differences were not statistically significant. Correlation matrices suggested group-specific associations between bacterial taxa and body composition parameters, demonstrating the potential of saliva for microbiome assessment in studies of nutritional and metabolic health. This study validated unstimulated saliva as a reproducible, non-invasive, and cost-effective biofluid for oral microbiota quantification by qPCR. The method provides consistent results suitable for large-scale, translational, or point-of-care applications.
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.