Inter-niche and inter-individual variation in gut microbial community assessment using stool, rectal swab, and mucosal samples

The purpose of this study is to evaluate similarities and differences in gut bacterial measurements and stability in the microbial communities of three different types of samples that could be used to assess different niches of the gut microbiome: rectal swab, stool, and normal rectal mucosa samples...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Scientific reports 2018-03, Vol.8 (1), p.4139-12, Article 4139
Hauptverfasser: Jones, Roshonda B., Zhu, Xiangzhu, Moan, Emili, Murff, Harvey J., Ness, Reid M., Seidner, Douglas L., Sun, Shan, Yu, Chang, Dai, Qi, Fodor, Anthony A., Azcarate-Peril, M. Andrea, Shrubsole, Martha J.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 12
container_issue 1
container_start_page 4139
container_title Scientific reports
container_volume 8
creator Jones, Roshonda B.
Zhu, Xiangzhu
Moan, Emili
Murff, Harvey J.
Ness, Reid M.
Seidner, Douglas L.
Sun, Shan
Yu, Chang
Dai, Qi
Fodor, Anthony A.
Azcarate-Peril, M. Andrea
Shrubsole, Martha J.
description The purpose of this study is to evaluate similarities and differences in gut bacterial measurements and stability in the microbial communities of three different types of samples that could be used to assess different niches of the gut microbiome: rectal swab, stool, and normal rectal mucosa samples. In swab-stool comparisons, there were substantial taxa differences with some taxa varying largely by sample type (e.g. Thermaceae), inter-individual subject variation (e.g. Desulfovibrionaceae), or by both sample type and participant (e.g. Enterobacteriaceae). Comparing all three sample types with whole-genome metagenome shotgun sequencing, swab samples were much closer to stool samples than mucosa samples although all KEGG functional Level 1 and Level 2 pathways were significantly different across all sample types (e.g. transcription and environmental adaptation). However, the individual signature of participants was also observed and was largely stable between two time points. Thus, we found that while the distribution of some taxa was associated with these different sampling techniques, other taxa largely reflected individual differences in the microbial community that were insensitive to sampling technique. There is substantial variability in the assessment of the gut microbial community according to the type of sample.
doi_str_mv 10.1038/s41598-018-22408-4
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_5841359</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2012117645</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c527t-7e73bb2cf6e5f282eb3c877f897401617287e4595d009dcab4ce3594923e594d3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kU1vFSEUhidGY5vaP-DCkLhx0anAwIXZmJjGjyZN3OiaMMyZW5oBrhzmNt342-XeW9vqQljwcZ7zcg5v07xm9JzRTr9HwWSvW8p0y7mguhXPmmNOhWx5x_nzJ_uj5hTxhtYheS9Y_7I54r1ku3nc_LqMBXIbvbsGYuNI_P7s4-i3flzsTLY2e1t8ijVE1kshwbucBl9DLoWwRF_uiEUExACxkAV9XBMsKc1nJIMrFcRbO5zt5cPiEu5ubNjMgK-aF5OdEU7v15Pmx-dP3y--tlffvlxefLxqneSqtApUNwzcTSuQE9cchs5ppSbdK0HZiimuFQjZy5HSfnR2EA462Yued1CXsTtpPhx0N8sQYHS10Gxns8k-2HxnkvXm70j012adtkZqwapSFXh3L5DTzwWwmODRwTzbCGlBwynjjKmVkBV9-w96k5Yca3s7qlarFeOV4geqfiZihumhGEbNzmFzcNhUh83eYSNq0punbTyk_PGzAt0BwBqKa8iPb_9H9jfEdbNc</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2011618712</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Inter-niche and inter-individual variation in gut microbial community assessment using stool, rectal swab, and mucosal samples</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Nature Free</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><source>Springer Nature OA Free Journals</source><creator>Jones, Roshonda B. ; Zhu, Xiangzhu ; Moan, Emili ; Murff, Harvey J. ; Ness, Reid M. ; Seidner, Douglas L. ; Sun, Shan ; Yu, Chang ; Dai, Qi ; Fodor, Anthony A. ; Azcarate-Peril, M. Andrea ; Shrubsole, Martha J.</creator><creatorcontrib>Jones, Roshonda B. ; Zhu, Xiangzhu ; Moan, Emili ; Murff, Harvey J. ; Ness, Reid M. ; Seidner, Douglas L. ; Sun, Shan ; Yu, Chang ; Dai, Qi ; Fodor, Anthony A. ; Azcarate-Peril, M. Andrea ; Shrubsole, Martha J.</creatorcontrib><description>The purpose of this study is to evaluate similarities and differences in gut bacterial measurements and stability in the microbial communities of three different types of samples that could be used to assess different niches of the gut microbiome: rectal swab, stool, and normal rectal mucosa samples. In swab-stool comparisons, there were substantial taxa differences with some taxa varying largely by sample type (e.g. Thermaceae), inter-individual subject variation (e.g. Desulfovibrionaceae), or by both sample type and participant (e.g. Enterobacteriaceae). Comparing all three sample types with whole-genome metagenome shotgun sequencing, swab samples were much closer to stool samples than mucosa samples although all KEGG functional Level 1 and Level 2 pathways were significantly different across all sample types (e.g. transcription and environmental adaptation). However, the individual signature of participants was also observed and was largely stable between two time points. Thus, we found that while the distribution of some taxa was associated with these different sampling techniques, other taxa largely reflected individual differences in the microbial community that were insensitive to sampling technique. There is substantial variability in the assessment of the gut microbial community according to the type of sample.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2045-2322</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2045-2322</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-22408-4</identifier><identifier>PMID: 29515151</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London: Nature Publishing Group UK</publisher><subject>45/23 ; 631/326/2565/2134 ; 692/4020/2741/2135 ; Adult ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Bacteria ; Bacteria - classification ; Bacteria - genetics ; Biopsy ; Double-Blind Method ; Epidemiology ; Female ; Gastrointestinal Microbiome - genetics ; Genomes ; Genotype &amp; phenotype ; Humanities and Social Sciences ; Humans ; Intestinal microflora ; Intestinal Mucosa - microbiology ; Male ; Medicine ; Metabolism ; Metagenome ; Microbial activity ; Microbiomes ; Microbiota ; Middle Aged ; Mucosa ; multidisciplinary ; Rectum ; Sampling ; Science ; Science (multidisciplinary) ; Skin cancer ; Transcription</subject><ispartof>Scientific reports, 2018-03, Vol.8 (1), p.4139-12, Article 4139</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2018</rights><rights>2018. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c527t-7e73bb2cf6e5f282eb3c877f897401617287e4595d009dcab4ce3594923e594d3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c527t-7e73bb2cf6e5f282eb3c877f897401617287e4595d009dcab4ce3594923e594d3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-5591-7575</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5841359/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5841359/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,723,776,780,860,881,27901,27902,41096,42165,51551,53766,53768</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29515151$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Jones, Roshonda B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhu, Xiangzhu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Moan, Emili</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Murff, Harvey J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ness, Reid M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Seidner, Douglas L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sun, Shan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yu, Chang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dai, Qi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fodor, Anthony A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Azcarate-Peril, M. Andrea</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shrubsole, Martha J.</creatorcontrib><title>Inter-niche and inter-individual variation in gut microbial community assessment using stool, rectal swab, and mucosal samples</title><title>Scientific reports</title><addtitle>Sci Rep</addtitle><addtitle>Sci Rep</addtitle><description>The purpose of this study is to evaluate similarities and differences in gut bacterial measurements and stability in the microbial communities of three different types of samples that could be used to assess different niches of the gut microbiome: rectal swab, stool, and normal rectal mucosa samples. In swab-stool comparisons, there were substantial taxa differences with some taxa varying largely by sample type (e.g. Thermaceae), inter-individual subject variation (e.g. Desulfovibrionaceae), or by both sample type and participant (e.g. Enterobacteriaceae). Comparing all three sample types with whole-genome metagenome shotgun sequencing, swab samples were much closer to stool samples than mucosa samples although all KEGG functional Level 1 and Level 2 pathways were significantly different across all sample types (e.g. transcription and environmental adaptation). However, the individual signature of participants was also observed and was largely stable between two time points. Thus, we found that while the distribution of some taxa was associated with these different sampling techniques, other taxa largely reflected individual differences in the microbial community that were insensitive to sampling technique. There is substantial variability in the assessment of the gut microbial community according to the type of sample.</description><subject>45/23</subject><subject>631/326/2565/2134</subject><subject>692/4020/2741/2135</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Aged, 80 and over</subject><subject>Bacteria</subject><subject>Bacteria - classification</subject><subject>Bacteria - genetics</subject><subject>Biopsy</subject><subject>Double-Blind Method</subject><subject>Epidemiology</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Gastrointestinal Microbiome - genetics</subject><subject>Genomes</subject><subject>Genotype &amp; phenotype</subject><subject>Humanities and Social Sciences</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Intestinal microflora</subject><subject>Intestinal Mucosa - microbiology</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Metabolism</subject><subject>Metagenome</subject><subject>Microbial activity</subject><subject>Microbiomes</subject><subject>Microbiota</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Mucosa</subject><subject>multidisciplinary</subject><subject>Rectum</subject><subject>Sampling</subject><subject>Science</subject><subject>Science (multidisciplinary)</subject><subject>Skin cancer</subject><subject>Transcription</subject><issn>2045-2322</issn><issn>2045-2322</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>C6C</sourceid><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kU1vFSEUhidGY5vaP-DCkLhx0anAwIXZmJjGjyZN3OiaMMyZW5oBrhzmNt342-XeW9vqQljwcZ7zcg5v07xm9JzRTr9HwWSvW8p0y7mguhXPmmNOhWx5x_nzJ_uj5hTxhtYheS9Y_7I54r1ku3nc_LqMBXIbvbsGYuNI_P7s4-i3flzsTLY2e1t8ijVE1kshwbucBl9DLoWwRF_uiEUExACxkAV9XBMsKc1nJIMrFcRbO5zt5cPiEu5ubNjMgK-aF5OdEU7v15Pmx-dP3y--tlffvlxefLxqneSqtApUNwzcTSuQE9cchs5ppSbdK0HZiimuFQjZy5HSfnR2EA462Yued1CXsTtpPhx0N8sQYHS10Gxns8k-2HxnkvXm70j012adtkZqwapSFXh3L5DTzwWwmODRwTzbCGlBwynjjKmVkBV9-w96k5Yca3s7qlarFeOV4geqfiZihumhGEbNzmFzcNhUh83eYSNq0punbTyk_PGzAt0BwBqKa8iPb_9H9jfEdbNc</recordid><startdate>20180307</startdate><enddate>20180307</enddate><creator>Jones, Roshonda B.</creator><creator>Zhu, Xiangzhu</creator><creator>Moan, Emili</creator><creator>Murff, Harvey J.</creator><creator>Ness, Reid M.</creator><creator>Seidner, Douglas L.</creator><creator>Sun, Shan</creator><creator>Yu, Chang</creator><creator>Dai, Qi</creator><creator>Fodor, Anthony A.</creator><creator>Azcarate-Peril, M. Andrea</creator><creator>Shrubsole, Martha J.</creator><general>Nature Publishing Group UK</general><general>Nature Publishing Group</general><scope>C6C</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88A</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5591-7575</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20180307</creationdate><title>Inter-niche and inter-individual variation in gut microbial community assessment using stool, rectal swab, and mucosal samples</title><author>Jones, Roshonda B. ; Zhu, Xiangzhu ; Moan, Emili ; Murff, Harvey J. ; Ness, Reid M. ; Seidner, Douglas L. ; Sun, Shan ; Yu, Chang ; Dai, Qi ; Fodor, Anthony A. ; Azcarate-Peril, M. Andrea ; Shrubsole, Martha J.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c527t-7e73bb2cf6e5f282eb3c877f897401617287e4595d009dcab4ce3594923e594d3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>45/23</topic><topic>631/326/2565/2134</topic><topic>692/4020/2741/2135</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Aged, 80 and over</topic><topic>Bacteria</topic><topic>Bacteria - classification</topic><topic>Bacteria - genetics</topic><topic>Biopsy</topic><topic>Double-Blind Method</topic><topic>Epidemiology</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Gastrointestinal Microbiome - genetics</topic><topic>Genomes</topic><topic>Genotype &amp; phenotype</topic><topic>Humanities and Social Sciences</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Intestinal microflora</topic><topic>Intestinal Mucosa - microbiology</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Metabolism</topic><topic>Metagenome</topic><topic>Microbial activity</topic><topic>Microbiomes</topic><topic>Microbiota</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Mucosa</topic><topic>multidisciplinary</topic><topic>Rectum</topic><topic>Sampling</topic><topic>Science</topic><topic>Science (multidisciplinary)</topic><topic>Skin cancer</topic><topic>Transcription</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Jones, Roshonda B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhu, Xiangzhu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Moan, Emili</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Murff, Harvey J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ness, Reid M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Seidner, Douglas L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sun, Shan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yu, Chang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dai, Qi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fodor, Anthony A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Azcarate-Peril, M. Andrea</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shrubsole, Martha J.</creatorcontrib><collection>Springer Nature OA Free Journals</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Biology Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Scientific reports</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Jones, Roshonda B.</au><au>Zhu, Xiangzhu</au><au>Moan, Emili</au><au>Murff, Harvey J.</au><au>Ness, Reid M.</au><au>Seidner, Douglas L.</au><au>Sun, Shan</au><au>Yu, Chang</au><au>Dai, Qi</au><au>Fodor, Anthony A.</au><au>Azcarate-Peril, M. Andrea</au><au>Shrubsole, Martha J.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Inter-niche and inter-individual variation in gut microbial community assessment using stool, rectal swab, and mucosal samples</atitle><jtitle>Scientific reports</jtitle><stitle>Sci Rep</stitle><addtitle>Sci Rep</addtitle><date>2018-03-07</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>8</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>4139</spage><epage>12</epage><pages>4139-12</pages><artnum>4139</artnum><issn>2045-2322</issn><eissn>2045-2322</eissn><abstract>The purpose of this study is to evaluate similarities and differences in gut bacterial measurements and stability in the microbial communities of three different types of samples that could be used to assess different niches of the gut microbiome: rectal swab, stool, and normal rectal mucosa samples. In swab-stool comparisons, there were substantial taxa differences with some taxa varying largely by sample type (e.g. Thermaceae), inter-individual subject variation (e.g. Desulfovibrionaceae), or by both sample type and participant (e.g. Enterobacteriaceae). Comparing all three sample types with whole-genome metagenome shotgun sequencing, swab samples were much closer to stool samples than mucosa samples although all KEGG functional Level 1 and Level 2 pathways were significantly different across all sample types (e.g. transcription and environmental adaptation). However, the individual signature of participants was also observed and was largely stable between two time points. Thus, we found that while the distribution of some taxa was associated with these different sampling techniques, other taxa largely reflected individual differences in the microbial community that were insensitive to sampling technique. There is substantial variability in the assessment of the gut microbial community according to the type of sample.</abstract><cop>London</cop><pub>Nature Publishing Group UK</pub><pmid>29515151</pmid><doi>10.1038/s41598-018-22408-4</doi><tpages>12</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5591-7575</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 2045-2322
ispartof Scientific reports, 2018-03, Vol.8 (1), p.4139-12, Article 4139
issn 2045-2322
2045-2322
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_5841359
source MEDLINE; Nature Free; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; PubMed Central; Alma/SFX Local Collection; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry; Springer Nature OA Free Journals
subjects 45/23
631/326/2565/2134
692/4020/2741/2135
Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Bacteria
Bacteria - classification
Bacteria - genetics
Biopsy
Double-Blind Method
Epidemiology
Female
Gastrointestinal Microbiome - genetics
Genomes
Genotype & phenotype
Humanities and Social Sciences
Humans
Intestinal microflora
Intestinal Mucosa - microbiology
Male
Medicine
Metabolism
Metagenome
Microbial activity
Microbiomes
Microbiota
Middle Aged
Mucosa
multidisciplinary
Rectum
Sampling
Science
Science (multidisciplinary)
Skin cancer
Transcription
title Inter-niche and inter-individual variation in gut microbial community assessment using stool, rectal swab, and mucosal samples
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-05T13%3A22%3A13IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Inter-niche%20and%20inter-individual%20variation%20in%20gut%20microbial%20community%20assessment%20using%20stool,%20rectal%20swab,%20and%20mucosal%20samples&rft.jtitle=Scientific%20reports&rft.au=Jones,%20Roshonda%20B.&rft.date=2018-03-07&rft.volume=8&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=4139&rft.epage=12&rft.pages=4139-12&rft.artnum=4139&rft.issn=2045-2322&rft.eissn=2045-2322&rft_id=info:doi/10.1038/s41598-018-22408-4&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2012117645%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2011618712&rft_id=info:pmid/29515151&rfr_iscdi=true