It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Investigating the gut microbiome and metabolome frequently requires faecal samples, which can be difficult to obtain. Previous studies have shown that rectal swabs are comparable to faecal samples for analysing gut microbiota composition and key metabolites. In this study, 3D printed rectal swabs were compared with conventional flocked swabs and faecal samples, due to the potential advantages 3D printing as a technique offers for swab production and development. 16S rRNA gene sequencing, qPCR and metabolite profiling (using 1H-NMR spectroscopy) were performed on swab and faecal samples from healthy participants. Faecal calprotectin and total protein analysis were performed on samples from inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients. There were no significant differences between both swab types and faecal samples when assessing key measures of alpha and beta diversity, and differences in the abundance of major phyla. There was a strong correlation between both swab types and faecal samples for all combined metabolites detected by NMR. In IBD patients, there was no significant difference in faecal calprotectin and total protein levels between both swab types and faecal samples. These data lead us to conclude that 3D printed swabs are equivalent to flocked swabs for the analysis of the gut microbiome, metabolome and inflammation.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details














1 Imperial College London, Department of Metabolism, Digestion and Reproduction, Faculty of Medicine, London, UK (GRID:grid.7445.2) (ISNI:0000 0001 2113 8111); Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, Departments of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, St Mary’s Hospital, London, UK (GRID:grid.417895.6) (ISNI:0000 0001 0693 2181)
2 Imperial College London, Department of Metabolism, Digestion and Reproduction, Faculty of Medicine, London, UK (GRID:grid.7445.2) (ISNI:0000 0001 2113 8111); Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, Departments of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, St Mary’s Hospital, London, UK (GRID:grid.417895.6) (ISNI:0000 0001 0693 2181); St Marks Hospital, Department of Gastroenterology, London, UK (GRID:grid.416510.7)
3 Imperial College London, Department of Metabolism, Digestion and Reproduction, Faculty of Medicine, London, UK (GRID:grid.7445.2) (ISNI:0000 0001 2113 8111)
4 King’s College London, Department of Twin Research and Genetic Epidemiology, School of Life Course & Population Sciences, London, UK (GRID:grid.13097.3c) (ISNI:0000 0001 2322 6764)
5 Stanford University, Department of Bioengineering, Stanford, USA (GRID:grid.168010.e) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 8956)
6 Imperial College London, Department of Metabolism, Digestion and Reproduction, Faculty of Medicine, London, UK (GRID:grid.7445.2) (ISNI:0000 0001 2113 8111); St Marks Hospital, Department of Gastroenterology, London, UK (GRID:grid.416510.7)