Back

An optimised approach to evaluate variability in gut health markers in healthy adults.

Krüger, K.; Myeonghyun, Y.; van der Wielen, N.; Kok, D.; Hooiveld, G.; Keshtkar, S.; Diepenveen-de Bruin, M.; Balvers, M. G. J.; Grootte Bromhaar, M.; Mudde, K.; Ly, N. T. H. N.; Vermeiren, Y.; de Groot, L. C. P. G. M.; de Vos, R. C. H.; Gonzales, G. B.; Steegenga, W.; van Trijp, M.

2024-07-25 microbiology
10.1101/2024.07.25.604267 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Despite advances in gut health research, the variability of important gut markers within individuals over time remains underexplored. We investigated the intra-individual variation of various faecal gut health markers using an optimised processing protocol aimed at reducing variability. Faecal samples from ten healthy adults over three consecutive days demonstrated marker-specific intra-individual coefficients of variation (CV%), namely: stool consistency (16.5%), water content (5.7%), pH (3.9%), total SCFAs (17.2%), total BCFAs (27.4%), total bacteria and fungi copies (40.6% and 66.7%), calprotectin and myeloperoxidase (63.8% and 106.5%), and untargeted metabolites (on average 40%). For thirteen microbiota genera, including Bifidobacterium and Akkermansia, variability exceeded 30%, whereas microbiota diversity was less variable (Phylogenetic Diversity 3.3%, Inverse Simpson 17.2%). Mill-homogenisation of frozen faeces significantly reduced the replicates CV% for total SCFAs (20.4% to 7.5%) and total BCFAs (15.9% to 7.8%), and untargeted metabolites compared to only faecal hammering, without altering mean concentrations. Our results show the potential need for repeated sampling to accurately represent specific gut health markers. We also demonstrated the effectiveness of optimised preprocessing of stool samples in reducing overall analytical variability.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.