Back

Accurate profiling of the gut microbiota using surplus clinical Faecal Immunochemical Test (FIT) samples

van den Haak, M. A.; Zbikowski, J. T.; Moomin, A.; Wilson, J.; Halsey, C.; Gourley, C.; Din, F.; McSorley, S. T.; Collie-Duguid, E. S.; Horgan, G.; Walker, A. W.; Johnstone, A. M.; Kiltie, A. E.

2025-07-05 oncology
10.1101/2025.07.04.25330898 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundNumerous countries use the EXTEL HEMO-AUTO MC Quantitative Faecal Immunochemical Test (qFIT) to screen for faecal haemoglobin. We aimed to determine if bacterial 16S rRNA gene sequencing results (16S V1V2) from the leftover qFIT cassettes would be stable over time and comparable with larger volume faecal collection protocols. MethodsFour qFIT probe samples were taken from each of the sixteen fresh healthy volunteer stool samples and 16S results were compared after 0, 4, 7 and 14 days, to provide a baseline control and mimic postage and sample processing conditions in cancer screening programmes. qFIT results were then compared to those of standard laboratory processing of larger whole-stool samples. DNA was extracted from 100 NHS surplus qFIT samples from symptomatic patients reporting rectal bleeding and quantified to assess suitability for 16S sequencing. ResultsBacterial composition and diversity from healthy volunteer qFITs remained stable over 14 days with no differences compared to baseline (day 0) and larger stool control samples; at least 75% of the symptomatic qFITs yielded sufficient DNA for 16S sequencing. ConclusionqFIT samples were not significantly different to control samples and stable over 14 days, allowing them to be used for large-scale low-cost population-based intestinal microbiota studies. Clinical Trial RegistrationThe study was registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT06100549).

Published in Microbial Genomics (predicted rank #15) · training set

Matching journals

The top 1 journal accounts 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.