MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409358582 · doi:10.1038/s41467-025-58673-x

Detecting microbial engraftment after FMT using placebo sequencing and culture enriched metagenomics to sort signals from noise

2025· article· en· W4409358582 on OpenAlexafffund
Shahrokh Shekarriz, Jake C. Szamosi, Fiona Whelan, Jennifer Y. F. Lau, Josie Libertucci, Laura Rossi, Michelle E. Fontes, Melanie Wolfe, Christine H. Lee, Paul Moayyedi, Michael G. Surette

Bibliographic record

VenueNature Communications · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaMcMaster University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCrohn's and Colitis CanadaMitacsGovernment of CanadaMcMaster University
KeywordsMetagenomicsMicrobiomeTransplantationBiologyMedicineComputational biologyImmunologyBioinformaticsGeneInternal medicineGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) has shown efficacy for the treatment of ulcerative colitis but with variable response between patients and trials. The mechanisms underlying FMT’s therapeutic effects remains poorly understood but is generally assumed to involve engraftment of donor microbiota into the recipient’s microbiome. Reports of microbial engraftment following FMT have been inconsistent between studies. Here, we investigate microbial engraftment in a previous randomized controlled trial (NCT01545908), in which FMT was sourced from a single donor, using amplicon-based profiling, shotgun metagenomics, and culture-enriched metagenomics. Placebo samples were included to estimate engraftment noise, and a significant level of false-positive engraftment was observed which confounds the prediction of true engraftment. We show that analyzing engraftment across multiple patients from a single donor enhances the accuracy of detection. We identified a unique set of genes engrafted in responders to FMT which supports strain displacement as the primary mechanism of engraftment in our cohort. Here, the authors profile bacterial engraftment in UC patients receiving FMT from a single donor and placebo samples to estimate noise, showing a significant level of false-positive engraftment, which confounds the prediction of true engraftment, while analyzing engraftment across multiple patients from a single donor enhances the accuracy of detection.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.310 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNature CommunicationsSame topicClostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens researchFrench-language works237,207