Use my Search Websuite to scan PubMed, PMCentral, Journal Hosts and Journal Archives, FullText. Kick-your-searchterm to multiple Engines kick-your-query now !>

A dictionary by aggregated review articles of nephrology, medicine and the life sciences Your one-stop-run pathway from word to the immediate pdf of peer-reviewed on-topic knowledge.

10.1371/journal.pone.0123216 http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/10.1371/journal.pone.0123216 C4396979!4396979!25876035     free     free     free Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Warning: imagejpeg(C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\phplern\25876035.jpg): Failed to open stream: No such file or directory in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 117       PLoS+One 2015 ; 10 (4): ä Nephropedia Template TP {{tp|p=25876035|t=2015. Sinonasal Microbiome Sampling: A Comparison of Techniques |pdf=|usr=}}{{25876035}} gab.com Text Sinonasal Microbiome Sampling: A Comparison of Techniques JO: PLoS One http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=25876035 #FOAvip Background: The role of the sino-nasal microbiome in CRS remains unclear. We hypothesized that the bacteria within mucosal-associated biofilms may be different from the more superficial-lying, free-floating bacteria in the sinuses and that this may impact on the microbiome results obtained. This study investigates whether there is a significant difference in the microbiota of a sinonasal mucosal tissue sample versus a swab sample. Methods: Cross-sectional study with paired design. Mucosal biopsy and swab samples were obtained intra-operatively from the ethmoid sinuses of 6 patients with CRS. Extracted DNA was sequenced on a Roche-454 sequencer using 16S-rRNA gene targeted primers. Data were analyzed using QIIME 1.8 software package. Results: At a maximum subsampling depth of 1,100 reads, the mean observed species richness was 33.3 species (30.6 for swab, versus 36 for mucosa; p > 0.05). There was no significant difference in phylogenetic and non-phylogenetic alpha diversity metrics (Faith?s PD_Whole_Tree and Shannon?s index) between the two sampling methods (p > 0.05). The type of sample also had no significant effect on phylogenetic and non-phylogenetic beta diversity metrics (Unifrac and Bray-Curtis; p > 0.05). Conclusion: We observed no significant difference between the microbiota of mucosal tissue and swab samples. This suggests that less invasive swab samples are representative of the sinonasal mucosa microbiome and can be used for future sinonasal microbiome studies. Twit Text FOAVip Sinonasal Microbiome Sampling: A Comparison of Techniques ????PLoS One http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=25876035 #FOAvip Twit Text # Free Paper on # # # # # LINK http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=25876035 #FOAvip English Wikipedia <ref>{{Cite pmid|25876035}}</ref> Sinonasal Microbiome Sampling: A Comparison of Techniques #MMPMID25876035 Bassiouni A; Cleland EJ; Psaltis AJ; Vreugde S; Wormald PJ PLoS One 2015[]; 10 (4): ä PMID25876035show ga Background: The role of the sino-nasal microbiome in CRS remains unclear. We hypothesized that the bacteria within mucosal-associated biofilms may be different from the more superficial-lying, free-floating bacteria in the sinuses and that this may impact on the microbiome results obtained. This study investigates whether there is a significant difference in the microbiota of a sinonasal mucosal tissue sample versus a swab sample. Methods: Cross-sectional study with paired design. Mucosal biopsy and swab samples were obtained intra-operatively from the ethmoid sinuses of 6 patients with CRS. Extracted DNA was sequenced on a Roche-454 sequencer using 16S-rRNA gene targeted primers. Data were analyzed using QIIME 1.8 software package. Results: At a maximum subsampling depth of 1,100 reads, the mean observed species richness was 33.3 species (30.6 for swab, versus 36 for mucosa; p > 0.05). There was no significant difference in phylogenetic and non-phylogenetic alpha diversity metrics (Faith?s PD_Whole_Tree and Shannon?s index) between the two sampling methods (p > 0.05). The type of sample also had no significant effect on phylogenetic and non-phylogenetic beta diversity metrics (Unifrac and Bray-Curtis; p > 0.05). Conclusion: We observed no significant difference between the microbiota of mucosal tissue and swab samples. This suggests that less invasive swab samples are representative of the sinonasal mucosa microbiome and can be used for future sinonasal microbiome studies. äSinonasal Microbiome Sampling: A Comparison of Techniques (epmc).pdf DeepDyve Pubget Overpricing