Gut Microbiota Comparison in Rectal Swabs Versus Stool Samples in Cats with Kidney Stones
2024

Comparing Gut Microbiota in Cats with Kidney Stones: Rectal Swabs vs. Stool Samples

Sample size: 18 publication 10 minutes Evidence: moderate

Author Information

Author(s): Joubran Patrick, Roux Françoise A., Serino Matteo, Deschamps Jack-Yves

Primary Institution: Oniris VetAgro Bio, Nantes-Atlantic College of Veterinary Medicine, France

Hypothesis

The study aims to evaluate the impact of fecal sample collection methods on the intestinal microbiota composition in healthy cats and cats with kidney stones.

Conclusion

The study found that fresh stool samples provide a more accurate representation of the gut microbiota in cats with kidney stones compared to rectal swabs or non-fresh stool samples.

Supporting Evidence

  • Fresh stool samples provided a more accurate representation of the gut microbiota compared to rectal swabs.
  • Significant differences in bacterial composition were found between healthy cats and those with kidney stones when using fresh stool samples.
  • Rectal swabs captured a specific subset of bacteria that may not be present in stool samples.

Takeaway

This study shows that how you collect poop from cats can change what bacteria you find, which is important for understanding kidney stones.

Methodology

The study compared three fecal collection methods: rectal swabs, fresh stool, and stool exposed to air for 24 hours, analyzing the bacterial microbiota through high-resolution sequencing.

Potential Biases

Potential bias due to the small sample size and the specific conditions of the cat colony.

Limitations

The study focused only on the main phyla and did not explore lower taxonomic levels or metabolic functions of the microbiota.

Participant Demographics

The study included 18 cats, 9 healthy and 9 with kidney stones, all from the same colony and aged between 9 to 10.8 years.

Statistical Information

P-Value

p = 0.0003

Statistical Significance

p<0.05

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

10.3390/microorganisms12122411

Want to read the original?

Access the complete publication on the publisher's website

View Original Publication