atcc msa 2006tm Search Results


atcc msa 2006tm  (ATCC)
96
ATCC atcc msa 2006tm
Atcc Msa 2006tm, supplied by ATCC, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 96/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
https://www.bioz.com/result/atcc msa 2006tm/product/ATCC
Average 96 stars, based on 1 article reviews
atcc msa 2006tm - by Bioz Stars, 2026-03
96/100 stars
  Buy from Supplier
gut microbiome whole cell mix  (ATCC)
96
ATCC gut microbiome whole cell mix
<t>Microbiome</t> profile comparisons. Genus-level fecal microbial composition of both replicates of all 16 healthy study subjects ( n = 32 samples) based upon (A) relative microbiome profiling (RMP), (B) quantitative microbiome profiling (QMP, cells per gram feces), (C) QMP after PMAxx-treatment of fecal samples (QMP-PMA, cells per gram feces), and (D) QMP using qPCR for quantification of bacterial load (QMP-qPCR, cells per gram feces).
Gut Microbiome Whole Cell Mix, supplied by ATCC, used in various techniques. Bioz Stars score: 96/100, based on 1 PubMed citations. ZERO BIAS - scores, article reviews, protocol conditions and more
https://www.bioz.com/result/gut microbiome whole cell mix/product/ATCC
Average 96 stars, based on 1 article reviews
gut microbiome whole cell mix - by Bioz Stars, 2026-03
96/100 stars
  Buy from Supplier

Image Search Results


Microbiome profile comparisons. Genus-level fecal microbial composition of both replicates of all 16 healthy study subjects ( n = 32 samples) based upon (A) relative microbiome profiling (RMP), (B) quantitative microbiome profiling (QMP, cells per gram feces), (C) QMP after PMAxx-treatment of fecal samples (QMP-PMA, cells per gram feces), and (D) QMP using qPCR for quantification of bacterial load (QMP-qPCR, cells per gram feces).

Journal: Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology

Article Title: How to Count Our Microbes? The Effect of Different Quantitative Microbiome Profiling Approaches

doi: 10.3389/fcimb.2020.00403

Figure Lengend Snippet: Microbiome profile comparisons. Genus-level fecal microbial composition of both replicates of all 16 healthy study subjects ( n = 32 samples) based upon (A) relative microbiome profiling (RMP), (B) quantitative microbiome profiling (QMP, cells per gram feces), (C) QMP after PMAxx-treatment of fecal samples (QMP-PMA, cells per gram feces), and (D) QMP using qPCR for quantification of bacterial load (QMP-qPCR, cells per gram feces).

Article Snippet: We used the Gut Microbiome Whole cell Mix (ATCC® MSA-2006 TM ) containing an even mixture of whole bacterial cells (12 different species) in order to assess whether cell-based or molecular-based quantification was more accurate.

Techniques:

Within method dissimilarity of sample replicates and between methods dissimilarity of samples. Fecal microbial community structure variation based upon Bray–Curtis (BC) dissimilarity between samples and sample replicates. (A) Principal coordinates analysis of the study cohort based upon BC dissimilarity. Each segment connects the two replicates of the same sample as profiled by QMP (blue), QMP-PMA (green), and QMP-qPCR (red), (B) Box-plot of BC distance between sample replicates for all quantitative profiling methods (within-method variability) and BC distance in microbial community structure from the same sample profiled with different quantitative methods (between-method variability). The significance was checked pairwise using the Wilcoxon test and then adjusted for multiple comparisons using the FDR correction. The significance coding is indicated as *** p < 0.005, ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05 and N.S. for p ≥ 0.05. For clarity only significance of the comparisons between within QMP-method dissimilarity and all other within- and between-method dissimilarities are indicated (all FDR-corrected p -values are presented in ).

Journal: Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology

Article Title: How to Count Our Microbes? The Effect of Different Quantitative Microbiome Profiling Approaches

doi: 10.3389/fcimb.2020.00403

Figure Lengend Snippet: Within method dissimilarity of sample replicates and between methods dissimilarity of samples. Fecal microbial community structure variation based upon Bray–Curtis (BC) dissimilarity between samples and sample replicates. (A) Principal coordinates analysis of the study cohort based upon BC dissimilarity. Each segment connects the two replicates of the same sample as profiled by QMP (blue), QMP-PMA (green), and QMP-qPCR (red), (B) Box-plot of BC distance between sample replicates for all quantitative profiling methods (within-method variability) and BC distance in microbial community structure from the same sample profiled with different quantitative methods (between-method variability). The significance was checked pairwise using the Wilcoxon test and then adjusted for multiple comparisons using the FDR correction. The significance coding is indicated as *** p < 0.005, ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05 and N.S. for p ≥ 0.05. For clarity only significance of the comparisons between within QMP-method dissimilarity and all other within- and between-method dissimilarities are indicated (all FDR-corrected p -values are presented in ).

Article Snippet: We used the Gut Microbiome Whole cell Mix (ATCC® MSA-2006 TM ) containing an even mixture of whole bacterial cells (12 different species) in order to assess whether cell-based or molecular-based quantification was more accurate.

Techniques: