M Paine
Senior Member
- Messages
- 341
- Location
- Auckland, New Zealand
It seems that the authors are dropping hints that they did see increases in read counts in blood post exercise. I wonder if they removed them during peer-review due to being an unreliable metric. Other metagenomic studies which have looked at microbial communities often do see that read count correlates to the abundance of taxa seen via other sampling methods.
Perhaps with those figures given as context, this paper would make a bit more sense, but without overall microbial population growth or decline as context, statements like this seem suggestive of something not demonstrated by the data:
"There was also a significant difference in clearance of specific bacterial phyla from blood following exercise with high levels of bacterial sequences maintained at 72 hours post-exercise in ME/CFS patients versus clearance in the controls."
Assuming that CFS patients maintain high levels of bacteria in the blood post exercise, the question becomes, why?
Perhaps with those figures given as context, this paper would make a bit more sense, but without overall microbial population growth or decline as context, statements like this seem suggestive of something not demonstrated by the data:
"There was also a significant difference in clearance of specific bacterial phyla from blood following exercise with high levels of bacterial sequences maintained at 72 hours post-exercise in ME/CFS patients versus clearance in the controls."
Assuming that CFS patients maintain high levels of bacteria in the blood post exercise, the question becomes, why?