Skip to main content
Download PDF

Global research trends on the links between the gut microbiome and cancer: a visualization analysis

Journal of Translational Medicine volume 20, Article number: 83 (2022) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Significant links between the microbiota and human health have emerged in the last 20 years. A correlation has recently been demonstrated between changes in the gut microbiota and the development of cancer. This study aimed to use bibliometric analysis of the published gut microbiome and cancer literature to present the research status and summarize the hotspots for frontier studies.

Methods

A literature search for research on the gut microbiome and cancer research from 2001 to 2020 was conducted using the Scopus database on 20 March 2021. VOSviewer software (version 1.6.16) was used to perform the visualization analysis.

Results

From 2001 to 2020, a total of 2061 publications were retrieved. Annual publication output grew from 10 in 2001 to 486 in 2020. The USA had the largest number of publications, making the largest contribution to the field (n  = 566, 27.46%). Before 2016, most studies focused on the ‘effect of probiotics on cancer’. The latest trends showed that ‘microbiota composition and gene expression’ and ‘host-microbiome interaction in cancer immunotherapy’ would be more concerned more widely in the future.

Conclusions

Research on ‘microbiota composition and gene expression’ and ‘host-microbiome interaction in cancer immunotherapy’ will continue to be the hotspot. Therefore, this study provides the trend and characteristics of the literature on the gut microbiota and cancer literature, which provided a useful bibliometric analysis for researchers to conduct further research.

Background

Cancer is a multifaceted disease that is the second leading cause of death in the world [1]. Numerous studies in recent years have highlighted the dual role of the gut microbiota in maintaining host health [2, 3]. Gut bacteria can generate various metabolites and bioproducts that are essential for maintaining homeostasis in both the host and the gut [2]. The gut microbiota has been implicated in cancer and has been demonstrated to alter the effectiveness of anticancer drugs [4,5,6]. Resistance to chemo drugs or immune checkpoint inhibitors is associated with altered gut microbiota, while supplementation with different bacterial organisms restores anticancer drug responses [6]. As a result, researchers are looking at manipulating the intestinal microbiota with antibiotics, probiotics, prebiotics, or fecal transplantation to increase the effectiveness of anticancer drug effectiveness and reduce toxicity [7,8,9].

The status of research and scientific output on the gut microbiota and cancer is unknown. This is hypothesized and expected to be in progress, as shown in other microbiota science, such as trends in the research field of the gut microbiota [10], intestinal microbiota in obesity [11, 12], microbiome-gut-brain axis [13], gut microbiota and depression [14], microbiota of diabetes research [15], and fecal microbiota transplantation [16]. In addition, bibliometric research has recently been published in various scientific disciplines [17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25]. Bibliometric analysis differs from systematic reviews in which systematic reviews attempt to answer a specific research question based on a small number of publications [26,27,28]. In contrast, bibliometric analysis aims to answer a specific research question based on a large number of publications [29]. It also varies from scoping reviews, which are designed to determine the type and scope of research evidence [30, 31]. Despite these limitations, the bibliometric analysis gives a valuable overview of a field’s national and worldwide contributions to literature. It also offers baseline data, which helps to identify research gaps that might be addressed in future studies [32].

To our knowledge, only one bibliometric research was specifically based on the microbiota and restricted to gastric cancer, with data collected from the Web of Science (WoS) database [33]. As a result, to date, no comprehensive evaluation of the current literature on gut microbiota and cancer has been performed or published. Therefore, this study aimed to provide an overview of research activity on microbiota and cancer at the global level in terms of bibliometric indices. Furthermore, this study covers the latest developments, hotspots for frontier studies, and future research advancement patterns in this area. In addition, future paths and patterns in this field are forecast based on the evaluation of research output in microbiota and cancer papers.

Methods

Data sources

For source publication retrieval, the Scopus database was chosen as the target database. Scopus is widely recognized as one of the best online databases for bibliometric research [34, 35].

Search strategies

We used the Scopus online database’s “Advanced search” feature and inserted the appropriate keywords to find relevant literature on microbiota and cancer from the last 2 decades (from January 2001 to December 31, 2020). To prevent bias caused by ongoing database updates, document extraction and export should be done within 1 day (March 19, 2021). Synonyms for the gut microbiota and cancer were used as in the following search strategy.

Step 1

To achieve the objectives of this bibliometric analysis, terms related to the microbiota entered into the Scopus engine were chosen from the literature related to the microbiota [10, 11, 13,14,15,16, 33]. The following ‘terms’ were used in the ‘Article Title’: ‘Bifidobacterium’ OR ‘dysbiosis’ OR ‘Escherichia coli’ OR ‘flora’ OR ‘Lactobacillus’ Microbiome’ OR ‘microbiota’ OR ‘microflora’ OR ‘probiotic’ OR ‘Saccharomyces’.

Step 2

After that, we limited the publications found in Step 1 to those that included the terms “cancer and associated terms” in their title. Terms related to cancer that were entered into the Scopus engine were extracted from the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) from PubMed. The following ‘terms’ were entered as ‘Article Title’: ‘Neoplasia’ OR ‘Neoplasia’ OR ‘Neoplasm’ OR ‘Tumor’ OR ‘Cancer’ OR “Malignancy” OR ‘carcinoma’ OR ‘Malignancies’ OR ‘Malignant’.

Bibliometric analysis

An Excel spreadsheet was used to collect the following data as bibliometric indicators: total number of publications, year of publication, publication types, to ten funding agencies, top ten countries, top ten institutions, top ten journals, most cancer types related to microbiota based in the top keyword, and top ten citations.

Visualise analysis

The VOSviewer software tool (version 1.6.16) was used to build, visualize and explore networks of countries, authors, and terms, with links between items based on their cooccurrences [36, 37], was applied to create network visualization maps of the most cooccurrence terms to determine the hotspots for frontier studies, as well as the most coauthorships of countries.

Results

General description of the retrieved publications

In total, 2061 publications were included in this study. Articles made up 1346 of the total number of publications, accounting for 65.31% of the total number of records, making them the most popular form of literature. There were 511 reviews, representing 24.79 percent of the total. The other eight types of publications were 204 documents, representing 9.90% of the total, including letters, book chapter, notes, book, editorials, minutes of meetings, erratum, and short surveys.

Growth and productivity trends

During the past 2 decades, the number of microbiota and cancer publications increased yearly, from 10 in 2001 to 486 in 2020, as shown in Fig. 1. The growth of the publication showed two stages: the first (2001–2016), which had a very slow rate of publication production, and the second (2017–2020), which had a much faster rate of publication progress.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Growth trends of publications on the microbiota and cancer from 2001 to 2020

Full size image

Top active countries

At least 112 different countries participated in the publication of studies on the microbiota and cancer in the last 2 decades. A total of 1568 articles written in the top ten countries represented 70.8% of all studies in the related area (Table 1). The United States (n = 566) was the largest contributor, followed by China (n = 478), Italy (n = 135), Japan (n = 122) and the United Kingdom (n = 94). In addition, the United States and China had the largest number of publications involving international scholars. Figure 2 shows a network mapping chart of international research collaborations on microbiota and cancer from 2001 to 2020 among the leading participating countries. The total number of authors published on microbiota and cancer was 9102, of which 25 published more than 15 documents.

Table 1 List of the top 10 countries publishing research on microbiota and cancer from 2001 to 2020
Full size table
Fig. 2
figure 2

Network visualization map of international research collaboration among the leading active countries in microbiota and cancer from 2001 to 2020. This visualized map of collaborations was developed when at least 10 publications were placed for each country. There are 35 countries that reach this threshold out of 112 countries active in this field. The size of the node indicates how many publications for that country

Full size image

Top active institutions

The Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM) in France had the highest number of publications among institutions worldwide, with 40 publications, which accounted for 1.94% of all publications. The National Cancer Institute of the USA was the second prolific institute with 35 (1.70%) publications, followed by the MD Anderson Cancer Center of the University of Texas in the USA with 30 (1.46%) publications, the Ministry of Education of China with 28 (1.36%) and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in the USA with 28 (1.36%) publications (Table 2).

Table 2 List of the top 10 institutions publishing research on microbiota and cancer from 2001 to 2020
Full size table

Top funding agencies

Of the documents that were retrieved, USA funding agencies were the most active in this field, the National Natural Science Foundation of China (n = 211; 10.24%) being the most active, followed by the National Cancer Institute (n = 186; 9.02%), National Institutes of Health (n = 163; 7.91%) and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (n = 80; 3.88%) (Table 3).

Table 3 The top ten funding agencies having the most publications on microbiota and cancer from 2001 to 2020
Full size table

Top active journals

The top 10 journals with the most publications related to microbiota and cancer are listed in Table 4. Scientific Reports had the highest number of publications among journals worldwide, with 40 publications representing 1.94% of all publications. The International Journal of Molecular Sciences and PloS ONE were the second with 33 (1.6%) publications for each journal, followed by Frontiers in Microbiology with 27(1.31%) publications.

Table 4 List of the top 10 journals publishing research on microbiota and cancer from 2001 to 2020
Full size table

Top-cited publications

Table 5 summarizes the top ten most cited papers in the microbiota and cancer during the last 2 decades based on total citations. The top 10 highest citations ranged from 1378 to 441 [38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47]. Routy et al. [44], published in Science in 2018, had the highest overall citation frequency (number of citations = 1378) among the top ten publications with total citation frequency.

Table 5 Top cited list of the top 10 high cited papers related to microbiota and cancer from 2001 to 2020
Full size table

Hotspots for frontier studies

Terms with a minimum number of occurrences greater than 50 in all included publications were analyzed using VOSviewer. There are 109 terms that reach this threshold out of 34,784 in this field, which were divided into three clusters and colored differently. The three clusters are “microbiota composition and gene expression” (cluster 1, green), “effect of probiotics on cancer” (cluster 2, red), and “host-microbiome interaction in cancer immunotherapy” (cluster 3, blue); (Fig. 3). In cluster 1, the most striking keywords are sequence, abundance, composition, healthy control, and patient. In cluster 2, the most common keywords are effect, probiotic, ability, apoptosis, proliferation, reduction, cancer cell, and inhibition. In cluster 3, the keywords with the most repetition are microbiome, evidence, pathogenesis, cancer, immunotherapy, interaction, cancer therapy, and immunity. These results demonstrated that the most prominent fields of microbiota and cancer included 3 directions during the past 20 years. Keywords were color coded by VOSviewer based on the average time they appeared in the 2061 related publications (Fig. 4). The terms in blue appeared earlier, and those in yellow and green appeared later. Before 2016, most studies focused on the ‘effect of probiotics on cancer’. The latest trends showed that ‘microbiota composition and gene expression’ and ‘host-microbiome interaction in cancer immunotherapy’ would be more concerned more widely in the future.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Network visualization map of terms in title/abstract fields of publications related to microbiota and cancer from 2001 to 2020. This visualized map of terms was developed when the minimum-term occurrences were placed at least 50 times. There are 109 terms that reach this threshold out of 34,784 in this field, which were divided into three clusters and colored differently. The size of the node indicates how many publications use that term

Full size image
Fig. 4
figure 4

Network visualization map of terms in the title/abstract and their distribution according to the mean frequency of appearance. The blue terms emerged first, followed by the yellow and green terms that appeared later

Full size image

The most frequent cancer types encountered in the retrieved literature

Table 6 lists the most frequent keywords related to cancer types occurrences in microbiota literature from 2001 to 2020. The top keywords indicate that colorectal cancer is strongly related to microbiota in the literature, followed by breast cancer, stomach cancer, and lung cancer (Table 6).

Table 6 List of most frequent keywords related to cancer types occurrences in microbiota literature from 2001 to 2020
Full size table

Discussion

This is the first bibliometric study to evaluate and visualize research of the gut microbiota in the field of oncology. A total of 2061 publications originating from the Scopus database were analyzed. We offer a detailed analysis of global trends and hotspots in gut microbiota and cancer research over the past 2 decades. According to our study, publications have increased rapidly since 2017.

Previous research on microbiota and gastric cancer [33] found findings that differed from those presented in our study (196 documents worldwide from 2000 to 2019). The inconsistency was attributable to (1) the various databases used to access the publications and (2) the different research domains analyzed. Zhang et al. [33] study was carried out using WoS and was limited to gastric cancer. In our study, the Scopus database used more comprehensive terms related to gut microbiota and cancer without limiting the results to any particular cancer. We conducted our bibliometric research using the Scopus database, which Elsevier owns. According to several studies, Scopus is the world’s largest database of abstracts and citations from peer-reviewed scientific literature [48,49,50]. Various scholars for bibliometric evaluation of various fields of science [48,49,50,51,52]. Scopus is a multidisciplinary database that has more indexed journals than PubMed and WoS [53,54,55].

The United States was the leading contributor in this field with 566 publications, followed by China, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom. Research success in these countries can be linked to a diverse group of researchers with expertise in this area and a significant amount of financial funding for researchers. This research productivity is not unexpected, considering that it is in countries with stronger infrastructures, more abundant scientific services, and a long history in the general study of the microbiome. Many experts in the fields of microbiology, oncology, and gastroenterology (eg., Marchesi JR, Jobin C, Trinchieri G, Perdigón G, Qin H, Gao R, Wargo JA, White JR, Zitvogel L, Ahn J, Fujimori M, Goedert JJ, Mahdavi M, Morrow CD, Oue N, Sentani K, Sobhani I, Yasui W, Yu J, Zitvogel L, and others) are gaining interest in the pathological function and host-microbiome relationship in cancer as an evolving forum to evaluate the diagnosis and effective therapeutic intervention of these ailments, which is possibly contributing to the increase in research productivity [56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68].

Furthermore, the increase in the number of publications on microbiota and cancer may be linked to many hot topics published during this time frame, exposing innovative theories that lead to new fields of research. These findings suggest new therapeutic and diagnostic concepts for various disorders in the field of oncology [38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47, 69,70,71,72,73] such as “effect of probiotics on cancer”, “microbiota composition and gene expression” and “host-microbiome interaction in cancer immunotherapy”.

The results of our study indicate that the most highly cited microbiota and cancer publications emphasized on a variety of subtopics close to the study hotspots in co-occurring terms, which is a strong trend emerging from the results. The article most cited was Routy et al. [44] entitled ‘Gut microbiome influences the efficacy of PD-1-based immunotherapy against epithelial tumors’, published in Science in 2018, with 1,378 total citations. This study reported that the maintenance of healthy gut flora could affect patient responses to cancer immunotherapy and help patients combat cancer. The second paper was by Arthur et al. [38] from Science. The complex effects of inflammation on the microbial composition/activity and the host’s ability to defend itself from a dysbiotic microbiota were illustrated in this report [38]. The third most cited paper is a study by Louis et al. [42] in Nature Reviews Microbiology as a review, which discusses the relationship between microbial metabolism, diet, and colorectal cancer, and argues that the cumulative effects of microbial metabolites should be considered to help predict and prevent cancer progression.

Strengths and limitations

The current study is the first bibliometric study of its kind to look at this emerging topic and provide comprehensive information on research trends and hotspots in this field. Three elements of current research are unique: (1) the use of Scopus, the largest database available; (2) the use of terms related to the gut microbiota and cancer comprehensively; and (3) it is global in scope. Finally, the findings of our research have some limitations. First, this study’s analysis is based on papers found in the Scopus database. Although this database contains most of the majority of research papers on gut microbiota and cancer, other databases such as PubMed and WoS may have some publications related to our topic, which is a weakness of this article. Second, the fact that we only included publications on cancer or gut microbiota in the article title has an inherent flaw; our experience has shown that including search items in the abstract has a much lower sensitivity and would have only found a small number of additional papers, if any. If we include terms from the abstract in our search query without any restrictions, we will get a lot of irrelevant publications that are not related to our subject. Despite these limitations, we believe that the findings provide a reliable representation of the performance of the gut microbiota and cancer research at a global level.

Conclusions

This study shows the current status of microbiota and cancer on a global level and the hottest directions. According to the pattern in recent years, there will be a rise in the number of publications in this field. Until now, the United States and China have made the most significant contributions in the field of microbiota and cancer. Research on ‘microbiota composition and gene expression’ and ‘host-microbiome interaction in cancer immunotherapy’ will continue to be the hotspot. This serves as a starting point for further debate, while also emphasizing the need for further analysis.

Availability of data and materials

The data sets generated and/or analysed during the current study are available upon request from the corresponding authors.

Abbreviations

IFs:

Impact factors

JCR:

Journal citation reports

MeSH:

Medical subject headings

References

  1. GBD 2015 Mortality and Causes of Death Collaborators. Global, regional, and national life expectancy, all-cause mortality, and cause-specific mortality for 249 causes of death, 1980–2015: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015. Lancet. 2016;388(10053):1459–544.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Vivarelli S, Salemi R, Candido S, Falzone L, Santagati M, Stefani S, Torino F, Banna GL, Tonini G, Libra M. Gut microbiota and cancer: from pathogenesis to therapy. Cancers. 2019. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers11010038.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Gaucher L, Adda L, Séjourné A, Joachim C, Guillaume C, Poulet C, Liabeuf S, Gras-Champel V, Masmoudi K, Houessinon A, et al. Associations between dysbiosis-inducing drugs, overall survival and tumor response in patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors. Ther Adv Med Oncol. 2021;13:17588359211000592.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Iida N, Dzutsev A, Stewart CA, Smith L, Bouladoux N, Weingarten RA, Molina DA, Salcedo R, Back T, Cramer S, et al. Commensal bacteria control cancer response to therapy by modulating the tumor microenvironment. Science. 2013;342(6161):967–70.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Butterfield LH, Kaufman HL, Marincola FM. Cancer immunotherapy principles and practice. New York: Springer Publishing Company; 2021.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Cheng WY, Wu CY, Yu J. The role of gut microbiota in cancer treatment: friend or foe? Gut. 2020;69(10):1867–76.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Gori S, Inno A, Belluomini L, Bocus P, Bisoffi Z, Russo A, Arcaro G. Gut microbiota and cancer: how gut microbiota modulates activity, efficacy and toxicity of antitumoral therapy. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2019;143:139–47.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Raza MH, Gul K, Arshad A, Riaz N, Waheed U, Rauf A, Aldakheel F, Alduraywish S, Rehman MU, Abdullah M, et al. Microbiota in cancer development and treatment. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2019;145(1):49–63.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Borella F, Carosso AR, Cosma S, Preti M, Collemi G, Cassoni P, Bertero L, Benedetto C. Gut microbiota and gynecological cancers: a summary of pathogenetic mechanisms and future directions. ACS Infect Dis. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsinfecdis.0c00839.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Yue YY, Fan XY, Zhang Q, Lu YP, Wu S, Wang S, Yu M, Cui CW, Sun ZR. Bibliometric analysis of subject trends and knowledge structures of gut microbiota. World J Clin Cases. 2020;8(13):2817–32.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Yao H, Wan JY, Wang CZ, Li L, Wang J, Li Y, Huang WH, Zeng J, Wang Q, Yuan CS. Bibliometric analysis of research on the role of intestinal microbiota in obesity. PeerJ. 2018;6:e5091.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Ejtahed HS, Tabatabaei-Malazy O, Soroush AR, Hasani-Ranjbar S, Siadat SD, Raes J, Larijani B. Worldwide trends in scientific publications on association of gut microbiota with obesity. Iran J Basic Med Sci. 2019;22(1):65–71.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Zyoud SH, Smale S, Waring WS, Sweileh WM, Al-Jabi SW. Global research trends in microbiome-gut-brain axis during 2009–2018: a bibliometric and visualized study. BMC Gastroenterol. 2019;19(1):158.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Zhu X, Hu J, Deng S, Tan Y, Qiu C, Zhang M, Ni X, Lu H, Wang Z, Li L, et al. Bibliometric and visual analysis of research on the links between the gut microbiota and depression from 1999 to 2019. Front Psychiatry. 2020;11:587670.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Tian J, Li M, Lian F, Tong X. The hundred most-cited publications in microbiota of diabetes research: a bibliometric analysis. Medicine. 2017;96(37):e7338.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Li Y, Zou Z, Bian X, Huang Y, Wang Y, Yang C, Zhao J, Xie L. Fecal microbiota transplantation research output from 2004 to 2017: a bibliometric analysis. PeerJ. 2019;7:e6411.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Bougioukas KI, Vounzoulaki E, Mantsiou CD, Papanastasiou GD, Savvides ED, Ntzani EE, Haidich AB. Global mapping of overviews of systematic reviews in healthcare published between 2000 and 2020: a bibliometric analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021;137:58–72.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Du YQ, Zhu GD, Cao J, Huang JY. Research supporting malaria control and elimination in China over four decades: a bibliometric analysis of academic articles published in chinese from 1980 to 2019. Malar J. 2021;20(1):158.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Gonzalez-Alcaide G, Palacios-Fernandez S, Ramos-Rincon JM. Thematic research clusters in very old populations (>/= 80 years): a bibliometric approach. BMC Geriatr. 2021;21(1):266.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Guleid FH, Oyando R, Kabia E, Mumbi A, Akech S, Barasa E. A bibliometric analysis of COVID-19 research in Africa. BMJ Glob Health. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2021-005690.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Sahin S, Sivri N, Akpinar I, Cincin ZB, Sonmez VZ. A comprehensive bibliometric overview: antibiotic resistance and Escherichia coli in natural water. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2021;28(25):32256–63.

    CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Sweileh WM. Contribution of researchers in the Arab region to peer-reviewed literature on mental health and well-being of university students. Int J Ment Health Syst. 2021;15(1):50.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Torres RT, Carvalho J, Cunha MV, Serrano E, Palmeira JD, Fonseca C. Temporal and geographical research trends of antimicrobial resistance in wildlife—a bibliometric analysis. One Health. 2021;11:100198.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Wang K, Duan W, Duan Y, Yu Y, Chen X, Xu Y, Chen H, Huang H, Xiong B. A bibliometric insight of genetic factors in ASD: emerging trends and new developments. Brain Sci. 2020;11(1):1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Zyoud SH. The Arab region’s contribution to global COVID-19 research: bibliometric and visualization analysis. Global Health. 2021;17(1):31.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Møller AM, Myles PS. What makes a good systematic review and meta-analysis? Br J Anaesth. 2016;117(4):428–30.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. O’Gorman CS, Macken AP, Cullen W, Saunders J, Dunne C, Higgins MF. What are the differences between a literature search, a literature review, a systematic review and a meta-analysis? And why is a systematic review considered to be so good? Ir Med J. 2013;106(2 Suppl):8–10.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Peters MD, Godfrey CM, Khalil H, McInerney P, Parker D, Soares CB. Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015;13(3):141–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Wallin JA. Bibliometric methods: pitfalls and possibilities. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol. 2005;97(5):261–75.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Levac D, Colquhoun H, O’Brien KK. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci. 2010;5:69.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Info Libr J. 2009;26(2):91–108.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Sweileh WM, Moh’d Mansour A. Bibliometric analysis of global research output on antimicrobial resistance in the environment (2000–2019). Glob Health Res Policy. 2020;5:37.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Zhang T, Yin X, Yang X, Man J, He Q, Wu Q, Lu M. Research trends on the relationship between microbiota and gastric cancer: a bibliometric analysis from 2000 to 2019. J Cancer. 2020;11(16):4823–31.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Baas J, Schotten M, Plume A, Côté G, Karimi R. Scopus as a curated, high-quality bibliometric data source for academic research in quantitative science studies. Quant Sci Stud. 2020;1(1):377–86.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Sweileh WM. Bibliometric analysis of scientific publications on “sustainable development goals” with emphasis on “good health and well-being” goal (2015–2019). Global Health. 2020;16(1):68.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. van Eck NJ, Waltman L. Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics. 2010;84(2):523–38.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. van Eck NJ, Waltman L. Citation-based clustering of publications using CitNetExplorer and VOSviewer. Scientometrics. 2017;111(2):1053–70.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Arthur JC, Perez-Chanona E, Mühlbauer M, Tomkovich S, Uronis JM, Fan TJ, Campbell BJ, Abujamel T, Dogan B, Rogers AB, et al. Intestinal inflammation targets cancer-inducing activity of the microbiota. Science. 2012;338(6103):120–3.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Chen W, Liu F, Ling Z, Tong X, Xiang C. Human intestinal lumen and mucosa-associated microbiota in patients with colorectal cancer. PLoS ONE. 2012;7(6):e39743.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Dapito DH, Mencin A, Gwak GY, Pradere JP, Jang MK, Mederacke I, Caviglia JM, Khiabanian H, Adeyemi A, Bataller R, et al. Promotion of hepatocellular carcinoma by the intestinal microbiota and TLR4. Cancer Cell. 2012;21(4):504–16.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Garrett WS. Cancer and the microbiota. Science. 2015;348(6230):80–6.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Louis P, Hold GL, Flint HJ. The gut microbiota, bacterial metabolites and colorectal cancer. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2014;12(10):661–72.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Martin HM, Campbell BJ, Hart CA, Mpofu C, Nayar M, Singh R, Englyst H, Williams HF, Rhodes JM. Enhanced Escherichia coli adherence and invasion in Crohn’s disease and colon cancer. Gastroenterology. 2004;127(1):80–93.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Routy B, Le Chatelier E, Derosa L, Duong CPM, Alou MT, Daillère R, Fluckiger A, Messaoudene M, Rauber C, Roberti MP, et al. Gut microbiome influences efficacy of PD-1-based immunotherapy against epithelial tumors. Science. 2018;359(6371):91–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Schwabe RF, Jobin C. The microbiome and cancer. Nat Rev Cancer. 2013;13(11):800–12.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Sobhani I, Tap J, Roudot-Thoraval F, Roperch JP, Letulle S, Langella P, Corthier G, Van Nhieu JT, Furet JP. Microbial dysbiosis in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients. PLoS ONE. 2011;6(1):e16393.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Wang T, Cai G, Qiu Y, Fei N, Zhang M, Pang X, Jia W, Cai S, Zhao L. Structural segregation of gut microbiota between colorectal cancer patients and healthy volunteers. ISME J. 2012;6(2):320–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. AlRyalat SAS, Malkawi LW, Momani SM. Comparing bibliometric analysis using PubMed, Scopus, and Web of science databases. J Vis Exp. 2019;152:e58494.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Zyoud SH, Al-Jabi SW. Mapping the situation of research on coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19): a preliminary bibliometric analysis during the early stage of the outbreak. BMC Infect Dis. 2020;20(1):561.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Sweileh WM. Bibliometric analysis of global scientific literature on vaccine hesitancy in peer-reviewed journals (1990–2019). BMC Public Health. 2020;20(1):1252.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Sweileh WM. Bibliometric analysis of peer-reviewed literature on antimicrobial stewardship from 1990 to 2019. Global Health. 2021;17(1):1.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Briones-Bitar J, Carrión-Mero P, Montalván-Burbano N, Morante-Carballo F. Rockfall research: a bibliometric analysis and future trends. Geosciences. 2020;10(10):403.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Falagas ME, Pitsouni EI, Malietzis GA, Pappas G. Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: strengths and weaknesses. FASEB J. 2008;22(2):338–42.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Kulkarni AV, Aziz B, Shams I, Busse JW. Comparisons of citations in Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar for articles published in general medical journals. JAMA. 2009;302(10):1092–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Mongeon P, Paul-Hus A. The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: a comparative analysis. Scientometrics. 2015;106(1):213–28.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Ahn J, Sinha R, Pei Z, Dominianni C, Wu J, Shi J, Goedert JJ, Hayes RB, Yang L. Human gut microbiome and risk for colorectal cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2013;105(24):1907–11.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Berkovic MC, Cigrovski V, Bilic-Curcic I, Mrzljak A. What is the gut feeling telling us about physical activity in colorectal carcinogenesis? World J Clin Cases. 2020;8(23):5844–51.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Contreras AV, Cocom-Chan B, Hernandez-Montes G, Portillo-Bobadilla T, Resendis-Antonio O. Host-microbiome interaction and cancer: potential application in precision medicine. Front Physiol. 2016;7:606.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Gupta A, Saha S, Khanna S. Therapies to modulate gut microbiota: past, present and future. World J Gastroenterol. 2020;26(8):777–88.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Huang QY, Yao F, Zhou CR, Huang XY, Wang Q, Long H, Wu QM. Role of gut microbiome in regulating the effectiveness of metformin in reducing colorectal cancer in type 2 diabetes. World J Clin Cases. 2020;8(24):6213–28.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Malla MA, Dubey A, Kumar A, Yadav S, Hashem A, Abd Allah EF. Exploring the human microbiome: the potential future role of next-generation sequencing in disease diagnosis and treatment. Front Immunol. 2018;9:2868.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Roy S, Trinchieri G. Microbiota: a key orchestrator of cancer therapy. Nat Rev Cancer. 2017;17(5):271–85.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Sabit H, Cevik E, Tombuloglu H. Colorectal cancer: the epigenetic role of microbiome. World J Clin Cases. 2019;7(22):3683–97.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  64. Sears CL, Garrett WS. Microbes, microbiota, and colon cancer. Cell Host Microbe. 2014;15(3):317–28.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. Tlaskalová-Hogenová H, Stěpánková R, Kozáková H, Hudcovic T, Vannucci L, Tučková L, Rossmann P, Hrnčíř T, Kverka M, Zákostelská Z, et al. The role of gut microbiota (commensal bacteria) and the mucosal barrier in the pathogenesis of inflammatory and autoimmune diseases and cancer: contribution of germ-free and gnotobiotic animal models of human diseases. Cell Mol Immunol. 2011;8(2):110–20.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  66. Wei AL, Li M, Li GQ, Wang X, Hu WM, Li ZL, Yuan J, Liu HY, Zhou LL, Li K, et al. Oral microbiome and pancreatic cancer. World J Gastroenterol. 2020;26(48):7679–92.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  67. Wollowski I, Rechkemmer G, Pool-Zobel BL. Protective role of probiotics and prebiotics in colon cancer. Am J Clin Nutr. 2001;73(2 Suppl):451s–5s.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Zeller G, Tap J, Voigt AY, Sunagawa S, Kultima JR, Costea PI, Amiot A, Böhm J, Brunetti F, Habermann N, et al. Potential of fecal microbiota for early-stage detection of colorectal cancer. Mol Syst Biol. 2014;10(11):766.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  69. Elkrief A, Derosa L, Zitvogel L, Kroemer G, Routy B. The intimate relationship between gut microbiota and cancer immunotherapy. Gut Microbes. 2019;10(3):424–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Kujawska M, Jodynis-Liebert J. Potential of the ellagic acid-derived gut microbiota metabolite—Urolithin A in gastrointestinal protection. World J Gastroenterol. 2020;26(23):3170–81.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  71. Russo E, Nannini G, Dinu M, Pagliai G, Sofi F, Amedei A. Exploring the food-gut axis in immunotherapy response of cancer patients. World J Gastroenterol. 2020;26(33):4919–32.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  72. Yan C, Tu XX, Wu W, Tong Z, Liu LL, Zheng Y, Jiang WQ, Zhao P, Fang WJ, Zhang HY. Antibiotics and immunotherapy in gastrointestinal tumors: friend or foe? World J Clin Cases. 2019;7(11):1253–61.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  73. Yi M, Jiao D, Qin S, Chu Q, Li A, Wu K. Manipulating gut microbiota composition to enhance the therapeutic effect of cancer immunotherapy. Integr Cancer Ther. 2019;18:1534735419876351.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

No funding was received for writing this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Clinical and Community Pharmacy, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, An-Najah National University, 44839, Nablus, Palestine

    Sa’ed H. Zyoud

  2. Clinical Research Center, An-Najah National University Hospital, 44839, Nablus, Palestine

    Sa’ed H. Zyoud & Samah W. Al-Jabi

  3. Department of Hematology and Oncology, An-Najah National University Hospital, 44839, Nablus, Palestine

    Riad Amer

  4. Department of Medicine, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, An-Najah National University, 44839, Nablus, Palestine

    Riad Amer & Maha Akkawi

  5. Department of Nutrition, An-Najah National University Hospital, 44839, Nablus, Palestine

    Muna Shakhshir

  6. College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, Ajman University, Ajman, United Arab Emirates

    Moyad Shahwan

  7. Department of Health and Safety, Dubai Municipality, Dubai, United Arab Emirates

    Ammar A. Jairoun

  8. Department of Pathology, An-Najah National University Hospital, 44839, Nablus, Palestine

    Maha Akkawi & Adham Abu Taha

  9. Department of Biomedical Sciences, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, An-Najah National University, 44839, Nablus, Palestine

    Adham Abu Taha

Authors
  1. Sa’ed H. Zyoud
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Samah W. Al-Jabi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Riad Amer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Muna Shakhshir
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Moyad Shahwan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Ammar A. Jairoun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Maha Akkawi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Adham Abu Taha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

SHZ designed the study, collected the data, analyzed the data, made major contributions to the existing literature search and interpretation of the manuscript and drafted the manuscript; SWA-J, RA, MS, AAJ, MS, MA, and AAT were involved in the interpretation of the data and made revisions to the initial draft. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Sa’ed H. Zyoud or Riad Amer.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

There was no need for ethical approval because the data for the bibliometric research were extracted directly from the database without further human intervention.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zyoud, S.H., Al-Jabi, S.W., Amer, R. et al. Global research trends on the links between the gut microbiome and cancer: a visualization analysis. J Transl Med 20, 83 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12967-022-03293-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12967-022-03293-y

Keywords

Journal of Translational Medicine

ISSN: 1479-5876

Contact us