Ethical statement and informed consent
This retrospective study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Southwest University (Approval No. SWU-IRB-2026-0228) and was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and institutional ethical guidelines for human research. As only preserved samples were analyzed, all participants were contacted and provided written informed consent prior to participation in the study.
Study design and participants
This was a retrospective, single-center, self-controlled before-and-after (paired) study conducted at the Southwest University Hospital. Participants visited the hospital between March 1 and September 30, 2023 and remained hospitalized for treatment until clinical recovery and discharge. All fecal samples were preserved after routine laboratory testing. The study employed a paired design in which each participant served as their own control, with fecal samples collected at two time points: during active enteritis prior to antibiotic administration (infection phase, IG); and at the time of clinical recovery following antibiotic treatment and supportive care (recovery phase, RG). All samples were later sent for sequencing after informed consent was obtained from each participant. No untreated control group, alternative-treatment group, or healthy longitudinal control group was included.
Sample size
No formal a priori sample size calculation was performed because this was an exploratory, hypothesis-generating study with limited available paired samples from the target population during the enrollment period. A convenience sample of 10 participants was enrolled based on the anticipated number of eligible patients admitted during the seven-month recruitment window. We acknowledge that this sample size provides limited statistical power (e.g., for the Wilcoxon signed-rank test with α = 0.05 and a medium effect size, power ≈ 0.30–0.40) and increases the risk of both false-negative and false-positive findings. All findings should therefore be interpreted as exploratory.
Inclusion criteria
Participants were eligible if they met all of the following criteria: college students aged 18–24 years; ≥3 defecations within 24 h with loose, mucous, or watery stools, diagnosed with infectious diarrhea by the attending gastroenterologist; fecal microscopic examination showing ≥15 white blood cells per high-power field (HPF, 400× magnification) or phagocytes; intravenous ceftizoxime sodium initiated as the sole systemic anti-infective agent after admission; no known underlying chronic diseases (e.g., diabetes mellitus, chronic kidney disease, autoimmune disorders); no history of chronic gastrointestinal disease (e.g., inflammatory bowel disease, irritable bowel syndrome, celiac disease); and provision of written informed consent.
Exclusion criteria
Participants were excluded if any of the following applied: use of antibiotics, probiotics, prebiotics, or systemic corticosteroids within four weeks prior to admission; history of gastrointestinal surgery (excluding appendectomy >6 months prior); immunocompromised status (e.g., HIV infection, immunosuppressive therapy, chemotherapy) or use of immunosuppressive agents; concurrent severe systemic infection requiring antibiotics other than ceftizoxime; hospital-acquired diarrhea or antibiotic-associated diarrhea present prior to enrollment; pregnancy or lactation; refusal to provide informed consent or inability to comply with sample collection protocols; and fecal sample volume <2 g or failure to collect paired samples at both time points.
Diagnostic criteria for acute enteritis
The diagnosis of acute bacterial enteritis was established clinically based on: acute onset of diarrhea (≥3 loose stools per day) with or without abdominal pain, fever, or nausea; fecal microscopic examination demonstrating ≥15 leukocytes/HPF or presence of macrophages/phagocytes; and absence of bloody diarrhea suggestive of invasive pathogens requiring alternative management. We acknowledge that microbiological confirmation (stool culture, multiplex PCR, or pathogen-specific antigen testing) was not performed; therefore, bacterial etiology was not definitively established, and the illness may have been self-limiting or caused by non-bacterial pathogens.
Recovery criteria
Recovery was defined as: basic indicators and symptoms returned to normal after treatment: resolution of diarrhea (≤2 formed stools per day) and absence of abdominal pain, fever, or nausea for ≥24 h; routine blood tests and C-reactive protein (CRP) levels within the normal range; normal stool morphology with no white blood cells, phagocytes, or red blood cells detected by microscopic examination; and clinical judgment of recovery by the attending physician permitting discharge.
Treatment regimen
All patients received intravenous ceftizoxime sodium at a dose of 1.0 g dissolved in 100 mL of 0.9% sodium chloride solution, administered every 12 h by intravenous infusion over 30 min. The dose was escalated to 2.0 g every 8 h for patients with severe infection (body temperature >39 °C or markedly elevated inflammatory markers). The standard treatment duration was 5–7 days, determined by clinical response and normalization of laboratory parameters. In addition to ceftizoxime, all patients received standard supportive care, including intravenous fluid resuscitation, electrolyte correction, and symptomatic treatment (antipyretics and antiemetics as needed). No other systemic antibiotics were administered during hospitalization. Dietary intake during hospitalization was not standardized; patients received regular hospital meals (three meals per day, standard Chinese diet) without specific dietary restrictions, though detailed dietary logs were not collected.
Fecal sample collection
Collection
Fresh fecal samples (2–5 g) were collected by participants using disposable sterile fecal collection cups. Participants were instructed to deposit the sample directly into the cup without urine contamination, to seal the lid immediately, and to notify nursing staff within 15 min of collection.
Initial processing
Upon receipt, samples were transferred to a class II biosafety cabinet within 30 min of collection. Each sample was divided into two aliquots: a 1g aliquot for immediate metagenomic analysis, transferred to a sterile 2.0 mL cryovial; and a 1 g aliquot for backup storage. Both aliquots were snap-frozen in liquid nitrogen (-196°C) within 1 h of collection and subsequently transferred to an ultra-low temperature freezer at -80°C for long-term storage.
Metagenomic sequencing and bioinformatic analysis of fecal samples
Fecal samples were sent for Illumina paired-end 150 bp (PE150) metagenomic sequencing. The detailed experimental procedures for sequencing and bioinformatic analysis are described as follows:
Extraction of DNA
DNA extraction and quality detection
Genomic DNA was extracted from fecal samples using a commercial DNA extraction kit. The purity and integrity of the extracted DNA were analyzed by agarose gel electrophoresis (AGE), and the DNA concentration was accurately quantified. Only high-quality DNA samples (with intact bands in AGE and sufficient concentration) were used for subsequent library construction.
Library construction
Qualified DNA samples were randomly sheared into fragments of approximately 350 bp using a Covaris ultrasonic disruptor. Library construction was completed through end repair, dA-tailing, sequencing adapter ligation, purification, and PCR amplification. After initial quantification of the constructed libraries to 2 ng/μL, the effective concentration of the libraries was accurately quantified by quantitative PCR (qPCR), with a valid library concentration requirement of >3 nM to ensure library quality.
High-throughput sequencing
Qualified libraries were pooled according to their effective concentrations and the required on-machine data volume, and then subjected to Illumina PE150 sequencing on the high-throughput sequencing platform.
Raw data quality control and host filtering
Low-quality raw sequencing data (raw data) were filtered to obtain high-quality clean data (clean data), including the removal of adapter sequences, low-quality reads (Q-value < 20), and host genomic DNA sequences to eliminate background contamination10.
Metagenomic assembly and gene prediction: Metagenomic assembly was performed on the Clean data of each sample to obtain scaftigs (contigs with gaps). Open reading frames (ORFs) were predicted from scaftigs (≥500 bp), and ORFs with a length of <100 nt were filtered out to ensure the reliability of gene prediction13.
Construction of a non-redundant gene catalog
The predicted ORFs from all samples were clustered and de-redundant with the parameters: -c 0.95, -G 0, -aS 0.9, -g 1, -d 0 (95% sequence identity and 90% coverage), and the longest sequence in each cluster was selected as the representative sequence to construct a non-redundant initial gene catalog14,15. Genes with supporting read counts ≤2 in all samples were further filtered out to obtain the final gene catalog (Unigenes) for subsequent analysis.
Gene abundance calculation
Clean data of each sample were aligned to the final gene catalog with the parameters: –end-to-end, –sensitive, -I 200, -X 40013. The gene abundance in each sample was calculated based on the number of aligned reads and gene length, using the formula16:

where rk is the number of reads aligned to gene k, Lk is the length of gene k, and N is the total number of genes in the catalog.
Species annotation
Unigenes were aligned to the bacterial, fungal, archaeal, and viral sequences extracted from the NCBI NR database with the blastp algorithm and an E-value threshold of ≤1e-517. For the alignment results of each sequence, only those with an E-value ≤10 × the minimum E-value were retained for subsequent analysis. The Lowest Common Ancestor (LCA) algorithm18 was used to determine the species annotation information of each sequence, taking the taxonomic level before the first branch as the final annotation result. The abundance of species at different taxonomic levels (kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species) in each sample was calculated by summing the abundances of genes annotated to the corresponding species19.
Statistical analysis
All statistical analyses were performed using R software v4.2.0. Continuous variables were tested for normality using the Shapiro-Wilk test. Medians and interquartile ranges [M (IQR)] are reported for clinical characteristics, and means with standard deviations are reported for relative-abundance data. Categorical variables are reported as counts and percentages.
The paired Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare the differences in the relative abundance of major phyla, genera, and species between IG and RG, with a statistical significance level set at P < 0.05. The paired distance matrix and ANOSIM/PERMANOVA were recalculated using the original full-species abundance table, which tests whether between-group differences are greater than within-group differences. The F/B ratio was calculated for each sample and compared between groups using the paired Wilcoxon signed-rank test.
α-diversity analysis was performed at the genus level, comparing the Shannon, Simpson, and Chao1 indices between the infection and recovery groups. Statistical significance was assessed using the paired Wilcoxon signed-rank test; indices were calculated based on genus-level counts rarefied to 58,315 sequences per sample (averaged over 200 iterations). PERMANOVA based on Bray–Curtis distances was conducted with permutations restricted within subjects (9,999 permutations). At the species level, ANOSIM was performed using the full-gene complete abundance table (6,271 species).
For formal differential abundance testing, taxa present in fewer than three samples or with a mean relative abundance <0.01% were filtered out. Finally, a total of 202 species were included in the final paired Wilcoxon analysis. Given the exploratory nature of this study and the absence of established clinically meaningful thresholds for metagenomic taxonomic shifts, we did not predetermine a minimal clinically important difference (MCID). For species-level changes, an absolute abundance difference ≥0.5% was considered biologically noteworthy for reporting, though not necessarily clinically significant.