Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: How does the Cologuard test distinguish between human and bacterial DNA in stool samples?
Executive Summary
Cologuard distinguishes human from bacterial DNA in stool primarily by targeting human-specific DNA markers, especially methylation biomarkers and mutation targets known to arise in colorectal epithelial cells, then amplifying and detecting those human sequences while ignoring bacterial DNA during analysis. The test’s published descriptions and clinical evaluations emphasize methylated genes such as SDC2 and SFRP2 and a panel of mutation and hemoglobin assays as the basis for specificity to human colorectal neoplasia [1] [2]. Independent and next-generation studies published as recently as 2024 reinforce that the assay’s analytic design — human-targeted primers/probes and marker selection — is what differentiates human DNA signal from the abundant bacterial background in stool [3] [4].
1. What advocates and manufacturers claim about the mechanism — precision language that matters
Cologuard and multitarget stool-DNA test summaries describe a test that selects and amplifies human DNA targets known to be associated with colorectal cancer, then interprets those human-specific molecular signals with an algorithm that also incorporates fecal hemoglobin. The clinical literature frames the assay as a “multitarget” approach combining methylation markers, mutations, and immunochemical fecal hemoglobin to maximize sensitivity and specificity for colorectal neoplasia [2] [5]. These descriptions emphasize choice of targets — methylated SDC2 and SFRP2 among others — that are present in human epithelial cells undergoing neoplastic change, not in bacterial genomes, which is why the assay reads as human-specific in clinical performance studies [1] [2].
2. The technical separation — how primers, probes and methylation assays exclude bacteria
At the analytic level, the test uses human-sequence-specific PCR primers and methylation-sensitive assays that only bind to sequences in the human genome or to human CpG sites with cancer-associated methylation patterns; bacterial DNA lacks those exact human sequences and methylation contexts, so it does not amplify with those reagents. Peer-reviewed evaluations and next-generation test descriptions explain that real-time PCR assays are designed for human gene regions such as SDC2, and assays for methylation require bisulfite conversion and human-CpG-specific readouts, all of which give the test molecular specificity in a stool matrix that is otherwise rich in bacterial DNA [4] [3]. The assay’s algorithm then interprets quantity and pattern of those human-target signals alongside fecal hemoglobin to classify results [5].
3. What the clinical studies show — performance and what that implies about specificity
Clinical performance reports document that the multitarget stool-DNA approach detects colorectal cancer and advanced precancerous lesions with higher sensitivity than fecal immunochemical tests while maintaining acceptable specificity, implying that assays reliably extract human cancer signals despite bacterial background. Large evaluations cited in the literature (including a 2019 evaluation and later next-generation assessments through 2024) link performance metrics directly to the human-targeted molecular markers and the integrated scoring algorithm rather than to nonspecific total DNA measurement [5] [3]. Separate work focusing on single-marker methylation assays such as SDC2 also reports high sensitivity and specificity for colorectal cancer detection, reinforcing that human-target methylation assays are robust signals in stool-derived DNA analyses [4].
4. Limitations, omissions and potential sources of confusion that readers should note
Published descriptions do not always detail every lab step for proprietary reasons, leaving gaps about pre-analytic extraction efficiencies and how the test handles degraded human DNA versus abundant bacterial DNA; those operational details can affect analytic sensitivity but are not fully public. Some summaries emphasize the algorithmic score rather than raw human vs bacterial DNA fractions, which may obscure how much total human DNA is captured and how bacterial DNA might affect extraction yield [2] [5]. Independent studies and newer assays acknowledge these operational variables and test developers publish validation data, yet the absence of full open-method disclosure means critical details about extraction bias and limits of detection remain less transparent in the public literature [1] [3].
5. Bottom line — what to take away about human vs bacterial DNA in stool testing
Cologuard’s clinical and technical literature consistently shows that the test distinguishes human from bacterial DNA by targeting human-specific sequences and methylation patterns and using PCR-based detection tailored to those targets, not by measuring total DNA and assuming human origin. Multiple evaluations through 2024–2025 demonstrate that this human-targeted design produces clinical performance consistent with selectively detecting human colorectal neoplasia signals in stool, while remaining subject to the usual pre-analytic and proprietary-method limits that can affect sensitivity and transparency [1] [4] [3]. Readers should view reported sensitivity/specificity numbers as reflecting the success of human-target assays in a complex matrix, and note that operational details about extraction and handling are not fully disclosed in all publications [2] [5].