ArticleComparative medicine2010
Catheterization of intestinal loops in ruminants does not adversely affect loop function.
Article in Comparative medicine, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Sheep as a Large Animal Model for the Investigation and Treatment of Human Disorders.Biology · 2022Review
- Animal models to study acute and chronic intestinal inflammation in mammals.Gut pathogens · 2015Review
- Effect of antimicrobial growth promoter administration on the intestinal microbiota of beef cattle.Gut pathogens · 2013Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Catheterized intestinal loops may be a valuable model to elucidate key components of the host response to various treatments within the small intestine of ruminants. We examined whether catheterizing ileal loops in sheep affected the overall health of animals and intestinal function, whether a bacterial treatment could be introduced into the loops through the catheters, and whether broad-spectrum antibiotics could sterilize the loops. Escherichia coli cells transformed to express the GFP gene were introduced readily into the loops through the catheters, and GFP E. coli cells were localized within the injected loops. Catheterized loops, interspaces, and intact ileum exhibited no abnormalities in tissue appearance or electrical resistance. Expression of the IFNγ, IL1α, IL4, IL6, IL12p40, IL18, TGFβ1, and TNFα cytokine genes did not differ significantly among the intact ileum, catheterized loops, and interspaces, nor did the expression of the gene for inducible nitric oxide synthase. Broad-spectrum antibiotics administered during surgery did not sterilize the loops or interspaces and did not substantively change the composition of the microbiota. However, antibiotics reduced the overall number of bacterial cells within the loop and the relative abundance of community constituents. We concluded that catheterization of intestinal loops did not adversely affect health or loop function in sheep. Furthermore, allowing animals to recover fully from surgery and to clear pharmaceuticals will remove any confounding effects due to these factors, making catheterized intestinal loops a feasible model for studying host responses in ruminants.
Indexed as
Identifiers
21262134PMC3002107W1548138247What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.