Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22307632›Full record

ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2012

In-feed antibiotic effects on the swine intestinal microbiome.

Torey Looft, Timothy A Johnson, Heather K Allen, Darrell O Bayles, David P Alt, Robert D Stedtfeld, Woo Jun Sul, Tiffany M Stedtfeld, Benli Chai, James R Cole and 3 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 427 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
427citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
32.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

427 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 1,074 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Icariin shapes post-withdrawal fecal resistome dynamics in layer hens.Journal of animal science and biotechnology · 2026
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. ProbioticJournal of animal science and technology · 2026
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

367 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.

Torey LooftAgricultural Research Service, National Animal Disease Center, US Department of Agriculture, Ames, IA 50010, USA.
Timothy A Johnson
Heather K Allen
Darrell O Bayles
David P Alt
Robert D Stedtfeld
Woo Jun Sul
Tiffany M Stedtfeld
Benli Chai
James R Cole
Syed A Hashsham
James M Tiedje
Thad B Stanton
Ecologie Microbienne Lyon · FRNational Animal Disease Center · USAgricultural Research Service · USInstitute of Crop Science · JPMichigan State University · USGreat Lakes Bioenergy Research Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Antibiotics have been administered to agricultural animals for disease treatment, disease prevention, and growth promotion for over 50 y. The impact of such antibiotic use on the treatment of human diseases is hotly debated. We raised pigs in a highly controlled environment, with one portion of the littermates receiving a diet containing performance-enhancing antibiotics [chlortetracycline, sulfamethazine, and penicillin (known as ASP250)] and the other portion receiving the same diet but without the antibiotics. We used phylogenetic, metagenomic, and quantitative PCR-based approaches to address the impact of antibiotics on the swine gut microbiota. Bacterial phylotypes shifted after 14 d of antibiotic treatment, with the medicated pigs showing an increase in Proteobacteria (1-11%) compared with nonmedicated pigs at the same time point. This shift was driven by an increase in Escherichia coli populations. Analysis of the metagenomes showed that microbial functional genes relating to energy production and conversion were increased in the antibiotic-fed pigs. The results also indicate that antibiotic resistance genes increased in abundance and diversity in the medicated swine microbiome despite a high background of resistance genes in nonmedicated swine. Some enriched genes, such as aminoglycoside O-phosphotransferases, confer resistance to antibiotics that were not administered in this study, demonstrating the potential for indirect selection of resistance to classes of antibiotics not fed. The collateral effects of feeding subtherapeutic doses of antibiotics to agricultural animals are apparent and must be considered in cost-benefit analyses.

Indexed as

Animal FeedMetagenomeAnimalsAnti-Bacterial AgentsDrug Resistance, MicrobialIntestinesPolymerase Chain ReactionSwineAnti-Bacterial Agents

Identifiers

PMID22307632
PMCPMC3277147
OpenAlexW2134830426

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.