Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24637605›Full record

ArticleGut microbes

In vivo gut transcriptome responses to Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG and Lactobacillus acidophilus in neonatal gnotobiotic piglets.

Anand Kumar, Anastasia N Vlasova, Zhe Liu, Kuldeep S Chattha, Sukumar Kandasamy, Malak Esseili, Xiaoli Zhang, Gireesh Rajashekara, Linda J Saif

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Gut microbes. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
5.0field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. The probioticInfection and immunity · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. The complete genome sequence of probioticMicrobiology resource announcements · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. In Vitro Transcriptome Response to a Mixture ofInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2018
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Frontiers in microbiology · 2017
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
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

9 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Anand KumarFood Animal Health Research Program; Department of Veterinary Preventive Medicine; Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center; The Ohio State University; Wooster, OH USA.
Anastasia N VlasovaFood Animal Health Research Program; Department of Veterinary Preventive Medicine; Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center; The Ohio State University; Wooster, OH USA.
Zhe LiuFood Animal Health Research Program; Department of Veterinary Preventive Medicine; Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center; The Ohio State University; Wooster, OH USA.
Kuldeep S ChatthaFood Animal Health Research Program; Department of Veterinary Preventive Medicine; Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center; The Ohio State University; Wooster, OH USA.
Sukumar KandasamyFood Animal Health Research Program; Department of Veterinary Preventive Medicine; Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center; The Ohio State University; Wooster, OH USA.
Malak EsseiliFood Animal Health Research Program; Department of Veterinary Preventive Medicine; Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center; The Ohio State University; Wooster, OH USA.
Xiaoli ZhangCenter for Biostatistics; The Ohio State University; Columbus, OH USA.
Gireesh RajashekaraFood Animal Health Research Program; Department of Veterinary Preventive Medicine; Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center; The Ohio State University; Wooster, OH USA.
Linda J SaifFood Animal Health Research Program; Department of Veterinary Preventive Medicine; Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center; The Ohio State University; Wooster, OH USA.
College of Wooster · USDépartement Santé Animale · FRColumbus Oncology and Hematology Associates · USThe Ohio State University · US

Funding

Gut microflora: Impact on neonatal immunity, viral gastroenteritis and vaccinesR01AI099451 · NIAID · OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY · PI RAJASHEKARA, GIREESH, SAIF, LINDA J. · 2012 to 2016
$2.2M
Lactogenic immunity/probiotics: Effect on neonatal gut immunityR21AT004716 · NCCIH · OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY · PI SAIF, LINDA J. · 2009 to 2010
$474k
NCCIH NIH HHS R21 AT004716NCCIH NIH HHS R21AT004716NIAID NIH HHS R01 AI099451PHS HHS R01 A1099451
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Probiotics facilitate mucosal repair and maintain gut homeostasis. They are often used in adjunct with rehydration or antibiotic therapy in enteric infections. Lactobacillus spp have been tested in infants for the prevention or treatment of various enteric conditions. However, to aid in rational strain selection for specific treatments, comprehensive studies are required to delineate and compare the specific molecules and pathways involved in a less complex but biologically relevant model (gnotobiotic pigs). Here we elucidated Lactobacillus rhamnosus (LGG) and L. acidophilus (LA) specific effects on gut transcriptome responses in a neonatal gnotobiotic (Gn) pig model to simulate responses in newly colonized infants. Whole genome microarray, followed by biological pathway reconstruction, was used to investigate the host-microbe interactions in duodenum and ileum at early (day 1) and later stages (day 7) of colonization. Both LA and LGG modulated common responses related to host metabolism, gut integrity, and immunity, as well as responses unique to each strain in Gn pigs. Our data indicated that probiotic establishment and beneficial effects in the host are guided by: (1) down-regulation or upregulation of immune function-related genes in the early and later stages of colonization, respectively, and (2) alternations in metabolism of small molecules (vitamins and/or minerals) and macromolecules (carbohydrates, proteins, and lipids). Pathways related to immune modulation and carbohydrate metabolism were more affected by LGG, whereas energy and lipid metabolism-related transcriptome responses were prominently modulated by LA. These findings imply that identification of probiotic strain-specific gut responses could facilitate the rational design of probiotic-based interventions to moderate specific enteric conditions.

Indexed as

AnimalsAnimals, NewbornGastrointestinal TractLacticaseibacillus rhamnosusLactobacillus acidophilusSwineTranscriptomegnotobiotic pigsgutlactobacilliprobioticstranscriptome

Identifiers

PMID24637605
PMCPMC4063840
OpenAlexW2041516161

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.