Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25047525›Full record

ArticleJournal of microbiology (Seoul, Korea)2014

Pyrosequencing-based analysis of fecal microbial communities in three purebred pig lines.

Edward Alain B Pajarillo, Jong Pyo Chae, Marilen P Balolong, Hyeun Bum Kim, Kang-Seok Seo, Dae-Kyung Kang

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of microbiology (Seoul, Korea), 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 77 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
77citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

77 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Dietary supplementation withMicrobiology spectrum · 2024
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

17 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

6 authors.

Edward Alain B PajarilloDepartment of Animal Resources Science, Dankook University, Cheonan, 330-714, Republic of Korea.
Jong Pyo Chae
Marilen P Balolong
Hyeun Bum Kim
Kang-Seok Seo
Dae-Kyung Kang

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study examined the fecal bacterial diversity of 15-week-old pigs from three purebred lines: Duroc, Landrace, and Yorkshire. Taxon-dependent and -independent analyses were performed to evaluate differences in the fecal bacterial communities and to identify bacterial genera that can be used to discriminate breeds, following high-throughput pyrosequencing of 16S rRNA genes. Among the breeds evaluated, Landrace had the most diverse bacterial community composition. Prevotella, Blautia, Oscillibacter, and Clostridium were detected in all samples regardless of breed. On the other hand, Catenibacterium, Blautia, Dialister, and Sphaerochaeta were differentially detected among breeds, as demonstrated by the canonical loading plot. The discriminant analysis of principal components plot also showed clear separation of the three purebred pig lines, with a certain degree of similarity between Landrace and Yorkshire pigs and a distinct separation between Duroc pigs and the other two breeds. Other factors not related to breed, such as season or time of sampling and pen effects, may contribute to shaping the gut microbiota of pigs.

Indexed as

MicrobiotaAnimalsBreedingFecesGenes, rRNAGenetic VariationPrincipal Component AnalysisRNA, Ribosomal, 16SSequence Analysis, DNASus scrofaRNA, Ribosomal, 16S

Identifiers

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.