Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25352837›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in microbiology2014

Oligotyping reveals differences between gut microbiomes of free-ranging sympatric Namibian carnivores (Acinonyx jubatus, Canis mesomelas) on a bacterial species-like level.

Sebastian Menke, Wasimuddin, Matthias Meier, Jörg Melzheimer, John K E Mfune, Sonja Heinrich, Susanne Thalwitzer, Bettina Wachter, Simone Sommer

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in microbiology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

33 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 49 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Seasonal and Regional Dynamics of the Intestinal Microbiota inAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Sebastian MenkeEvolutionary Genetics, Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research Berlin, Germany ; Evolutionary Ecology, Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research Berlin, Germany.
WasimuddinInstitute of Vertebrate Biology, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic Brno, Czech Republic.
Matthias MeierEvolutionary Genetics, Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research Berlin, Germany.
Jörg MelzheimerEvolutionary Ecology, Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research Berlin, Germany.
John K E MfuneDepartment of Biological Sciences, University of Namibia Windhoek, Namibia.
Sonja HeinrichEvolutionary Ecology, Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research Berlin, Germany.
Susanne ThalwitzerEvolutionary Ecology, Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research Berlin, Germany.
Bettina WachterEvolutionary Ecology, Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research Berlin, Germany.
Simone SommerEvolutionary Genetics, Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research Berlin, Germany ; Institute of Experimental Ecology, University of Ulm Ulm, Germany.
Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research · DECzech Academy of Sciences, Institute of Vertebrate Biology · CZUniversity of Namibia · NA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recent gut microbiome studies in model organisms emphasize the effects of intrinsic and extrinsic factors on the variation of the bacterial composition and its impact on the overall health status of the host. Species occurring in the same habitat might share a similar microbiome, especially if they overlap in ecological and behavioral traits. So far, the natural variation in microbiomes of free-ranging wildlife species has not been thoroughly investigated. The few existing studies exploring microbiomes through 16S rRNA gene reads clustered sequencing reads into operational taxonomic units (OTUs) based on a similarity threshold (e.g., 97%). This approach, in combination with the low resolution of target databases, generally limits the level of taxonomic assignments to the genus level. However, distinguishing natural variation of microbiomes in healthy individuals from "abnormal" microbial compositions that affect host health requires knowledge of the "normal" microbial flora at a high taxonomic resolution. This gap can now be addressed using the recently published oligotyping approach, which can resolve closely related organisms into distinct oligotypes by utilizing subtle nucleotide variation. Here, we used Illumina MiSeq to sequence amplicons generated from the V4 region of the 16S rRNA gene to investigate the gut microbiome of two free-ranging sympatric Namibian carnivore species, the cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus) and the black-backed jackal (Canis mesomelas). Bacterial phyla with proportions >0.2% were identical for both species and included Firmicutes, Fusobacteria, Bacteroidetes, Proteobacteria and Actinobacteria. At a finer taxonomic resolution, black-backed jackals exhibited 69 bacterial taxa with proportions ≥0.1%, whereas cheetahs had only 42. Finally, oligotyping revealed that shared bacterial taxa consisted of distinct oligotype profiles. Thus, in contrast to 3% OTUs, oligotyping can detect fine-scale taxonomic differences between microbiomes.

Indexed as

bacteriablack-backed jackal (Canis mesomelas)carnivorescheetah (Acinonyx jubatus)gut microbiomeNamibiaoligotyping

Identifiers

PMID25352837
PMCPMC4196554
OpenAlexW1994022419

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.