Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26017153›Full record

ArticleBMC genomics2015

Early life microbial colonization of the gut and intestinal development differ between genetically divergent broiler lines.

Dirkjan Schokker, Gosse Veninga, Stephanie A Vastenhouw, Alex Bossers, Freddy M de Bree, Lucia M T E Kaal-Lansbergen, Johanna M J Rebel, Mari A Smits

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC genomics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 76 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
76citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Impact ofPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Physiological effects ofFrontiers in veterinary science · 2023
    Review

16 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

8 authors.

Dirkjan SchokkerWageningen Livestock Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands. dirkjan.schokker@wur.nl.
Gosse VeningaCobb Europe BV, Boxmeer, The Netherlands. Gosse.Veninga@cobb-europe.com.
Stephanie A VastenhouwCentral Veterinary Institute, Lelystad, The Netherlands. stephanie.vastenhouw@wur.nl.
Alex BossersCentral Veterinary Institute, Lelystad, The Netherlands. alex.bossers@wur.nl.
Freddy M de BreeCentral Veterinary Institute, Lelystad, The Netherlands. freddy.debree@wur.nl.
Lucia M T E Kaal-LansbergenWageningen Livestock Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands. lucia.kaal@wur.nl.
Johanna M J RebelCentral Veterinary Institute, Lelystad, The Netherlands. annemarie.rebel@wur.nl.
Mari A SmitsWageningen Livestock Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands. mari.smits@wur.nl.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHost genetic makeup plays a role in early gut microbial colonization and immune programming. Interactions between gut microbiota and host cells of the mucosal layer are of paramount importance for a proper development of host defence mechanisms. For different livestock species, it has already been shown that particular genotypes have increased susceptibilities towards disease causing pathogens. The objective of this study was to investigate the impact of genotypic variation on both early microbial colonization of the gut and functional development of intestinal tissue. From two genetically diverse chicken lines intestinal content samples were taken for microbiota analyses and intestinal tissue samples were extracted for gene expression analyses, both at three subsequent time-points (days 0, 4, and 16).

resultsThe microbiota composition was significantly different between lines on each time point. In contrast, no significant differences were observed regarding changes in the microbiota diversity between the two lines throughout this study. We also observed trends in the microbiota data at genus level when comparing lines X and Y. We observed that approximately 2000 genes showed different temporal gene expression patterns when comparing line X to line Y. Immunological related differences seem to be only present at day 0, because at day 4 and 16 similar gene expression is observed for these two lines. However, for genes involved in cell cycle related processes the data show higher expression over the whole course of time in line Y in comparison to line X.

conclusionsThese data suggest the genetic background influences colonization of gut microbiota after hatch in combination with the functional development of intestinal mucosal tissue, including the programming of the immune system. The results indicate that genetically different chicken lines have different coping mechanisms in early life to cope with the outside world.

Indexed as

MicrobiotaAnimalsChickensDNA, BacterialGastrointestinal TractGene Expression Regulation, BacterialGenetic VariationIntestinesMolecular Sequence DataSpecies SpecificityDNA, Bacterial

Identifiers

PMID26017153
PMCPMC4446945

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.