Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26161743›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

Chicken Caecal Microbiome Modifications Induced by Campylobacter jejuni Colonization and by a Non-Antibiotic Feed Additive.

Alexandre Thibodeau, Philippe Fravalo, Étienne Yergeau, Julie Arsenault, Ludovic Lahaye, Ann Letellier

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 83 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
83citing papers in PubMed
–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

83 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Consequences ofMicroorganisms · 2026
    Article
  3. Cross-Host Adaptation ofMicroorganisms · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Co-inoculation of broilers byMicrobiology spectrum · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Characterizing the Effect ofAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024
    Article
  13. No colonization resistance toFrontiers in microbiology · 2024
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Prevalence and Association ofMicroorganisms · 2023
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

23 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.

Alexandre ThibodeauNSERC Industrial Research Chair in Meat-Safety (CRSV), Université de Montréal, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Saint-Hyacinthe, Québec, Canada; Swine and Avian Infectious Disease Research Centre (CRIPA), Université de Montréal, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Saint-Hyacinthe, Québec, Canada; Groupe de recherche et d'enseignement en salubrité alimentaire (GRESA), Université de Montréal, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Saint-Hyacinthe, Québec, Canada.
Philippe FravaloNSERC Industrial Research Chair in Meat-Safety (CRSV), Université de Montréal, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Saint-Hyacinthe, Québec, Canada; Swine and Avian Infectious Disease Research Centre (CRIPA), Université de Montréal, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Saint-Hyacinthe, Québec, Canada; Groupe de recherche et d'enseignement en salubrité alimentaire (GRESA), Université de Montréal, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Saint-Hyacinthe, Québec, Canada.
Étienne YergeauNational Research Council of Canada, Montréal, Québec, Canada.
Julie ArsenaultSwine and Avian Infectious Disease Research Centre (CRIPA), Université de Montréal, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Saint-Hyacinthe, Québec, Canada; Groupe de recherche et d'enseignement en salubrité alimentaire (GRESA), Université de Montréal, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Saint-Hyacinthe, Québec, Canada.
Ludovic LahayeJefo Nutrition Inc, Saint-Hyacinthe, Québec, Canada.
Ann LetellierNSERC Industrial Research Chair in Meat-Safety (CRSV), Université de Montréal, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Saint-Hyacinthe, Québec, Canada; Swine and Avian Infectious Disease Research Centre (CRIPA), Université de Montréal, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Saint-Hyacinthe, Québec, Canada; Groupe de recherche et d'enseignement en salubrité alimentaire (GRESA), Université de Montréal, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Saint-Hyacinthe, Québec, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Campylobacter jejuni is an important zoonotic foodborne pathogen causing acute gastroenteritis in humans. Chickens are often colonized at very high numbers by C. jejuni, up to 10(9) CFU per gram of caecal content, with no detrimental effects on their health. Farm control strategies are being developed to lower the C. jejuni contamination of chicken food products in an effort to reduce human campylobacteriosis incidence. It is believed that intestinal microbiome composition may affect gut colonization by such undesirable bacteria but, although the chicken microbiome is being increasingly characterized, information is lacking on the factors affecting its modulation, especially by foodborne pathogens. This study monitored the effects of C. jejuni chicken caecal colonization on the chicken microbiome in healthy chickens. It also evaluated the capacity of a feed additive to affect caecal bacterial populations and to lower C. jejuni colonization. From day-0, chickens received or not a microencapsulated feed additive and were inoculated or not with C. jejuni at 14 days of age. Fresh caecal content was harvested at 35 days of age. The caecal microbiome was characterized by real time quantitative PCR and Ion Torrent sequencing. We observed that the feed additive lowered C. jejuni caecal count by 0.7 log (p<0.05). Alpha-diversity of the caecal microbiome was not affected by C. jejuni colonization or by the feed additive. C. jejuni colonization modified the caecal beta-diversity while the feed additive did not. We observed that C. jejuni colonization was associated with an increase of Bifidobacterium and affected Clostridia and Mollicutes relative abundances. The feed additive was associated with a lower Streptococcus relative abundance. The caecal microbiome remained relatively unchanged despite high C. jejuni colonization. The feed additive was efficient in lowering C. jejuni colonization while not disturbing the caecal microbiome.

Indexed as

Animal FeedAnimalsBifidobacteriumBiodiversityCampylobacter jejuniCecumChickensFood AdditivesMicrobiotaMolecular TypingRNA, Ribosomal, 16SSorbic AcidThymolFood AdditivesRNA, Ribosomal, 16SSorbic AcidThymol

Identifiers

PMID26161743
PMCPMC4498643

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.