Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26323630›Full record

ReviewILAR journal2015

Manipulating the Gut Microbiota: Methods and Challenges.

Aaron C Ericsson, Craig L Franklin

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in ILAR journal, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 72 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
72citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Influence of Water Delivery Method on the Gut Microbiome in Laboratory Mice (Mus musculus).Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science : JAALAS · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

12 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

2 authors.

Aaron C EricssonAaron C. Ericsson, DVM, PhD, is a research assistant professor and Craig L. Franklin, DVM, PhD, DACLAM, is a professor in the Department of Veterinary Pathobiology at the University of Missouri in Columbia, Missouri.
Craig L FranklinAaron C. Ericsson, DVM, PhD, is a research assistant professor and Craig L. Franklin, DVM, PhD, DACLAM, is a professor in the Department of Veterinary Pathobiology at the University of Missouri in Columbia, Missouri.

Funding

The Mutant Mouse Resource and Research Center at the University of Missouri - ResourceU42OD010918 · OD · UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI-COLUMBIA · PI James Amos-Landgraf · 2012 to 2026
$25.1M
ResourceP40OD011062 · OD · UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI-COLUMBIA · PI Elizabeth C Bryda · 2012 to 2026
$24.0M
NIH HHS P40 OD011062NIH HHS P40OD011062NIH HHS U42 OD010918NIH HHS U42OD010918
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Eukaryotic organisms are colonized by rich and dynamic communities of microbes, both internally (e.g., in the gastrointestinal and respiratory tracts) and externally (e.g., on skin and external mucosal surfaces). The vast majority of bacterial microbes reside in the lower gastrointestinal (GI) tract, and it is estimated that the gut of a healthy human is home to some 100 trillion bacteria, roughly an order of magnitude greater than the number of host somatic cells. The development of culture-independent methods to characterize the gut microbiota (GM) has spurred a renewed interest in its role in host health and disease. Indeed, associations have been identified between various changes in the composition of the GM and an extensive list of diseases, both enteric and systemic. Animal models provide a means whereby causal relationships between characteristic differences in the GM and diseases or conditions can be formally tested using genetically identical animals in highly controlled environments. Clearly, the GM and its interactions with the host and myriad environmental factors are exceedingly complex, and it is rare that a single microbial taxon associates with, much less causes, a phenotype with perfect sensitivity and specificity. Moreover, while the exact numbers are the subject of debate, it is well recognized that only a minority of gut bacteria can be successfully cultured ex vivo. Thus, to perform studies investigating causal roles of the GM in animal model phenotypes, researchers need clever techniques to experimentally manipulate the GM of animals, and several ingenious methods of doing so have been developed, each providing its own type of information and with its own set of advantages and drawbacks. The current review will focus on the various means of experimentally manipulating the GM of research animals, drawing attention to the factors that would aid a researcher in selecting an experimental approach, and with an emphasis on mice and rats, the primary model species used to evaluate the contribution of the GM to a disease phenotype.

Indexed as

AnimalsGastrointestinal MicrobiomeMetagenomicsMiceModels, AnimalRatsgut microbiotametagenomicsmicrobiomemodel phenotype

Identifiers

PMID26323630
PMCPMC4554251

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.