Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26431973›Full record

ArticleApplied and environmental microbiology2015

Adaptation of the cecal bacterial microbiome of growing pigs in response to resistant starch type 4.

Barbara U Metzler-Zebeli, Stephan Schmitz-Esser, Evelyne Mann, Dietmar Grüll, Timea Molnar, Qendrim Zebeli

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Applied and environmental microbiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

35 citing papers in PubMed, 65 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Effects of Dietary Supplementation of Black Soldier Fly (The journal of poultry science · 2021
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Barbara U Metzler-ZebeliUniversity Clinic for Swine, Department for Farm Animals and Veterinary Public Health, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Vienna, Austria Research Cluster "Animal Gut Health," Department for Farm Animals and Veterinary Public Health, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Vienna, Austria Barbara.Metzler@vetmeduni.ac.at.
Stephan Schmitz-EsserResearch Cluster "Animal Gut Health," Department for Farm Animals and Veterinary Public Health, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Vienna, Austria Institute of Milk Hygiene, Department for Farm Animals and Veterinary Public Health, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Evelyne MannResearch Cluster "Animal Gut Health," Department for Farm Animals and Veterinary Public Health, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Vienna, Austria Institute of Milk Hygiene, Department for Farm Animals and Veterinary Public Health, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Dietmar GrüllAgrana Research & Innovation Center GmbH, Tulln, Austria.
Timea MolnarAgrana Research & Innovation Center GmbH, Tulln, Austria.
Qendrim ZebeliResearch Cluster "Animal Gut Health," Department for Farm Animals and Veterinary Public Health, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Vienna, Austria Institute of Animal Nutrition and Functional Plant Compounds, Department for Farm Animals and Veterinary Public Health, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna · AT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Resistant starch (RS) exacerbates health benefits on the host via modulation of the gut bacterial community. By far, these effects have been less well explored for RS of type 4. This study aimed at gaining a community-wide insight into the impact of enzymatically modified starch (EMS) on the cecal microbiota and hindgut fermentation in growing pigs. Castrated male pigs (n = 12/diet; 29-kg body weight) were fed diets with either 70% EMS or control starch for 10 days. The bacterial profile of each cecal sample was determined by sequencing of the V345 region of the 16S rRNA gene using the Illumina MiSeq platform. EMS diet reduced short-chain fatty acid concentrations in cecum and proximal colon compared to the control diet. Linear discriminant analyses and K means clustering indicated diet-specific cecal community profiles, whereby diversity and species richness were not different among diets. Pigs showed host-specific variation in their most abundant phyla, Firmicutes (55%), Proteobacteria (35%), and Bacteroidetes (10%). The EMS diet decreased abundance of Ruminococcus, Parasutterella, Bilophila, Enterococcus, and Lactobacillus operational taxonomic units (OTU), whereas Meniscus and Actinobacillus OTU were increased compared to those with the control diet (P < 0.05). Quantitative PCR confirmed results for host effect on Enterobacteriaceae and diet effect on members of the Lactobacillus group. The presence of less cecal short-chain fatty acids and the imputed metabolic functions of the cecal microbiome suggested that EMS was less degradable for cecal bacteria than the control starch. The present EMS effects on the bacterial community profiles were different than the previously reported RS effects and can be linked to the chemical structure of EMS.

Indexed as

Adaptation, PhysiologicalAnimal FeedAnimalsBacteriaCecumDietDNA, BacterialFatty Acids, VolatileFermentationGastrointestinal MicrobiomeMaleRNA, Ribosomal, 16SStarchSwineDNA, BacterialFatty Acids, VolatileRNA, Ribosomal, 16SStarch

Identifiers

PMID26431973
PMCPMC4644661
OpenAlexW2178363899

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.