Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26664918›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2014

Characterization of the Vaginal Microbiota of Ewes and Cows Reveals a Unique Microbiota with Low Levels of Lactobacilli and Near-Neutral pH.

Jeffrey D Swartz, Medora Lachman, Kelsey Westveer, Thomas O'Neill, Thomas Geary, Rodney W Kott, James G Berardinelli, Patrick G Hatfield, Jennifer M Thomson, Andy Roberts and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 100 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
100citing papers in PubMed
5.5field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

100 citing papers in PubMed, 175 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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. Review

40 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

11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jeffrey D SwartzDepartment of Animal and Range Sciences, Montana State University , Bozeman, MT , USA.
Medora LachmanDepartment of Animal and Range Sciences, Montana State University , Bozeman, MT , USA.
Kelsey WestveerDepartment of Animal and Range Sciences, Montana State University , Bozeman, MT , USA.
Thomas O'NeillDepartment of Animal and Range Sciences, Montana State University , Bozeman, MT , USA.
Thomas GearyUnited States Department of Agriculture-Agricultural Research Service , Miles City, MT , USA.
Rodney W KottDepartment of Animal and Range Sciences, Montana State University , Bozeman, MT , USA.
James G BerardinelliDepartment of Animal and Range Sciences, Montana State University , Bozeman, MT , USA.
Patrick G HatfieldDepartment of Animal and Range Sciences, Montana State University , Bozeman, MT , USA.
Jennifer M ThomsonDepartment of Animal and Range Sciences, Montana State University , Bozeman, MT , USA.
Andy RobertsUnited States Department of Agriculture-Agricultural Research Service , Miles City, MT , USA.
Carl J YeomanDepartment of Animal and Range Sciences, Montana State University , Bozeman, MT , USA.
Montana State University · USAgricultural Research Service · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although a number of common reproductive disorders in livestock involve bacterial infection, very little is known about their normal vaginal microbiota. Therefore, we sought to determine the species composition of sheep and cattle vaginal microbiota. Twenty Rambouillet ewes and twenty crossbred cows varying in age and reproductive status were sampled by ectocervicovaginal lavage. We amplified and sequenced the V3-V4 region of the 16S ribosomal RNA (rRNA) contents yielding a total of 907,667 high-quality reads. Good's Coverage estimates indicated that we obtained data on 98 ± 0.01% of the total microbial genera present in each sample. Cow and ewe vaginal microbiota displayed few differences. Cow microbiota exhibited greater (P ≤ 0.05) α-diversity compared to the ewe microbiota. Both livestock species differed (P ≤ 0.05) from all previously reported vaginal communities. While bacteria were numerically dominant, Archaea were detected in 95% of cow and ewe samples, mainly of the order Desulfurococcales. Both ewes and cows were predominately colonized by the bacterial phyla Bacteroidetes, Fusobacteria, and Proteobacteria. The most abundant genera were Aggregatibacter spp., and Streptobacillus spp. Lactobacillus spp. were detected in 80% of ewe and 90% of cow samples, but only at very low abundances. Bacteria previously described from culture-based studies as common to the cow and ewe vaginal tract, except for Escherichia, were variably present, and only in low abundance. Ewe and cow pH differed (P ≤ 0.05), with means (±SD) of 6.7 ± 0.38 and 7.3 ± 0.63, respectively. In conclusion, 16S rRNA sequencing of cow and ewe vaginal ectocervicovaginal lavages showed that cow and ewe vaginal microbiota differ from culture-led results, revealing a microbiota distinct from previously described vaginal ecosystems.

Indexed as

AggregatibacterLactobacillusStreptobacillusvaginal microbiotavaginal pH

Identifiers

PMID26664918
PMCPMC4672155
OpenAlexW2080674517

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.