Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26689946›Full record

ArticleMicrobiome2015

The Tasmanian devil microbiome-implications for conservation and management.

Yuanyuan Cheng, Samantha Fox, David Pemberton, Carolyn Hogg, Anthony T Papenfuss, Katherine Belov

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Microbiome, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 77 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
77citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
6.3field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

77 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 162 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

17 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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Yuanyuan ChengFaculty of Veterinary Science, RMC Gunn Building, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, 2006, Australia. yuanyuan.cheng@sydney.edu.au.
Samantha FoxDepartment of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment, 134 Macquarie Street, Hobart, Tasmania, 7000, Australia. Samantha.Fox@dpipwe.tas.gov.au.
David PembertonDepartment of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment, 134 Macquarie Street, Hobart, Tasmania, 7000, Australia. David.Pemberton@dpipwe.tas.gov.au.
Carolyn HoggZoo and Aquarium Association, Mosman, New South Wales, 2088, Australia. carolyn@zooaquarium.com.au.
Anthony T PapenfussBioinformatics Division, The Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research, Parkville, Victoria, 3052, Australia. papenfuss@wehi.edu.au.
Katherine BelovFaculty of Veterinary Science, RMC Gunn Building, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, 2006, Australia. kathy.belov@sydney.edu.au.
Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment · AUUniversity of Sydney · AUUniversity of Melbourne · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Tasmanian devil, the world's largest carnivorous marsupial, is at risk of extinction due to devil facial tumour disease (DFTD), a fatal contagious cancer. The Save the Tasmanian Devil Program has established an insurance population, which currently holds over 600 devils in captive facilities across Australia. Microbes are known to play a crucial role in the health and well-being of humans and other animals, and increasing evidence suggests that changes in the microbiota can influence various aspects of host physiology and development. To improve our understanding of devils and facilitate management and conservation of the species, we characterised the microbiome of wild devils and investigated differences in the composition of microbial community between captive and wild individuals.

resultsA total of 1,223,550 bacterial 16S ribosomal RNA (rRNA) sequences were generated via Roche 454 sequencing from 56 samples, including 17 gut, 15 skin, 18 pouch and 6 oral samples. The devil's gut microbiome was dominated by Firmicutes and showed a high Firmicutes-to-Bacteroidetes ratio, which appears to be a common feature of many carnivorous mammals. Metabolisms of carbohydrates, amino acids, energy, cofactors and vitamins, nucleotides and lipids were predicted as the most prominent metabolic pathways that the devil's gut flora contributed to. The microbiota inside the female's pouch outside lactation was highly similar to that of the skin, both co-dominated by Firmicutes and Proteobacteria. The oral microbiome had similar proportions of Proteobacteria, Bacteroidetes, Firmicutes and Fusobacteria.

conclusionsCompositional differences were observed in all four types of microbiota between devils from captive and wild populations. Certain captive devils had significantly lower levels of gut bacterial diversity than wild individuals, and the two groups differed in the proportion of gut bacteria accounting for the metabolism of glycan, amino acids and cofactors and vitamins. Further studies are underway to investigate whether alterations in the microbiome of captive devils can have impacts on their ability to adapt and survive following re-introduction to the wild.

Indexed as

Endangered SpeciesGastrointestinal MicrobiomeMicrobiotaAnimalsAnimals, WildAustraliaBacillotaBacteriaMarsupialiaMouthProteobacteriaRNA, Ribosomal, 16SSkinRNA, Ribosomal, 16S

Identifiers

PMID26689946
PMCPMC4687321
OpenAlexW2214250135

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.