Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26963277›Full record

ArticleGut microbes2016

Impact of probiotic supplements on microbiome diversity following antibiotic treatment of mice.

Hannah Grazul, L Leann Kanda, David Gondek

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Gut microbes, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 74 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
74citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Nutrients · 2025
    Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Nutrients · 2025
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article

14 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

3 authors.

Hannah Grazula Biology Department , Center for Natural Science, Ithaca College , Ithaca NY.
L Leann Kandaa Biology Department , Center for Natural Science, Ithaca College , Ithaca NY.
David Gondeka Biology Department , Center for Natural Science, Ithaca College , Ithaca NY.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Shifts in microbial populations of the intestinal tract have been associated with a multitude of nutritional, autoimmune, and infectious diseases. The limited diversity following antibiotic treatments creates a window for opportunistic pathogens, diarrhea, and inflammation as the microbiome repopulates. Depending on the antibiotics used, microbial diversity can take weeks to months to recover. To alleviate this loss of diversity in the intestinal microbiota, supplementation with probiotics has become increasingly popular. However, our understanding of the purported health benefits of these probiotic bacteria and their ability to shape the microbiome is significantly lacking. This study examined the impact of probiotics concurrent with antibiotic treatment or during the recovery phase following antibiotic treatment of mice. We found that probiotics did not appear to colonize the intestine themselves or shift the overall diversity of the intestinal microbiota. However, the probiotic supplementation did significantly change the types of bacteria which were present. In particular, during the recovery phase the probiotic caused a suppression of Enterobacteriaceae outgrowth (Shigella and Escherichia) while promoting a blooming of Firmicutes, particularly from the Anaerotruncus genus. These results indicate that probiotics have a significant capacity to remodel the microbiome of an individual recovering from antibiotic therapy.

Indexed as

BiodiversityAnimalsAnti-Bacterial AgentsBacteriaDiarrheaDietary SupplementsFemaleGastrointestinal MicrobiomeGastrointestinal TractHumansMaleMiceMice, Inbred C57BLProbioticsAnti-Bacterial Agents16S rRNAanaerotruncusantibioticmicrobiomeprobioticsequencing

Identifiers

PMID26963277
PMCPMC4856465

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.