Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26986467›Full record

ArticlePloS one2016

Oral Samples as Non-Invasive Proxies for Assessing the Composition of the Rumen Microbial Community.

Ilma Tapio, Kevin J Shingfield, Nest McKain, Aurélie Bonin, Daniel Fischer, Ali R Bayat, Johanna Vilkki, Pierre Taberlet, Timothy J Snelling, R John Wallace

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 59 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
59citing papers in PubMed
19.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

59 citing papers in PubMed, 129 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Gut Microbiota of Ruminants and Monogastric Livestock: An Overview.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  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

10 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Ilma TapioGreen Technology, Natural Resources Institute Finland, Jokioinen, Finland.
Kevin J ShingfieldGreen Technology, Natural Resources Institute Finland, Jokioinen, Finland.
Nest McKainRowett Institute of Nutrition and Health, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, United Kingdom.
Aurélie BoninLaboratoire d'Ecologie Alpine, CNRS, Grenoble, France.
Daniel FischerGreen Technology, Natural Resources Institute Finland, Jokioinen, Finland.
Ali R BayatGreen Technology, Natural Resources Institute Finland, Jokioinen, Finland.
Johanna VilkkiGreen Technology, Natural Resources Institute Finland, Jokioinen, Finland.
Pierre TaberletLaboratoire d'Ecologie Alpine, CNRS, Grenoble, France.
Timothy J SnellingRowett Institute of Nutrition and Health, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, United Kingdom.
R John WallaceRowett Institute of Nutrition and Health, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, United Kingdom.
Natural Resources Institute Finland · FIUniversity of Aberdeen · GBCentre National de la Recherche Scientifique · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Microbial community analysis was carried out on ruminal digesta obtained directly via rumen fistula and buccal fluid, regurgitated digesta (bolus) and faeces of dairy cattle to assess if non-invasive samples could be used as proxies for ruminal digesta. Samples were collected from five cows receiving grass silage based diets containing no additional lipid or four different lipid supplements in a 5 x 5 Latin square design. Extracted DNA was analysed by qPCR and by sequencing 16S and 18S rRNA genes or the fungal ITS1 amplicons. Faeces contained few protozoa, and bacterial, fungal and archaeal communities were substantially different to ruminal digesta. Buccal and bolus samples gave much more similar profiles to ruminal digesta, although fewer archaea were detected in buccal and bolus samples. Bolus samples overall were most similar to ruminal samples. The differences between both buccal and bolus samples and ruminal digesta were consistent across all treatments. It can be concluded that either proxy sample type could be used as a predictor of the rumen microbial community, thereby enabling more convenient large-scale animal sampling for phenotyping and possible use in future animal breeding programs aimed at selecting cattle with a lower environmental footprint.

Indexed as

AlveolataAnimal Nutritional Physiological PhenomenaAnimalsArchaeaBacteriaCattleDietDietary SupplementsFecesFemaleFungiMouthPoaceaeRNA, Ribosomal, 16SRNA, Ribosomal, 18SRumenRNA, Ribosomal, 16SRNA, Ribosomal, 18S

Identifiers

PMID26986467
PMCPMC4795602
OpenAlexW2299486820

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.