Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28165001›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2017

Microbial shifts in the porcine distal gut in response to diets supplemented with Enterococcus Faecalis as alternatives to antibiotics.

Pinghua Li, Qing Niu, Qingtian Wei, Yeqiu Zhang, Xiang Ma, Sung Woo Kim, Mingxin Lin, Ruihua Huang

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

40 citing papers in PubMed, 59 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. TwoInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Dietary supplementation withMicrobiology spectrum · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Identification of the gut microbiota affectingFrontiers in microbiology · 2023
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Intestinal microbiota and its interaction to intestinal health in nursery pigs.Animal nutrition (Zhongguo xu mu shou yi xue hui) · 2022
    Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Gut Bacterial Communities ofMicroorganisms · 2021
    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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Pinghua LiInstitute of Swine Science, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing, 210095, China.
Qing NiuInstitute of Swine Science, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing, 210095, China.
Qingtian WeiInstitute of Swine Science, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing, 210095, China.
Yeqiu ZhangInstitute of Swine Science, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing, 210095, China.
Xiang MaInstitute of Swine Science, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing, 210095, China.
Sung Woo KimDepartment of Animal Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina, 27695, United States of America.
Mingxin LinChangxing Ecoagriculture Co. Limited, Yixing, 214246, China.
Ruihua HuangInstitute of Swine Science, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing, 210095, China.
Nanjing Agricultural University · CNNorth Carolina State University · USYixing People's Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Gut microbiota plays an important role in host health and nutrient digestion of animals. Probiotics have become one of effective alternatives to antibiotics enhancing animal health and performance through modulating gut microbiota. Previously, our research demonstrated that dietary Enterococcus Faecalis UC-100 substituting antibiotics enhanced growth and health of weaned pigs. To investigate the alterations of microbiota in the distal gut of pigs fed E. faecalis UC-100 substituting antibiotics, this study assessed fecal microbiota in pigs from different dietary treatments: the basal diet group, the E. faecalis group, and the antibiotic group on d 0, 14, and 28 of feeding through 16 S rRNA sequencing. Twenty-one phyla and 137 genera were shared by all pigs, whereas 12 genera were uniquely identified in the E. faecalis group on d 14 and 28. Bacterial abundance and diversity in the E. faecalis group, bacterial diversity in the antibiotic group, especially abundances of Fibrobacteres phylum and 12 genera in the E. faecalis group and antibiotics group were lower than that in the basal diet group on d 28. These results showed that microbial shifts in the porcine gut in response to diets containing E. faecalis were similar to the response to which containing antibiotics.

Indexed as

DietDietary SupplementsGastrointestinal MicrobiomeAnimalsAnti-Bacterial AgentsBase SequenceBiodiversityEnterococcus faecalisPrincipal Component AnalysisSus scrofaAnti-Bacterial Agents

Identifiers

PMID28165001
PMCPMC5292720
OpenAlexW2586332357

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.