Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28301489›Full record

ArticlePloS one2017

Comparative analysis of fecal microbial communities in cattle and Bactrian camels.

Liang Ming, Li Yi, Siriguleng, Surong Hasi, Jing He, Le Hai, Zhaoxia Wang, Fucheng Guo, Xiangyu Qiao, Jirimutu

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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.

Liang MingKey Laboratory of Dairy Biotechnology and Bioengineering, Ministry of Education, College of Food Science and Engineering, Inner Mongolia Agricultural University, Hohhot, Inner Mongolia, China.
Li YiKey Laboratory of Dairy Biotechnology and Bioengineering, Ministry of Education, College of Food Science and Engineering, Inner Mongolia Agricultural University, Hohhot, Inner Mongolia, China.
SirigulengCamel Research Institute of Inner Mongolia, Alashan, Inner Mongolia, China.
Surong HasiCamel Research Institute of Inner Mongolia, Alashan, Inner Mongolia, China.
Jing HeKey Laboratory of Dairy Biotechnology and Bioengineering, Ministry of Education, College of Food Science and Engineering, Inner Mongolia Agricultural University, Hohhot, Inner Mongolia, China.
Le HaiKey Laboratory of Dairy Biotechnology and Bioengineering, Ministry of Education, College of Food Science and Engineering, Inner Mongolia Agricultural University, Hohhot, Inner Mongolia, China.
Zhaoxia WangKey Laboratory of Dairy Biotechnology and Bioengineering, Ministry of Education, College of Food Science and Engineering, Inner Mongolia Agricultural University, Hohhot, Inner Mongolia, China.
Fucheng GuoKey Laboratory of Dairy Biotechnology and Bioengineering, Ministry of Education, College of Food Science and Engineering, Inner Mongolia Agricultural University, Hohhot, Inner Mongolia, China.
Xiangyu QiaoKey Laboratory of Dairy Biotechnology and Bioengineering, Ministry of Education, College of Food Science and Engineering, Inner Mongolia Agricultural University, Hohhot, Inner Mongolia, China.
JirimutuKey Laboratory of Dairy Biotechnology and Bioengineering, Ministry of Education, College of Food Science and Engineering, Inner Mongolia Agricultural University, Hohhot, Inner Mongolia, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Bactrian camels may have a unique gastrointestinal (GI) microbiome because of their distinctive digestive systems, unique eating habits and extreme living conditions. However, understanding of the microbial communities in the Bactrian camel GI tract is still limited. In this study, microbial communities were investigated by comparative analyses of 16S rRNA hypervariable region V4 sequences of fecal bacteria sampled from 94 animals in four population groups: Inner Mongolian cattle (IMG-Cattle), Inner Mongolian domestic Bactrian camels (IMG-DBC), Mongolian domestic Bactrian camels (MG-DBC), and Mongolian wild Bactrian camels (MG-WBC). A total of 2,097,985 high-quality reads were obtained and yielded 471,767,607 bases of sequence. Firmicutes was the predominant phylum in the population groups IMG-Cattle, IMG-DBC and MG-WBC, followed (except in the Inner Mongolian cattle) by Verrucomicrobia. Bacteroidetes were abundant in the IMG-DBC and MG-WBC populations. Hierarchical clustered heatmap analysis revealed that the microbial community composition within the three Bactrian camel groups was relatively similar, and somewhat distinct from that in the cattle. A similar result was determined by principal component analysis, in which the camels grouped together. We also found several species-specific differences in microbial communities at the genus level: for example, Desulfovibrio was abundant in the IMG-DBC and MG-WBC groups; Pseudomonas was abundant in the IMG-Cattle group; and Fibrobacter, Coprobacillus, and Paludibacter were scarce in the MG-WBC group. Such differences may be related to different eating habits and living conditions of the cattle and the various camel populations.

Indexed as

AnimalsBacteriaCamelusCattleFecesRNA, Ribosomal, 16SRNA, Ribosomal, 16S

Identifiers

PMID28301489
PMCPMC5354269

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.