Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28459886›Full record

ArticlePloS one2017

Bacterial microbiome of the nose of healthy dogs and dogs with nasal disease.

Barbara Tress, Elisabeth S Dorn, Jan S Suchodolski, Tariq Nisar, Prajesh Ravindran, Karin Weber, Katrin Hartmann, Bianka S Schulz

Open access · goldAbstract 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 29 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 52 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Identification of bacteria associated with canine otitis externa based on 16S rDNA high-throughput sequencing.Brazilian journal of microbiology : [publication of the Brazilian Society for Microbiology] · 2023
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Barbara TressClinic of Small Animal Medicine, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2950-817X
Elisabeth S DornClinic of Small Animal Medicine, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Jan S SuchodolskiGastrointestinal Laboratory, Department of Small Animal Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, United States of America.
Tariq NisarGastrointestinal Laboratory, Department of Small Animal Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, United States of America.
Prajesh RavindranGastrointestinal Laboratory, Department of Small Animal Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, United States of America.
Karin WeberClinic of Small Animal Medicine, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Katrin HartmannClinic of Small Animal Medicine, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Bianka S SchulzClinic of Small Animal Medicine, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München · DETexas A&M University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The role of bacterial communities in canine nasal disease has not been studied so far using next generation sequencing methods. Sequencing of bacterial 16S rRNA genes has revealed that the canine upper respiratory tract harbors a diverse microbial community; however, changes in the composition of nasal bacterial communities in dogs with nasal disease have not been described so far. Aim of the study was to characterize the nasal microbiome of healthy dogs and compare it to that of dogs with histologically confirmed nasal neoplasia and chronic rhinitis. Nasal swabs were collected from healthy dogs (n = 23), dogs with malignant nasal neoplasia (n = 16), and dogs with chronic rhinitis (n = 8). Bacterial DNA was extracted and sequencing of the bacterial 16S rRNA gene was performed. Data were analyzed using Quantitative Insights Into Microbial Ecology (QIIME). A total of 376 Operational Taxonomic Units out of 26 bacterial phyla were detected. In healthy dogs, Moraxella spp. was the most common species, followed by Phyllobacterium spp., Cardiobacteriaceae, and Staphylococcus spp. While Moraxella spp. were significantly decreased in diseased compared to healthy dogs (p = 0.005), Pasteurellaceae were significantly increased (p = 0.001). Analysis of similarities used on the unweighted UniFrac distance metric (p = 0.027) was significantly different when nasal microbial communities of healthy dogs were compared to those of dogs with nasal disease. The study showed that the canine nasal cavity is inhabited by a highly species-rich bacterial community, and suggests significant differences between the nasal microbiome of healthy dogs and dogs with nasal disease.

Indexed as

MicrobiotaAnimalsChronic DiseaseDog DiseasesDogsFemaleMaleNoseNose NeoplasmsRhinitisRNA, Ribosomal, 16SRNA, Ribosomal, 16S

Identifiers

PMID28459886
PMCPMC5411083
OpenAlexW2610367019

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.