Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28662106›Full record

ArticlePloS one2017

Variation between the oral and faecal microbiota in a free-living passerine bird, the great tit (Parus major).

Lucie Kropáčková, Hana Pechmanová, Michal Vinkler, Jana Svobodová, Hana Velová, Martin Těšičký, Jean-François Martin, Jakub Kreisinger

Abstract read
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 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing 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

22 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Metagenomic Profiling of Barn Owl (Ecology and evolution · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Bacterial communities along parrot digestive and respiratory tracts: the effects of sample type, species and time.International microbiology : the official journal of the Spanish Society for Microbiology · 2024
    Article
  7. Nearly (?) sterile avian egg in a passerine bird.FEMS microbiology ecology · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  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

8 authors.

Lucie KropáčkováDepartment of Zoology, Faculty of Science, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2180-5281
Hana PechmanováDepartment of Zoology, Faculty of Science, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic.
Michal VinklerDepartment of Zoology, Faculty of Science, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic.
Jana SvobodováDepartment of Ecology, Faculty of Environmental Science, Czech University of Life Science Prague, Prague, Czech Republic.
Hana VelováDepartment of Zoology, Faculty of Science, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic.
Martin TěšičkýDepartment of Zoology, Faculty of Science, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic.
Jean-François MartinMontpellier-SupAgro, UMR CBGP, Montferrier-sur-Lez, France.
Jakub KreisingerDepartment of Zoology, Faculty of Science, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The gastrointestinal tract of vertebrates is inhabited by diverse bacterial communities that induce marked effects on the host physiology and health status. The composition of the gastrointestinal microbiota is characterized by pronounced taxonomic and functional variability among different regions of the vertebrate gastrointestinal tract. Despite the relatively solid knowledge on the among-region variations of the gastrointestinal microbiota in model mammalian species, there are only a few studies concerning among-region variations of the gastrointestinal microbiota in free-living non-mammalian vertebrate taxa. We used Illumina MiSeq sequencing of bacterial 16S rRNA amplicons to compare the diversity as well as taxonomic composition of bacterial communities in proximal vs. distal parts of the gastrointestinal tract (represented by oral swabs and faecal samples, respectively) in a wild passerine bird, the great tit (Parus major). The diversity of the oral microbiota was significantly higher compared to the faecal microbiota, whereas interindividual variation was higher in faecal than in oral samples. We also observed a pronounced difference in taxonomic content between the oral and faecal microbiota. Bacteria belonging to the phyla Proteobacteria, Firmicutes and Actinobacteria typically dominated in both oral and faecal samples. A high abundance of bacteria belonging to Tenericutes was observed only in faecal samples. Surprisingly, we found only a slight correlation between the faecal and oral microbiota at the within-individual level, suggesting that the microbial composition in these body sites is shaped by independent regulatory processes. Given the independence of these two communities at the individual level, we propose that simultaneous sampling of the faecal and oral microbiota will extend our understanding of host vs. microbiota interactions in wild populations.

Indexed as

MicrobiotaAnimalsComputational BiologyFecesMouthPasseriformesRNA, Ribosomal, 16SRNA, Ribosomal, 16S

Identifiers

PMID28662106
PMCPMC5491070

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.