Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28662139›Full record

ArticlePloS one2017

Bacterial microbiome in the nose of healthy cats and in cats with nasal disease.

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

Open access · goldAbstract 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 28 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 51 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. CanineMicrobiology spectrum · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Elisabeth S DornClinic of Small Animal Medicine, LMU University of Munich, Munich, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8052-7026
Barbara TressClinic of Small Animal Medicine, LMU University of 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 University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Katrin HartmannClinic of Small Animal Medicine, LMU University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Bianka S SchulzClinic of Small Animal Medicine, LMU University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
LMU Klinikum · DETexas A&M University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTraditionally, changes in the microbial population of the nose have been assessed using conventional culture techniques. Sequencing of bacterial 16S rRNA genes demonstrated that the human nose is inhabited by a rich and diverse bacterial microbiome that cannot be detected using culture-based methods. The goal of this study was to describe the nasal microbiome of healthy cats, cats with nasal neoplasia, and cats with feline upper respiratory tract disease (FURTD). METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL

findingsDNA was extracted from nasal swabs of healthy cats (n = 28), cats with nasal neoplasia (n = 16), and cats with FURTD (n = 15), and 16S rRNA genes were sequenced. High species richness was observed in all samples. Rarefaction analysis revealed that healthy cats living indoors had greater species richness (observed species p = 0.042) and Shannon diversity (p = 0.003) compared with healthy cats living outdoors. Higher species richness (observed species p = 0.001) and Shannon diversity (p<0.001) were found in middle-aged cats in comparison to healthy cats in different age groups. Principal coordinate analysis revealed separate clustering based on similarities in bacterial molecular phylogenetic trees of 16S rRNA genes for indoor and outdoor cats. In all groups examined, the most abundant phyla identified were Proteobacteria, Firmicutes, and Bacteroidetes. At the genus level, 375 operational taxonomic units (OTUs) were identified. In healthy cats and cats with FURTD, Moraxella spp. was the most common genus, while it was unclassified Bradyrhizobiaceae in cats with nasal neoplasia. High individual variability was observed.

conclusionThis study demonstrates that the nose of cats is inhabited by much more variable and diverse microbial communities than previously shown. Future research in this field might help to develop new diagnostic tools to easily identify nasal microbial changes, relate them to certain disease processes, and help clinicians in the decision process of antibiotic selection for individual patients.

Indexed as

MicrobiotaAnimalsCase-Control StudiesCat DiseasesCatsNoseNose DiseasesRNA, Ribosomal, 16SRNA, Ribosomal, 16S

Identifiers

PMID28662139
PMCPMC5491177
OpenAlexW2730718734

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.