ArticleFrontiers in microbiology2017
Composition and Functional Specialists of the Gut Microbiota of Frogs Reflect Habitat Differences and Agricultural Activity.
Article in Frontiers in microbiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
31 citing papers in PubMed, 59 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative Analysis of Environmental and Host-Associated Microbiome inMicroorganisms · 2025Article
- Impact of Light Spectrum on Tadpole Physiology and Gut Microbiota in the Dybowski's Frog (Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Article
- Effects of different doses of microcystin-LR exposure on gut development and the microbiota of Xenopus laevis tadpoles.BMC microbiology · 2025Article
- Comparative Analyses ofEcology and evolution · 2024Article
- The Circadian Rhythm of the Behavior and Gut Microbiota in Dybowski's Frogs (Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Sex, health status and habitat alter the community composition and assembly processes of symbiotic bacteria in captive frogs.BMC microbiology · 2024Article
- Skin and gut microbiomes of tadpoles vary differently with host and water environment: a short-term experiment using 16S metabarcoding.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Exposure to Roundup and Antibiotics Alters Gut Microbial Communities, Growth, and Behavior inBiology · 2023Article
- The succession of gut microbiota in the concave-eared torrent frog (Ecology and evolution · 2023Article
- Phylogenetically under-dispersed gut microbiomes are not correlated with host genomic heterozygosity in a genetically diverse reptile community.Molecular ecology · 2023Article
- Gut microbiota of two invasive fishes respond differently to temperature.Frontiers in microbiology · 2023Article
- Main Factors Influencing the Gut Microbiota of Datong Yaks in Mixed Group.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2022Article
- Comparative study on gut microbiota in three Anura frogs from a mountain stream.Ecology and evolution · 2022Article
- Geographical patterns ofFrontiers in microbiology · 2022Article
- Taxonomy, not locality, influences the cloacal microbiota of two nearctic colubrids: a preliminary analysis.Molecular biology reports · 2021Article
- Seasonal Variation in Gut Microbiota Related to Diet inAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2021Article
- Habitat Elevation Shapes Microbial Community Composition and Alter the Metabolic Functions in Wild Sable (Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2021Article
- The Oral Bacterial Community inMicroorganisms · 2021Article
- Decisive Effects of Life Stage on the Gut Microbiota Discrepancy Between Two Wild Populations of Hibernating Asiatic Toads (Frontiers in microbiology · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The physiological impact of agricultural pollution, habitat disturbance, and food source variability on amphibian remains poorly understood. By comparing the composition and predicted functions of gut microbiota of two frog species from forest and farmland, we quantified the effects of the exogenous environment and endogenous filters on gut microbiota and the corresponding functions. However, compositional differences of the gut microbiota between the frog species were not detected, even when removing roughly 80-88% of the confounding effect produced by common and shared bacteria (i.e., generalists) and those taxa deemed too rare. The habitat effect accounted for 14.1% of the compositional difference of gut microbial specialists, but host and host × habitat effects were not significant. Similar trends of a significant habitat effect, at an even higher level (26.0%), for the physiological and metabolic functions of gut microbiota was predicted. A very obvious skewing of the relative abundance of functional groups toward farmland habitats reflects the highly diverse bacterial functions of farmland frogs, in particular related to pathogenic disease and pesticide degradation, which may be indication of poor adaptation or strong selective pressure against disease. These patterns reflect the impacts of agricultural activities on frogs and how such stresses may be applied in an unequal manner for different frog species.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.