Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29497869›Full record

ArticleAntonie van Leeuwenhoek2018

Differences in gut microbiota composition in finishing Landrace pigs with low and high feed conversion ratios.

Zhen Tan, Yuan Wang, Ting Yang, Hong Ao, Shaokang Chen, Kai Xing, Fengxia Zhang, Xitong Zhao, Jianfeng Liu, Chuduan Wang

Open access · hybridAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Antonie van Leeuwenhoek, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

41 citing papers in PubMed, 63 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. EnterotoxigenicTransboundary and emerging diseases · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  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

10 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Zhen TanNational Engineering Laboratory for Animal Breeding, Key Laboratory of Animal Genetics, Breeding and Reproduction, Ministry of Agriculture, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3651-1916
Yuan WangNational Engineering Laboratory for Animal Breeding, Key Laboratory of Animal Genetics, Breeding and Reproduction, Ministry of Agriculture, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing, China.
Ting YangNational Engineering Laboratory for Animal Breeding, Key Laboratory of Animal Genetics, Breeding and Reproduction, Ministry of Agriculture, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing, China.
Hong AoInstitute of Animal Sciences, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing, China.
Shaokang ChenBeijing General Station of Animal Husbandry, Beijing, China.
Kai XingNational Engineering Laboratory for Animal Breeding, Key Laboratory of Animal Genetics, Breeding and Reproduction, Ministry of Agriculture, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing, China.
Fengxia ZhangNational Engineering Laboratory for Animal Breeding, Key Laboratory of Animal Genetics, Breeding and Reproduction, Ministry of Agriculture, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing, China.
Xitong ZhaoNational Engineering Laboratory for Animal Breeding, Key Laboratory of Animal Genetics, Breeding and Reproduction, Ministry of Agriculture, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing, China.
Jianfeng LiuNational Engineering Laboratory for Animal Breeding, Key Laboratory of Animal Genetics, Breeding and Reproduction, Ministry of Agriculture, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing, China.
Chuduan WangNational Engineering Laboratory for Animal Breeding, Key Laboratory of Animal Genetics, Breeding and Reproduction, Ministry of Agriculture, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing, China. cdwang@cau.edu.cn.
China Agricultural University · CNChinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences · CNMinistry of Agriculture · IDNational Animal Husbandry Service · CN

Funding

Beijing Innovation Consortium of Agriculture Research System BAIC02-2016
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The goal of this study was to evaluate the microbial communities in the gut and feces from female finishing Landrace pigs with high and low feed conversion ratio (FCR) by 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing. Many potential biomarkers can distinguish between high and low FCR groups in the duodenum, ileum, cecum, colon, and rectum, according to linear discriminant analysis effect sizes. The relative abundance of microbes were tested by Mann-Whitney test between the high and low FCR groups in different organs: Campylobacter, Prevotella and Sphaerochaeta were different in the duodenum (P < 0.05); Sanguibacter, Kingella and Anaeroplasma in jejunum; Anaeroplasma, Arthrobacter, Kingella, Megasphaera and SMB53 in the ileum; Butyricicoccus, Campylobacter, Mitsuokella, and Coprobacillus in the cecum; Lactococcus and Peptococcus in the colon; Staphylococcus in the rectum; and Rothia in feces. The prevalence of microbial genera in certain locations could potentially be used as biomarkers to distinguish between high and low FCR. Functional prediction clustering analysis suggested that bacteria in the hindgut mainly participated in carbohydrate metabolism and amino acid metabolism, and different in the relative abundance of metabolic pathways, as predicted from the microbial taxa present, were identified by comparing the high and low groups of each location. The results may provide insights for the alteration of the intestinal microbial communities to improve the growth rate of pigs.

Indexed as

BiodiversityGastrointestinal MicrobiomeSwineAmino AcidsAnimal FeedAnimalsBacteriaCarbohydrate MetabolismCecumColonDiscriminant AnalysisDNA, BacterialFecesFemaleIntestine, SmallMetabolic Networks and PathwaysAmino AcidsDNA, BacterialRNA, Ribosomal, 16SFeed conversion ratio (FCR)Gut microbiotaMicrobial communityPigs

Identifiers

PMID29497869
PMCPMC6097733
OpenAlexW2792972689

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.