Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29521600›Full record

ArticlePhysiological genomics2018

Cecal versus fecal microbiota in Ossabaw swine and implications for obesity.

Matthew R Panasevich, Umesh D Wankhade, Sree V Chintapalli, Kartik Shankar, R Scott Rector

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Physiological genomics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. A review of the resistome within the digestive tract of livestock.Journal of animal science and biotechnology · 2021
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Matthew R PanasevichResearch Service-Harry S Truman Memorial VA Hospital , Columbia, Missouri.
Umesh D WankhadeArkansas Children's Nutrition Center, Department of Pediatrics, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences , Little Rock, Arkansas.
Sree V ChintapalliArkansas Children's Nutrition Center, Department of Pediatrics, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences , Little Rock, Arkansas.
Kartik ShankarArkansas Children's Nutrition Center, Department of Pediatrics, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences , Little Rock, Arkansas.
R Scott RectorResearch Service-Harry S Truman Memorial VA Hospital , Columbia, Missouri.
Arkansas Children's Nutrition Center · USUniversity of Missouri · USUniversity of Arkansas for Medical Sciences · US

Funding

Translation CoreP30DK097512 · NIDDK · INDIANA UNIVERSITY INDIANAPOLIS · PI Amelia K Linnemann · 2015 to 2026
$17.4M
Hepatic eNOS in the regulation of NASHI01BX003271 · VA · HARRY S. TRUMAN MEMORIAL VA HOSPITAL · PI RANDY SCOTT RECTOR · 2017 to 2026
–
BLRD VA I01 BX003271NIDDK NIH HHS P30 DK097512
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The gut microbiome plays a critical role in the onset and progression of obesity and the metabolic syndrome. However, it is not well documented whether the cecal vs. the fecal microbiome is more relevant when assessing their contributions to these diseases. Here, we amplified the V4 region of the 16S rRNA gene from cecal and fecal samples of female Ossabaw swine fed a low-fat control diet (10.5% fat, n = 4) or Western diet (43.0% fat, 17.8% high fructose corn syrup, 2% cholesterol; n = 3) for 36 wk. Obesity significantly lowered alpha-diversity ( P < 0.05), and there was clear separation in beta-diversity between lean and obese pigs, as well as between cecal and fecal samples ( P < 0.05). Obesity dramatically increased ( P < 0.05) the Firmicutes:Bacteroidetes ratio in fecal samples, and Actinobacteria was higher ( P < 0.05) in fecal vs. cecal samples in obese pigs. Cyanobacteria, Proteobacteria, and Fusobacteria were increased ( P < 0.05), while Spirochaetes, Tenericutes, and Verrucomicrobia were decreased ( P < 0.05) in obese vs. lean pigs. Prevotellaceae was reduced ( P < 0.05) in obese fecal vs. cecal samples. Moreover, cecal samples in obese had greater ( P < 0.05) predicted metabolic capacity for glycan biosynthesis and metabolism and LPS biosynthesis compared with fecal. Obese pigs also had greater ( P < 0.05) capacity for carbohydrate metabolism, which was driven by obese fecal rather than cecal samples and was opposite in lean pigs ( P < 0.05). The observed differences in pro-inflammatory microbiota and their metabolic capacity in cecal vs. fecal samples of obese pigs provide new insight into evaluating the microbiome in the pathogenesis of obesity and metabolic disease.

Indexed as

AnimalsBacteriaCecumDiet, High-FatFecesFemaleGastrointestinal MicrobiomeMicrobiotaObesityPopulation DynamicsRNA, Ribosomal, 16SSwineRNA, Ribosomal, 16Salpha diversitybeta diversitymetabolic syndromemicrobiomeOssabaw swine

Identifiers

PMID29521600
PMCPMC6008116
OpenAlexW2790392212

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.