Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29594071›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology2018

Ecological Restoration of Antibiotic-Disturbed Gastrointestinal Microbiota in Foregut and Hindgut of Cows.

Shoukun Ji, Tao Jiang, Hui Yan, Chunyan Guo, Jingjing Liu, Huawei Su, Gibson M Alugongo, Haitao Shi, Yajing Wang, Zhijun Cao and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 47 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Effects of supplementation withCanadian journal of veterinary research = Revue canadienne de recherche veterinaire · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Impact of virginiamycin on the ruminal microbiota of feedlot cattle.Canadian journal of veterinary research = Revue canadienne de recherche veterinaire · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  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

11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Shoukun JiState Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition, Beijing Engineering Technology Research Center of Raw Milk Quality and Safety Control, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing, China.
Tao JiangState Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition, Beijing Engineering Technology Research Center of Raw Milk Quality and Safety Control, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing, China.
Hui YanState Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition, Beijing Engineering Technology Research Center of Raw Milk Quality and Safety Control, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing, China.
Chunyan GuoState Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition, Beijing Engineering Technology Research Center of Raw Milk Quality and Safety Control, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing, China.
Jingjing LiuState Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition, Beijing Engineering Technology Research Center of Raw Milk Quality and Safety Control, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing, China.
Huawei SuState Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition, Beijing Engineering Technology Research Center of Raw Milk Quality and Safety Control, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing, China.
Gibson M AlugongoState Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition, Beijing Engineering Technology Research Center of Raw Milk Quality and Safety Control, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing, China.
Haitao ShiState Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition, Beijing Engineering Technology Research Center of Raw Milk Quality and Safety Control, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing, China.
Yajing WangState Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition, Beijing Engineering Technology Research Center of Raw Milk Quality and Safety Control, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing, China.
Zhijun CaoState Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition, Beijing Engineering Technology Research Center of Raw Milk Quality and Safety Control, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing, China.
Shengli LiState Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition, Beijing Engineering Technology Research Center of Raw Milk Quality and Safety Control, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing, China.
State Key Laboratory of Animal NutritionChina Agricultural University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Antibiotically disturbed gastrointestinal microbiota needs a long period time to be restored to normal, which may cause a series of problems to the host. The understanding of restoration of the biased microbiota by antibiotics remains largely unknown. Here, we investigated the microbiota shift in foregut (rumen) and hindgut (rectum) of lactating cows after antibiotics exposure as well as after antibiotics withdrawal with (Microbiota transplantation, MT group) or without (Control, CON group) microbiota transplantation. We were able to demonstrate that microbiota in both foregut and hindgut significantly changed after 3 or 14 days of antibiotics exposure, and the changes persisted over long period of time (>18 days) after withdrawing the antibiotics. We further observed a faster restoration of microbiota in both foregut and hindgut of MT group than CON group, microbiota in foregut was mainly benefited from microbiota transplantation by restoring the alpha-diversity as well as within-group similarity, while microbiota in hindgut was primarily benefited from microbiota transplantation by reestablishing the co-occurrence network (nodes number, edges number, density, modularity as well as closeness centrality). These results together expanded our understanding of restoration of the biased microbiota by antibiotics, and may also be instructive to deal with the delayed microbiota restoration at least in cows.

Indexed as

AnimalsAnti-Bacterial AgentsBacteriaCattleFemaleGastrointestinal MicrobiomeLactationRectumRumenAnti-Bacterial Agentsantibioticsforegutgut microbiotahindgutmicrobial ecologyrestoration

Identifiers

PMID29594071
PMCPMC5859144
OpenAlexW2793612151

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.