Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29800328›Full record

ArticlePoultry science2018

Differences in cecal microbiome of selected high and low feather-pecking laying hens.

P Birkl, A Bharwani, J B Kjaer, W Kunze, P McBride, P Forsythe, A Harlander-Matauschek

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Poultry science, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

30 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. State of the art in research on the gut-liver and gut-brain axis in poultry.Journal of animal science and biotechnology · 2023
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. The Relationships between Damaging Behaviours and Health in Laying Hens.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2022
    Review
  14. The Impact of ProbioticAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2022
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Regulatory T Cell Modulation byFrontiers in veterinary science · 2022
    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

7 authors.

P BirklDepartment of Animal Biosciences, University of Guelph, ON N1G 2W1 Guelph, Canada.
A BharwaniBrain-Body Institute and Firestone Institute for Respiratory Health, Department of Medicine, McMaster University, 50 Carlton Avenue East, L8N 4A6 Hamilton, Canada.
J B KjaerFriedrich-Loeffler-Institut, Federal Research Institute for Animal Health, Institute of Animal Welfare and Animal Husbandry, Doernbergstrasse 25 & 27, 29223 Celle, Germany.
W KunzeBrain-Body Institute and Firestone Institute for Respiratory Health, Department of Medicine, McMaster University, 50 Carlton Avenue East, L8N 4A6 Hamilton, Canada.
P McBrideDepartment of Animal Biosciences, University of Guelph, ON N1G 2W1 Guelph, Canada.
P ForsytheBrain-Body Institute and Firestone Institute for Respiratory Health, Department of Medicine, McMaster University, 50 Carlton Avenue East, L8N 4A6 Hamilton, Canada.
A Harlander-MatauschekDepartment of Animal Biosciences, University of Guelph, ON N1G 2W1 Guelph, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In mammals, it has become increasingly clear that the gut microbiota influences not only gastrointestinal physiology but also modulates behavior. In domestic birds, ceca have the greatest gastrointestinal microbial population. Feather-pecking (FP) behavior in laying hens is one of the most important unsolved behavioral issues in modern agriculture. The aim of the present study was to assess the cecal microbial community of divergently selected high (HFP; n = 20) and low (LFP; n = 20) feather-pecking birds at 60 wk of age. The cecal samples were subjected to community profiling of 16S rRNA and in silico metagenomics using a modified bar-coded Illumina sequencing method on a MiSeq Illumina sequencer. Our results revealed that compared to HFP birds, LFP birds are characterized by an increased overall microbial diversity (beta diversity) shown by a difference in the Bray-Curtis index (R2 = 0.171, P < 0.05). Furthermore, operational taxonomic unit comparisons showed an increased presence of Clostridiae and decreased presence of Lactobaccillacae in HFP birds when compared to LFP birds (False Discovery Rate < 0.05, Mann-Whitney comparisons). Our data indicate that there may be differences in the cecal profile between these 2 lines of laying hens. More research, building on this first study using sequencing technology for profiling the chicken cecal microbiome, will be needed in order to reveal if and how there exists a functional link between the performance of FP and the cecal microbial community.

Indexed as

AggressionGastrointestinal MicrobiomeSelection, GeneticAnimalsBacteriaCecumChickensFeathersFecesFemaleRNA, BacterialRNA, Ribosomal, 16SSequence Analysis, RNARNA, BacterialRNA, Ribosomal, 16S

Identifiers

PMID29800328
PMCPMC6093748

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.