Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29935540›Full record

ArticleMicrobiome2018

Microbial diversity and community composition of caecal microbiota in commercial and indigenous Indian chickens determined using 16s rDNA amplicon sequencing.

Ramesh J Pandit, Ankit T Hinsu, Namrata V Patel, Prakash G Koringa, Subhash J Jakhesara, Jalpa R Thakkar, Tejas M Shah, Georgina Limon, Androniki Psifidi, Javier Guitian and 7 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Microbiome, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 120 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
120citing 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

120 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

60 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

17 authors.

Ramesh J PanditDepartment of Animal Biotechnology, College of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry, Anand Agricultural University, Anand, Gujarat, 388001, India.
Ankit T HinsuDepartment of Animal Genetics and Breeding, College of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry, Anand Agricultural University, Anand, Gujarat, 388001, India.
Namrata V PatelDepartment of Animal Biotechnology, College of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry, Anand Agricultural University, Anand, Gujarat, 388001, India.
Prakash G KoringaDepartment of Animal Biotechnology, College of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry, Anand Agricultural University, Anand, Gujarat, 388001, India.
Subhash J JakhesaraDepartment of Animal Biotechnology, College of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry, Anand Agricultural University, Anand, Gujarat, 388001, India.
Jalpa R ThakkarDepartment of Animal Biotechnology, College of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry, Anand Agricultural University, Anand, Gujarat, 388001, India.
Tejas M ShahDepartment of Animal Biotechnology, College of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry, Anand Agricultural University, Anand, Gujarat, 388001, India.
Georgina LimonDepartment of Pathology and Population Sciences, Royal Veterinary College, North Mymms, Hertfordshire, UK.
Androniki PsifidiThe Roslin Institute, University of Edinburgh, Easter Bush, Midlothian, UK.
Javier GuitianDepartment of Pathology and Population Sciences, Royal Veterinary College, North Mymms, Hertfordshire, UK.
David A HumeThe Roslin Institute, University of Edinburgh, Easter Bush, Midlothian, UK.
Fiona M TomleyDepartment of Pathology and Population Sciences, Royal Veterinary College, North Mymms, Hertfordshire, UK.
Dharamshibhai N RankDepartment of Animal Genetics and Breeding, College of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry, Anand Agricultural University, Anand, Gujarat, 388001, India.
M RamanDepartment of Veterinary Parasitology, Madras Veterinary College, Tamil Nadu Veterinary and Animal Sciences University, Chennai, 600007, India.
K G TirumurugaanTranslational Research Platform for Veterinary Biologicals, Tamil Nadu Veterinary and Animal Sciences University, Chennai, 600051, India.
Damer P BlakeDepartment of Pathology and Population Sciences, Royal Veterinary College, North Mymms, Hertfordshire, UK. dblake@rvc.ac.uk.
Chaitanya G JoshiDepartment of Animal Biotechnology, College of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry, Anand Agricultural University, Anand, Gujarat, 388001, India.

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/L00478X/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe caecal microbiota plays a key role in chicken health and performance, influencing digestion and absorption of nutrients, and contributing to defence against colonisation by invading pathogens. Measures of productivity and resistance to pathogen colonisation are directly influenced by chicken genotype, but host driven variation in microbiome structure is also likely to exert a considerable indirect influence.

methodsHere, we define the caecal microbiome of indigenous Indian Aseel and Kadaknath chicken breeds and compare them with the global commercial broiler Cobb400 and Ross 308 lines using 16S rDNA V3-V4 hypervariable amplicon sequencing.

resultsEach caecal microbiome was dominated by the genera Bacteroides, unclassified bacteria, unclassified Clostridiales, Clostridium, Alistipes, Faecalibacterium, Eubacterium and Blautia. Geographic location (a measure recognised to include variation in environmental and climatic factors, but also likely to feature varied management practices) and chicken line/breed were both found to exert significant impacts (p < 0.05) on caecal microbiome composition. Linear discriminant analysis effect size (LEfSe) revealed 42 breed-specific biomarkers in the chicken lines reared under controlled conditions at two different locations.

conclusionChicken breed-specific variation in bacterial occurrence, correlation between genera and clustering of operational taxonomic units indicate scope for quantitative genetic analysis and the possibility of selective breeding of chickens for defined enteric microbiota.

Indexed as

AnimalsBacteriaBase SequenceBiodiversityCecumChickensGastrointestinal MicrobiomeGeographyIndiaRNA, Ribosomal, 16SSequence Analysis, DNARNA, Ribosomal, 16S16S rRNA geneAmplicon sequencingChickensMicrobiomePathogens

Identifiers

PMID29935540
PMCPMC6015460

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.