Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30065222›Full record

ReviewGenes2018

Olfactory Communication via Microbiota: What Is Known in Birds?

Öncü Maraci, Kathrin Engel, Barbara A Caspers

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Genes, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing 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

23 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Habitat-dependentParasitology · 2022
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  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

3 authors.

Öncü MaraciResearch Group Chemical Signalling, Department of Animal Behaviour, Bielefeld University, Konsequenz 45, 33615 Bielefeld, Germany. oncu.maraci@uni-bielefeld.de.ORCID 0000-0001-8837-7766
Kathrin EngelResearch Group Chemical Signalling, Department of Animal Behaviour, Bielefeld University, Konsequenz 45, 33615 Bielefeld, Germany. k.engel@uni-bielefeld.de.
Barbara A CaspersResearch Group Chemical Signalling, Department of Animal Behaviour, Bielefeld University, Konsequenz 45, 33615 Bielefeld, Germany. barbara.caspers@uni-bielefeld.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Animal bodies harbour a complex and diverse community of microorganisms and accumulating evidence has revealed that microbes can influence the hosts' behaviour, for example by altering body odours. Microbial communities produce odorant molecules as metabolic by-products and thereby modulate the biochemical signalling profiles of their animal hosts. As the diversity and the relative abundance of microbial species are influenced by several factors including host-specific factors, environmental factors and social interactions, there are substantial individual variations in the composition of microbial communities. In turn, the variations in microbial communities would consequently affect social and communicative behaviour by influencing recognition cues of the hosts. Therefore, microbiota studies have a great potential to expand our understanding of recognition of conspecifics, group members and kin. In this review, we aim to summarize existing knowledge of the factors influencing the microbial communities and the effect of microbiota on olfactory cue production and social and communicative behaviour. We concentrate on avian taxa, yet we also include recent research performed on non-avian species when necessary.

Indexed as

birdschemical signallingfeathersgutmicrobiotaodourolfactionskinsocial communicationuropygial gland

Identifiers

PMID30065222
PMCPMC6116157

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.