Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30359379›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

Effects of water decontamination methods and bedding material on the gut microbiota.

Willie A Bidot, Aaron C Ericsson, Craig L Franklin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing 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

31 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Role of gut microbiota and its functional products in prenatal alcohol-induced anxiety-like behavior.Progress in neuro-psychopharmacology & biological psychiatry · 2025
    Article
  6. Influence of Water Delivery Method on the Gut Microbiome in Laboratory Mice (Mus musculus).Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science : JAALAS · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. The gut microbiome of laboratory mice: considerations and best practices for translational research.Mammalian genome : official journal of the International Mammalian Genome Society · 2021
    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.

Willie A BidotComparative Medicine Program, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-6701-160X
Aaron C EricssonComparative Medicine Program, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri, United States of America.
Craig L FranklinComparative Medicine Program, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri, United States of America.

Funding

The Mutant Mouse Resource and Research Center at the University of Missouri - ResourceU42OD010918 · OD · UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI-COLUMBIA · PI Bret Daniel Ulery · 2012 to 2026
$25.1M
Impact of gut microbiota and segmented filamentous bacteria on colitis-associated colorectal cancerK01OD019924 · OD · UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI-COLUMBIA · PI ERICSSON, AARON · 2016 to 2020
$573k
NIH HHS K01 OD019924NIH HHS U42 OD010918
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Rodent models are invaluable to understanding health and disease in many areas of biomedical research. Unfortunately, many models suffer from lack of phenotype reproducibility. Our laboratory has shown that differences in gut microbiota (GM) can modulate phenotypes of models of colon cancer and inflammatory bowel disease. We and others have also shown that a number of factors associated with rodent research, including vendor, cage system, and bedding can alter GM. The objective of this study was to expand these studies to examine the effect of additional bedding materials and methods of water decontamination on GM diversity and composition. To this end, Crl:CD1 (ICR) mice were housed on corn cob or compressed paper chip bedding and provided water that was decontaminated by four different methods: autoclaving with reverse osmosis, autoclaving with hydrochloric acid, autoclaving with sulfuric acid, and autoclaving alone. Feces was collected at day 0, and at day 28 (endpoint), fecal and cecal samples were collected. DNA was extracted from samples, amplified by PCR using conserved bacterial primer sets and subjected to next generation sequencing. Sequence data were analyzed using Qiime and groups were compared using principal coordinate analysis (PCoA) and permutational multivariate analysis of variance (PERMANOVA). Two factor PERMANOVA of cecal GM data revealed significant changes when comparing bedding and water decontamination methods, while no significant effects were noted in the fecal GM data. Subsequent PERMANOVA and PCoA of cecal data revealed that several combinations of bedding and water decontamination methods resulted in differing GM, highlighting the complexity by which environmental factors interact to modulate GM.

Indexed as

Gastrointestinal MicrobiomeWater MicrobiologyAnimalsBacteriaCecumFecesFemaleHousing, AnimalMice, Inbred ICRWater Purification

Identifiers

PMID30359379
PMCPMC6201873

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.