Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30429801›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in physiology2018

Mouse Microbiota Models: Comparing Germ-Free Mice and Antibiotics Treatment as Tools for Modifying Gut Bacteria.

Elizabeth A Kennedy, Katherine Y King, Megan T Baldridge

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in physiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 367 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
367citing 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

367 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. A Novel Cationic Antimicrobial Peptide ScymidgutinProbiotics and antimicrobial proteins · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. The role of the gut microbiome in nicotine withdrawal and dependence.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Microbe on the move:Journal of bacteriology · 2026
    Review
  20. Article

307 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

3 authors.

Elizabeth A KennedyDivision of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Center for Genome Sciences and Systems Biology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, United States.
Katherine Y KingSection of Infectious Diseases, Department of Pediatrics, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, United States.
Megan T BaldridgeDivision of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Center for Genome Sciences and Systems Biology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, United States.

Funding

Washington University DDRCC Supplemental Equipment RequestP30DK052574 · NIDDK · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI Nicholas O. Davidson · 2000 to 2026
$30.8M
Tissue Analysis & Molecular Imaging CoreP30DK056338 · NIDDK · BAYLOR COLLEGE OF MEDICINE · PI Geoffrey A Preidis · 2001 to 2026
$28.3M
Microbiota-dependent regulation of primitive hematopoiesesR01AI141716 · NIAID · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI BALDRIDGE, MEGAN T · 2019 to 2023
$2.3M
The Contribution ofInfection to Preleukemic Clonal HematopoiesisR01HL136333 · NHLBI · BAYLOR COLLEGE OF MEDICINE · PI KING, KATHERINE YUDEH · 2017 to 2020
$1.9M
Inflammatory Regulation of Hematopoietic Stem and Progenitor Cells to Enhance Innate ImmunityR01HL134880 · NHLBI · BAYLOR COLLEGE OF MEDICINE · PI KING, KATHERINE YUDEH · 2017 to 2020
$1.6M
Regulation of Interferon-Lambda Signaling by Commensal Bacteria and NorovirusK22AI127846 · NIAID · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI BALDRIDGE, MEGAN T · 2017 to 2018
$270k
NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL134880NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL136333NIAID NIH HHS K22 AI127846NIAID NIH HHS R01 AI141716NIDDK NIH HHS P30 DK052574NIDDK NIH HHS P30 DK056338
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As the intestinal microbiota has become better appreciated as necessary for maintenance of physiologic homeostasis and also as a modulator of disease processes, there has been a corresponding increase in manipulation of the microbiota in mouse models. While germ-free mouse models are generally considered to be the gold standard for studies of the microbiota, many investigators turn to antibiotics treatment models as a rapid, inexpensive, and accessible alternative. Here we describe and compare these two approaches, detailing advantages and disadvantages to both. Further, we detail what is known about the effects of antibiotics treatment on cell populations, cytokines, and organs, and clarify how this compares to germ-free models. Finally, we briefly describe recent findings regarding microbiota regulation of infectious diseases and other immunologic challenges by the microbiota, and highlight important future directions and considerations for the use of antibiotics treatment in manipulation of the microbiota.

Indexed as

antibioticsgnotobioticimmunitymicrobiomemicrobiota

Identifiers

PMID30429801
PMCPMC6220354

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.