Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30481191›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

Impact of Bacillus spp. spores and gentamicin on the gastrointestinal microbiota of suckling and newly weaned piglets.

Ann-Sofie Riis Poulsen, Nadieh de Jonge, Jeppe Lund Nielsen, Ole Højberg, Charlotte Lauridsen, Simon M Cutting, Nuria Canibe

Open access · goldAbstract 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 30 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
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 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 43 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Nutrients · 2019
    Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Frontiers in veterinary science · 2024
    Review
  10. Effects ofAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023
    Article
  11. Article
  12. DietaryFrontiers in microbiology · 2023
    Article
  13. Liquid fermented cereals with addedFrontiers in veterinary science · 2023
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review on Preventive Measures to Reduce Post-Weaning Diarrhoea in Piglets.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2022
    Review
  17. Frontiers in microbiology · 2022
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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 at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Ann-Sofie Riis PoulsenImmunology and Microbiology, Department of Animal Science, Aarhus University, Tjele, Denmark.
Nadieh de JongeCenter for Microbial Communities, Department of Chemistry and Bioscience, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark.
Jeppe Lund NielsenCenter for Microbial Communities, Department of Chemistry and Bioscience, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark.
Ole HøjbergImmunology and Microbiology, Department of Animal Science, Aarhus University, Tjele, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-4947-4536
Charlotte LauridsenImmunology and Microbiology, Department of Animal Science, Aarhus University, Tjele, Denmark.
Simon M CuttingSchool of Biological Sciences, Royal Holloway, University of London, Egham, Surrey, United Kingdom.
Nuria CanibeImmunology and Microbiology, Department of Animal Science, Aarhus University, Tjele, Denmark.
Aarhus University · DKAalborg University · DKRoyal Holloway University of London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Administrating antibiotics to young piglets may have short- and long-term consequences on the gut microbiota. We hypothesised that these consequences may be alleviated by concurrent probiotic administration. The study objective was to investigate the effect of administrating gentamicin and a mixture of Bacillus (B.) licheniformis, B. subtilis and B. amyloliquefaeceans spores on the gut microbiota of piglets pre- and post-weaning. Twenty-four sows and their litters were randomly allocated to four treatment groups receiving; a) Bacillus spore mixture (six B. subtilis, two B. amyloliquefaeceans, and one B. licheniformis) fed to sows and piglets (PRO); b) gentamicin (5 mg per day) administered to piglets on day 4, 5, and 6 of age (AB); c) Bacillus spore mixture fed to sows and piglets, and gentamicin to piglets (PRO+AB); or d) no administration of probiotics or antibiotics (CTRL). Faecal and digesta samples were collected repeatedly during the study. Selected samples were subjected to 16S rRNA gene sequencing, culture counts, and organic acid, biogenic amine and tissue gene expression analysis. Treatment had a significant effect on the faecal microbial community composition on day 28 and 42, and colonic community on day 28. Faecal species richness (observed and estimated) and Shannon index, and colonic species richness, were higher in AB compared to PRO piglets on day 28, and were not significantly different from day 42. PRO piglets had the highest faecal concentration of iso-butyric acid on day 7 and a higher butyric acid concentration compared to CTRL piglets. We conclude that gentamicin and Bacillus spores influence the gut microbial diversity of piglets, although administration of gentamicin did not result in dysbiosis as hypothesised.

Indexed as

AnimalsBacillusFecesGastrointestinal MicrobiomeGentamicinsProbioticsRandom AllocationSpores, BacterialSwineGentamicins

Identifiers

PMID30481191
PMCPMC6258502
OpenAlexW2902597669

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.