ArticleCurrent microbiology2019
Effect Oral Administration Ampicillin on the Ecological Balance of rat Enterococcal gut Microbiota.
Article in Current microbiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Multi-site investigation of gut microbiota in CDKL5 deficiency disorder mouse models: Targeting dysbiosis to improve neurological outcomes.Cell reports · 2025Article
- Impacts of changes in intestinal flora on the metabolism ofBioengineered · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The main objective of this work is to investigate the impact of oral administration of ampicillin on the ecological balance of enterococci in the intestinal microbiota of rats during a treatment and a post-treatment. The results have showed that the treated animals excreted significantly higher percentages of resistant enterococci compared to the control group (P ≤ 0.05) during the treatment and after the treatment. The most predominant species selected after the treatment began were Enterococcus faecium. The MICs for ampicillin for all isolates of E. faecium were 32 to 64 µg/mL, with the exception of two strains (TR1LBMB, TR5LBMB), were found to be highly resistant (MICs ≥ 128 µg/mL). Quantification of ampicillin in faeces by the RT-HPLC showed that the significant increase in the number of ampicillin-resistant enterococci was associated with the gradual accumulation of high levels of unabsorbed ampicillin in the faeces. Our results suggest that ampicillin treatment can now be understood as a side effect contributing to the increase in the number of resistant Enterococcus strains, particularly E. faecium strains, recognized as important nosocomial pathogens.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30689004What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.