ArticleEcology and evolution2019
Studying the microbiota of bats: Accuracy of direct and indirect samplings.
Article in Ecology and evolution, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- The microbiome of bat guano: for what is this knowledge important?Applied microbiology and biotechnology · 2021Pooled it
- Article
- Bat Ecology and Microbiome of the Gut: A Narrative Review of Associated Potentials in Emerging and Zoonotic Diseases.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024Review
- Sex differences and individual variability in the captive Jamaican fruit bat (Artibeus jamaicensis) intestinal microbiome and metabolome.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Do gastrointestinal microbiomes play a role in bats' unique viral hosting capacity?Trends in microbiology · 2022Review
- An overview of bats microbiota and its implication in transmissible diseases.Frontiers in microbiology · 2022Review
- Studying the microbiota of bats: Accuracy of direct and indirect samplings.Ecology and evolution · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Given the recurrent bat-associated disease outbreaks in humans and recent advances in metagenomics sequencing, the microbiota of bats is increasingly being studied. However, obtaining biological samples directly from wild individuals may represent a challenge, and thus, indirect passive sampling (without capturing bats) is sometimes used as an alternative. Currently, it is not known whether the bacterial community assessed using this approach provides an accurate representation of the bat microbiota. This study was designed to compare the use of direct sampling (based on bat capture and handling) and indirect sampling (collection of bat's excretions under bat colonies) in assessing bacterial communities in bats. Using high-throughput 16S rRNA sequencing of urine and feces samples from
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.