Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31026263›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

Evaluating nursery pig responses to in-feed sub-therapeutic antibiotics.

Emma T Helm, Shelby Curry, Julian M Trachsel, Martine Schroyen, Nicholas K Gabler

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Evaluation of F18 enterotoxigenicFrontiers in veterinary science · 2025
    Article
  4. Assessing antimicrobial resistance profiles ofJournal of medical microbiology · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Growth-Promoting Effects of Zhenqi Granules on Finishing Pigs.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2022
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Frontiers in veterinary science · 2020
    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

5 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Emma T HelmDepartment of Animal Science, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, United States of America.
Shelby CurryOak Ridge Institute for Science and Education, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, United States of America.
Julian M TrachselFood Safety and Enteric Pathogens Research Unit, National Animal Disease Center, Agriculture Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Ames, Iowa, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-2357-7737
Martine SchroyenPrecision Livestock and Nutrition Unit, TERRA Teaching and Research centre, Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech, University of Liège, Gembloux, Belgium.
Nicholas K GablerDepartment of Animal Science, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-7283-4782
Iowa State University · USOak Ridge Associated Universities · USUnited States Department of Agriculture · USUniversity of Liège · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Antibiotics have been used for over 60 years by the swine industry to improve growth performance and feed efficiency. With rising concerns over antimicrobial resistance and government restrictions such as the Veterinary Feed Directive on usage of in-feed antibiotics, alternatives to feeding antibiotic growth promoters (AGPs) to nursery pigs are needed. However, the mechanism of action by which AGPs work is poorly understood. Thus, the objective of this study was to investigate the mechanisms of action by which AGPs increase nursery pig performance. Over two replicates, 24 weaned pigs (6.75 ± 0.75 kg body weight) were randomly allotted to either control (CON, n = 12) or sub-therapeutic antibiotic (sCTC, n = 12) treatments and housed individually. A 2-phase corn-soybean-based nursery diet was fed, with the sCTC diets containing 40 ppm feed-grade chlortetracycline. Individual pig average daily gain (ADG), average daily feed intake (ADFI), and gain to feed ratio (G:F) were calculated weekly for 5 weeks. Thereafter, all pigs were euthanized and necropsied for tissue collection. The overall performance data indicated that sCTC pigs had increased ADG (0.43 vs. 0.32 kg/d, P = 0.001) and ADFI (0.51 vs. 0.37 kg/d, P = 0.002) compared with CON pigs; however, G:F was not different as a result of dietary treatment (0.85 vs. 0.88, P = 0.617). Intestinal barrier permeability, ileal active nutrient transport, and cecal short chain fatty acid concentrations did not differ (P > 0.10) due to dietary treatment, however changes in several ileum mRNA transcripts suggest that inflammation may be reduced in sCTC pigs. Further, the changes observed in the proteomes of the ileum, colon, skeletal muscle, and liver suggest that the sub-therapeutic mode of action of AGPs may include post-absorptive changes and warrants further investigation.

Indexed as

AnimalsAnti-Bacterial AgentsBacteriaBiomarkersDietFatty AcidsFemaleFermentationIntestinesPermeabilityProteomeSwineAnti-Bacterial AgentsBiomarkersFatty AcidsProteome

Identifiers

PMID31026263
PMCPMC6485771
OpenAlexW2942123375

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
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.