Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31154984›Full record

ArticlePhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences2019

Is there convergence of gut microbes in blood-feeding vertebrates?

Se Jin Song, Jon G Sanders, Daniel T Baldassarre, Jaime A Chaves, Nicholas S Johnson, Antoinette J Piaggio, Matthew J Stuckey, Eva Nováková, Jessica L Metcalf, Bruno B Chomel and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing 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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Host specificity of the gut microbiome.Nature reviews. Microbiology · 2021
    Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Convergent evolution in the genomics era: new insights and directions.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2019
    Article
  15. 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

13 authors.

Se Jin Song1 Department of Pediatrics, University of California San Diego , La Jolla, CA 92093 , USA.
Jon G Sanders1 Department of Pediatrics, University of California San Diego , La Jolla, CA 92093 , USA.
Daniel T Baldassarre3 Department of Biology, University of Miami , Coral Gables, FL 33146 , USA.
Jaime A Chaves4 Colegio de Ciencias Biológicas y Ambientales, Universidad San Francisco de Quito, Quito, Ecuador.
Nicholas S Johnson6 United States Geological Survey, Great Lakes Science Center , Hammond Bay Biological Station, Millersburg, MI 49759 , USA.
Antoinette J Piaggio7 National Wildlife Research Center, U.S. Department of Agriculture , Fort Collins, CO 80521 , USA.
Matthew J Stuckey8 Department of Population Health and Reproduction, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California Davis , Davis CA 95616 , USA.
Eva Nováková9 Faculty of Science, University of South Bohemia , České Budějovice , Czech Republic.
Jessica L Metcalf11 Department of Animal Sciences, Colorado State University , Fort Collins CO 80523 , USA.
Bruno B Chomel8 Department of Population Health and Reproduction, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California Davis , Davis CA 95616 , USA.
Alvaro Aguilar-Setién12 Unidad de Investigación Médica en Inmunología, Coordinación de Investigación, Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social, Centro Médico Nacional Siglo XXI, Hospital de Pediatría 3er piso , Mexico City , Mexico.
Rob Knight1 Department of Pediatrics, University of California San Diego , La Jolla, CA 92093 , USA.
Valerie J McKenzie15 Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Colorado Boulder , Boulder, CO 80309 , USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Animal microbiomes play an important role in dietary adaptation, yet the extent to which microbiome changes exhibit parallel evolution is unclear. Of particular interest is an adaptation to extreme diets, such as blood, which poses special challenges in its content of proteins and lack of essential nutrients. In this study, we assessed taxonomic signatures (by 16S rRNA amplicon profiling) and potential functional signatures (inferred by Phylogenetic Investigation of Communities by Reconstruction of Unobserved States (PICRUSt)) of haematophagy in birds and bats. Our goal was to test three alternative hypotheses: no convergence of microbiomes, convergence in taxonomy and convergence in function. We find a statistically significant effect of haematophagy in terms of microbial taxonomic convergence across the blood-feeding bats and birds, although this effect is small compared to the differences found between haematophagous and non-haematophagous species within the two host clades. We also find some evidence of convergence at the predicted functional level, although it is possible that the lack of metagenomic data and the poor representation of microbial lineages adapted to haematophagy in genome databases limit the power of this approach. The results provide a paradigm for exploring convergent microbiome evolution replicated with independent contrasts in different host lineages. This article is part of the theme issue 'Convergent evolution in the genomics era: new insights and directions'.

Indexed as

Gastrointestinal MicrobiomeAnimalsBacteriaBiological EvolutionBirdsChiropteraDNA, BacterialFeeding BehaviorPhylogenyRNA, Ribosomal, 16SDNA, BacterialRNA, Ribosomal, 16Sconvergencehaematophagymicrobiome

Identifiers

PMID31154984
PMCPMC6560276

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.