Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31329605›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

Effect of live yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae supplementation on the performance and cecum microbial profile of suckling piglets.

Tadele G Kiros, Diana Luise, Hooman Derakhshani, Renee Petri, Paolo Trevisi, Romain D'Inca, Eric Auclair, Andrew G van Kessel

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 44 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

44 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 65 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Effects of Compound Probiotics on Cecal Microbiota and Metabolome of Swine.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Effect of YeastMicroorganisms · 2023
    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

8 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Tadele G KirosUniversity of Saskatchewan, Department of Animal and Poultry Science, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada.
Diana LuiseDepartment of Agricultural and Food Sciences, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Hooman DerakhshaniDepartment of Animal Science, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.
Renee PetriUniversity of Saskatchewan, Department of Animal and Poultry Science, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada.
Paolo TrevisiDepartment of Agricultural and Food Sciences, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-7019-6828
Romain D'IncaPhileo-Lesaffre Animal Care, Marcq-en-Baroeul, France.
Eric AuclairPhileo-Lesaffre Animal Care, Marcq-en-Baroeul, France.
Andrew G van KesselUniversity of Saskatchewan, Department of Animal and Poultry Science, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada.
University of Saskatchewan · CALesaffre (France) · FRUniversity of Bologna · ITUniversity of Manitoba · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

One mechanism through which S. cerevisiae may improve the performance of pigs is by altering the composition of the gut microbiota, a response that may be enhanced by early postnatal supplementation of probiotics. To test this hypothesis, newborn piglets (16 piglets/group) were treated with either S. cerevisiae yeast (5 x 109 cfu/pig: Low) or (2.5 x 1010 cfu/piglet: High) or equivalent volume of sterile water (Control) by oral gavage every other day starting from day 1 of age until weaning (28±1 days of age). Piglet body weight was recorded on days 1, 3, 7, 10, 17, 24 and 28 and average daily gain (ADG) calculated for the total period. At weaning, piglets were euthanized to collect cecum content for microbial profiling by sequencing of the 16S rRNA gene. ADG was higher in both Low and High yeast groups than in Control group (P<0.05). Alpha diversity analyses indicated a more diverse microbiota in the Control group compared with Low yeast group; the High yeast being intermediate (P < 0.01). Similarly, Beta diversity analyses indicated differences among treatments (P = 0.03), mainly between Low yeast and Control groups (P = 0.02). The sparse Partial Least Squares Discriminant Analysis (sPLS-DA) indicated that Control group was discriminated by a higher abundance of Veillonella, Dorea, Oscillospira and Clostridium; Low yeast treated pigs by higher Blautia, Collinsella and Eubacterium; and High yeast treated pigs by higher Eubacterium, Anaerostipes, Parabacteroides, Mogibacterium and Phascolarctobacterium. Partial Least Squares (PLS) analysis showed that piglet ADG was positively correlated with genus Prevotella in High yeast group. Yeast supplementation significantly affected microbial diversity in cecal contents of suckling piglets associated with an improvement of short chain fatty acid producing bacteria in a dose-dependent manner. In conclusion, yeast treatment improved piglet performance and shaped the piglet cecum microbiota composition in a dose dependent way.

Indexed as

AnimalsAnimals, SucklingBiodiversityCecumDiscriminant AnalysisGastrointestinal MicrobiomeLeast-Squares AnalysisPhylogenySaccharomyces cerevisiaeSpecies SpecificitySwineWeight Gain

Identifiers

PMID31329605
PMCPMC6645501
OpenAlexW2963106019

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.