Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31379808›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in immunology2019

Amish (Rural) vs. non-Amish (Urban) Infant Fecal Microbiotas Are Highly Diverse and Their Transplantation Lead to Differences in Mucosal Immune Maturation in a Humanized Germfree Piglet Model.

Santosh Dhakal, Lingling Wang, Linto Antony, Jennifer Rank, Pauline Bernardo, Shristi Ghimire, Kathy Bondra, Christina Siems, Yashavanth Shaan Lakshmanappa, Sankar Renu and 7 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in immunology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 41 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Human microbiota-associated animal models: a review.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2025
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. The human microbiome in the 21Nature communications · 2020
    Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

17 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Santosh DhakalFood Animal Health Research Program, Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, Wooster, OH, United States.
Lingling WangDepartment of Animal Sciences, Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, United States.
Linto AntonyDepartment of Veterinary and Biomedical Sciences, South Dakota State University, Brookings, SD, United States.
Jennifer RankFood Animal Health Research Program, Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, Wooster, OH, United States.
Pauline BernardoFood Animal Health Research Program, Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, Wooster, OH, United States.
Shristi GhimireFood Animal Health Research Program, Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, Wooster, OH, United States.
Kathy BondraFood Animal Health Research Program, Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, Wooster, OH, United States.
Christina SiemsFood Animal Health Research Program, Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, Wooster, OH, United States.
Yashavanth Shaan LakshmanappaFood Animal Health Research Program, Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, Wooster, OH, United States.
Sankar RenuFood Animal Health Research Program, Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, Wooster, OH, United States.
Bradley HogsheadFood Animal Health Research Program, Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, Wooster, OH, United States.
Steven KrakowkaThe Department of Veterinary Biosciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, United States.
Mike KauffmanFood Animal Health Research Program, Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, Wooster, OH, United States.
Joy ScariaDepartment of Veterinary and Biomedical Sciences, South Dakota State University, Brookings, SD, United States.
Jeffrey T LeJeuneFood Animal Health Research Program, Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, Wooster, OH, United States.
Zhongtang YuDepartment of Animal Sciences, Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, United States.
Gourapura J RenukaradhyaFood Animal Health Research Program, Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, Wooster, OH, United States.
The Ohio State University · USSouth Dakota State University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The gut microbiome plays an important role in the immune system development, maintenance of normal health status, and in disease progression. In this study, we comparatively examined the fecal microbiomes of Amish (rural) and non-Amish (urban) infants and investigated how they could affect the mucosal immune maturation in germ-free piglets that were inoculated with the two types of infant fecal microbiota (IFM). Differences in microbiome diversity and structure were noted between the two types of fecal microbiotas. The fecal microbiota of the non-Amish (urban) infants had a greater relative abundance of Actinobacteria and Bacteroidetes phyla, while that of the Amish (rural) counterparts was dominated by Firmicutes. Amish infants had greater species richness compared with the non-Amish infants' microbiota. The fecal microbiotas of the Amish and the non-Amish infants were successfully transplanted into germ-free piglets, and the diversity and structure of the microbiota in the transplanted piglets remained similar at phylum level but not at the genus level. Principal coordinates analysis (PCoA) based on Weighted-UniFrac distance revealed distinct microbiota structure in the intestines of the transplanted piglets. Shotgun metagenomic analysis also revealed clear differences in functional diversity of fecal microbiome between Amish and non-Amish donors as well as microbiota transplanted piglets. Specific functional features were enriched in either of the microbiota transplanted piglet groups directly corresponding to the predominance of certain bacterial populations in their gut environment. Some of the colonized bacterial genera were correlated with the frequency of important lymphoid and myeloid immune cells in the ileal submucosa and mesenteric lymph nodes (MLN), both important for mucosal immune maturation. Overall, this study demonstrated that transplantation of diverse IFM into germ-free piglets largely recapitulates the differences in gut microbiota structure between rural (Amish) and urban (non-Amish) infants. Thus, fecal microbiota transplantation to germ-free piglets could be a useful large animal model system for elucidating the impact of gut microbiota on the mucosal immune system development. Future studies can focus on determining the additional advantages of the pig model over the rodent model.

Indexed as

AmishAnimalsBacillotaFecal Microbiota TransplantationFecesGastrointestinal MicrobiomeHumansInfantMetagenomeMicrobiotaMucous MembraneSwineAmish and non-Amish infantsgermfree pigsgut microbiomemucosal immune maturationrural and urban microbiota

Identifiers

PMID31379808
PMCPMC6648804
OpenAlexW2961363344

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.