Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31549175›Full record

ArticlePoultry science2019

Evaluation of in ovo Bacillus spp. based probiotic administration on horizontal transmission of virulent Escherichia coli in neonatal broiler chickens.

M A Arreguin-Nava, B D Graham, B Adhikari, M Agnello, C M Selby, X Hernandez-Velasco, C N Vuong, B Solis-Cruz, D Hernandez-Patlan, J D Latorre and 3 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Poultry science, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
3.5field-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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Control ofAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Review
  10. Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023
    Article
  11. Physiological effects ofFrontiers in veterinary science · 2023
    Review
  12. Frontiers in nutrition · 2022
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Frontiers in veterinary science · 2021
    Review
  16. Live Bacterial Prophylactics in Modern Poultry.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2020
    Review
  17. Frontiers in veterinary science · 2020
    Article
  18. Review
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 at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

M A Arreguin-NavaEco-Bio LLC, Fayetteville, AR72701, USA.
B D GrahamDepartment of Poultry Science, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701, USA.
B AdhikariDepartment of Poultry Science, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701, USA.
M AgnellouBiome, Inc, San Francisco 94103, CA.
C M SelbyDepartment of Poultry Science, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701, USA.
X Hernandez-VelascoDepartamento de Medicina y Zootecnia de Aves, Facultad de Medicina Veterinaria y Zootecnia, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de Mexico, Mexico City 04510, Mexico.
C N VuongDepartment of Poultry Science, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701, USA.
B Solis-CruzLaboratorio 5: LEDEFAR, Unidad de Investigación Multidisciplinaria, Facultad de Estudios Superiores Cuautitlán, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Cuautitlan Izcalli 54714, Estado de Mexico, Mexico.
D Hernandez-PatlanLaboratorio 5: LEDEFAR, Unidad de Investigación Multidisciplinaria, Facultad de Estudios Superiores Cuautitlán, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Cuautitlan Izcalli 54714, Estado de Mexico, Mexico.
J D LatorreDepartment of Poultry Science, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701, USA.
G TellezDepartment of Poultry Science, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701, USA.
B M HargisDepartment of Poultry Science, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701, USA.
G Tellez-IsaiasDepartment of Poultry Science, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701, USA.
University of Arkansas at Fayetteville · USUniversidad de Cuautitlán Izcalli · MXOpenBiome · USUniversidad Nacional Autónoma de México · MX

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study evaluated the effect of in ovo Bacillus spp. base probiotic (BBP) administration on hatchability, Gram-negative bacteria (GNB) recovery, performance, and microbiota composition in 2 independent trials using a virulent E. coli seeder challenge model. In each trial, one hundred and eighty 18-day-old embryos were allocated into 1 of 2 groups: Control and treated group (inoculated with 107 BBP). On day 19 of embryogenesis, seeder embryos (n = 18) were inoculated with 4.5 × 104E. coli/mL+272 μg/mL tetracycline and segregated into mesh hatching bags. Twelve chicks per group were euthanized at hatch and at day 7 to evaluate the gastrointestinal composition of total GNB or total aerobic pasteurized bacteria. Also, in trial 2, ceca content from five chickens at day 7 were collected to evaluate microbiota composition. Embryos inoculated with BBP showed a significant (P < 0.05) reduction in the total number of GNB at day-of-hatch (DOH) and day 7. Probiotic treatment increased BW at DOH and day 7, and BW gain (days 0 to 7) when compared with Control chickens. Proteobacteria phylum was significantly reduced, while the Firmicutes was significantly increased by the BBP as compared to the Control (P < 0.05). At family level, Enterobacteriaceae was significantly decreased, while the Lachnospiraceae was significantly elevated in the BBP as compared to the Control group (P < 0.05). The genus Oscillospira was significantly enriched in the BBP group, whereas the unidentified genus of family Enterobacteriaceae in the Control group (P < 0.05). The BBP group increased the bacterial species richness, although there was no significant difference between treatments (P > 0.05). Interestingly, beta diversity showed a significant difference in bacterial community structure between Control and BBP groups (P < 0.05). The results of the present study suggest that in ovo administration of a BBP can reduce the severity of virulent E. coli horizontal transmission and infection of broiler chickens during hatch. The reduction in the severity of the transmission and infection by the BPP might be achieved through alterations of microbiota composition and its community structure.

Indexed as

ChickensAnimalsAnimals, NewbornBacillusDisease Transmission, InfectiousEscherichia coliEscherichia coli InfectionsOvumPoultry DiseasesProbioticsVirulencebroilerEscherichia colihatchersin ovoprobiotic

Identifiers

PMID31549175
PMCPMC8913981
OpenAlexW2976563416

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.