Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31664902›Full record

ArticleBMC genomics2019

Analysis of the fecal microbiota of fast- and slow-growing rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss).

Pratima Chapagain, Brock Arivett, Beth M Cleveland, Donald M Walker, Mohamed Salem

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC genomics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.9field-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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 80 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Pratima ChapagainDepartment of Biology and Molecular Biosciences Program, Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro, TN, 37132, USA.
Brock ArivettDepartment of Biology and Molecular Biosciences Program, Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro, TN, 37132, USA.
Beth M ClevelandNational Center for Cool and Cold-Water Aquaculture, ARS-USDA, Kearneysville, WV, 25430, USA.
Donald M WalkerDepartment of Biology and Molecular Biosciences Program, Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro, TN, 37132, USA.
Mohamed SalemDepartment of Biology and Molecular Biosciences Program, Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro, TN, 37132, USA. mosalem@umd.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2142-6716
Middle Tennessee State University · USNational Center for Cool and Cold Water Aquaculture · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDiverse microbial communities colonizing the intestine of fish contribute to their growth, digestion, nutrition, and immune function. We hypothesized that fecal samples representing the gut microbiota of rainbow trout could be associated with differential growth rates observed in fish breeding programs. If true, harnessing the functionality of this microbiota can improve the profitability of aquaculture. The first objective of this study was to test this hypothesis if gut microbiota is associated with fish growth rate (body weight). Four full-sibling families were stocked in the same tank and fed an identical diet. Two fast-growing and two slow-growing fish were selected from each family for 16S rRNA microbiota profiling. Microbiota diversity varies with different DNA extraction methods. The second objective of this study was to compare the effects of five commonly used DNA extraction methods on the microbiota profiling and to determine the most appropriate extraction method for this study. These methods were Promega-Maxwell, Phenol-chloroform, MO-BIO, Qiagen-Blood/Tissue, and Qiagen-Stool. Methods were compared according to DNA integrity, cost, feasibility and inter-sample variation based on non-metric multidimensional scaling ordination (nMDS) clusters.

resultsDifferences in DNA extraction methods resulted in significant variation in the identification of bacteria that compose the gut microbiota. Promega-Maxwell had the lowest inter-sample variation and was therefore used for the subsequent analyses. Beta diversity of the bacterial communities showed significant variation between breeding families but not between the fast- and slow-growing fish. However, an indicator analysis determined that cellulose, amylose degrading and amino acid fermenting bacteria (Clostridium, Leptotrichia, and Peptostreptococcus) are indicator taxa of the fast-growing fish. In contrary, pathogenic bacteria (Corynebacterium and Paeniclostridium) were identified as indicator taxa for the slow-growing fish.

conclusionDNA extraction methodology should be carefully considered for accurate profiling of the gut microbiota. Although the microbiota was not significantly different between the fast- and slow-growing fish groups, some bacterial taxa with functional implications were indicative of fish growth rate. Further studies are warranted to explore how bacteria are transmitted and potential usage of the indicator bacteria of fast-growing fish for development of probiotics that may improve fish health and growth.

Indexed as

Gastrointestinal MicrobiomeAnimalsDNAFecesOncorhynchus mykissDNAAquacultureBreedingDNA-isolationGutMicrobiotaTrout

Identifiers

PMID31664902
PMCPMC6819385
OpenAlexW2982291551

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.