ArticlePeerJ2020
Comparative analysis of cutaneous bacterial communities of farmed
Article in PeerJ, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Analysis of the microbial diversity in takin (Frontiers in microbiology · 2023Article
- Changes in the gut microbiota diversity of brown frogs (Rana dybowskii) after an antibiotic bath.BMC veterinary research · 2021Article
- Comparative Analysis of Fecal Bacterial Microbiota of Six Bird Species.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPathogenic bacteria limit the success of MATERIALS &
methodsThe V3-V4 hypervariable region of the 16S rRNA gene was analyzed in samples by high-throughput sequencing. Alpha diversity and beta diversity were evaluated to compare the cutaneous bacterial community diversity.
resultsA total of 1,159,668 valid sequences and 3,132 operational taxonomic units (OTUs) were obtained from these three experimental groups. The number of OTUs obtained in the control group, gentamicin group and recovery group were 2,194, 2,288, and 2,047, respectively, and the number of shared OTUs was 1,313. The alpha diversity of the cutaneous bacterial community was not significantly affected by gentamicin, while beta diversity was significantly affected. DISCUSSION &
conclusionsThe effect of a gentamicin bath on relative species abundance was greater than the effect on the species composition. The changes in Proteobacteria,
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.