Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32359571›Full record

ArticlePoultry science2020

Microbiome and biological blood marker changes in hens at different laying stages in conventional and cage free housings.

Angelica Van Goor, Graham A J Redweik, Zachary R Stromberg, Caroline G Treadwell, Hongwei Xin, Melha Mellata

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Poultry science, 2020. 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
6.5field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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, 45 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Prevalence and Antimicrobial Resistance ofAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2022
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. The Impact of ProbioticAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2022
    Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. 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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Angelica Van GoorDepartment of Food Science and Human Nutrition, Iowa State University, Ames, USA.
Graham A J RedweikDepartment of Food Science and Human Nutrition, Iowa State University, Ames, USA; Interdepartmental Microbiology Program, Iowa State University, Ames, USA.
Zachary R StrombergDepartment of Food Science and Human Nutrition, Iowa State University, Ames, USA.
Caroline G TreadwellDepartment of Food Science and Human Nutrition, Iowa State University, Ames, USA.
Hongwei XinDepartment of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering, Iowa State University, Ames, USA.
Melha MellataDepartment of Food Science and Human Nutrition, Iowa State University, Ames, USA; Interdepartmental Microbiology Program, Iowa State University, Ames, USA. Electronic address: mmellata@iastate.edu.
Iowa State University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With the majority of conventional cage (CC) laying facilities transitioning into cage-free (CF) systems in the near future, it is important to characterize biological markers of health in layers housed in commercial housings for sustainable production. The objectives of this study were to compare i) blood markers, that is heterophil:lymphocyte (H:L) ratios and susceptibility to avian pathogenic Escherichia coli (APEC) and ii) lung and ceca microbiome between hens at different maturity stages in commercial CC and CF farms. Laying hens at 3 maturity stages were randomly sampled (N = 20 per maturity and per farm). Blood was tested for H:L ratios and APEC killing ability using microscopy and in vitro assay, respectively. Microbiomes were assessed using 16S rRNA sequencing and QIIME2 analysis. Data show H:L ratios did not differ between maturities in both farms. Avian pathogenic Escherichia coli killing was only different in CC hens, where χ7122 level was higher (P < 0.05) in peak compared with early lay. In both farms, microbiome diversity was consistently different (P < 0.05) in both ceca and lung of early lay compared with peak and late lay. In the ceca and lung, relative abundances of the 3 predominant phyla (Bacteroidetes, Firmicutes, and Proteobacteria) did not significantly change with maturity in both farms. Potential pathogens Campylobacter and Staphylococcus reached greater (P < 0.05) abundances in CC lungs in early lay and in CF lungs in late lay, respectively. Overall, this study showed no differences in the stress marker H:L but identified some differences in resistance to APEC and microbiome composition across maturity stages in CC and CF. The lung and gut microbiomes were highly similar, with both serving as potential reservoirs for Campylobacter and Staphylococcus. Future studies on controllable environments for CF and CC are needed to develop adequate strategies for each housing and maturity stage to reduce pathogens and optimize disease-resistance.

Indexed as

Housing, AnimalMicrobiotaAnimalsBiomarkersChickensFemaleReproductionBiomarkersAPECcage-freeconventional cagelayermicrobiomestress marker

Identifiers

PMID32359571
PMCPMC7597552
OpenAlexW3011637244

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.