Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32369478›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

Comparative effectiveness of probiotic-based formulations on cecal microbiota modulation in broilers.

Denise R Rodrigues, Whitney Briggs, Audrey Duff, Kaylin Chasser, Raj Murugesan, Chasity Pender, Shelby Ramirez, Luis Valenzuela, Lisa R Bielke

Abstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial, Veterinary
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Single or Combined Supplementation ofVeterinary sciences · 2025
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Effects ofMicroorganisms · 2023
    Article
  7. Article
  8. DietaryAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

9 authors.

Denise R RodriguesDepartment of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-8591-5514
Whitney BriggsDepartment of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, United States of America.
Audrey DuffDepartment of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, United States of America.
Kaylin ChasserDepartment of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, United States of America.
Raj MurugesanBIOMIN America Inc., Overland Park, Kansas, United States of America.
Chasity PenderBIOMIN America Inc., Overland Park, Kansas, United States of America.
Shelby RamirezBIOMIN America Inc., Overland Park, Kansas, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-9842-368X
Luis ValenzuelaBIOMIN Holding GmbH, Getzersdorf, Austria.
Lisa R BielkeDepartment of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The potential of probiotics to manipulate the intestinal microbial ecosystem toward commensal bacteria growth offers great opportunity for enhancing health and performance in poultry. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of five probiotic-based formulations in modulating cecal microbiota in broilers at 21 and 42 days of age. Probiotics investigated included a synbiotic (SYNBIO), a yeast (YEAST), and three single-strain formulations of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens (SINGLE1), B. subtilis (SINGLE2) and B. licheniformis (SINGLE3). Alpha-diversity analyses showed that cecal microbiota of SINGLE1, SINGLE2, and YEAST had low diversity compared to the control diet with no feed additive (CON) at 21d. At the same age, weighted Unifrac distance measure showed significant differences between samples from SYNBIO and CON (P = 0.02). However, by analyzing principal coordinates analysis (PCoA) with unweighted Unifrac, there was no evidence of clustering between CON and probiotic treatments. By 42d, there were no differences in alpha or beta-diversity in the microbiota of probiotic treatments compared to CON. Similarly, taxonomic microbial profiling did not show major changes in cecal microbial taxa. In conclusion, not all probiotic-based formulations tested had a core benefit on the modulation of microbiota. However, based on the quantitative beta diversity results, SYNBIO greatly influenced the cecal microbial community structure attributable to transient variations in relative taxon abundance.

Indexed as

Food, FormulatedGastrointestinal MicrobiomeProbioticsAnimalsCecumChickens

Identifiers

PMID32369478
PMCPMC7199926

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.