Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32562009›Full record

ArticleAMB Express2020

Evaluating the association between feed efficiency and the fecal microbiota of early-life Duroc pigs using 16S rRNA sequencing.

Jinglei Si, Lingli Feng, Jiuyu Gao, Ye Huang, Guangjie Zhang, Jiayuan Mo, Siran Zhu, Wenjing Qi, Jing Liang, Ganqiu Lan

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in AMB Express, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing 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

24 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Effects of the Probiotic,Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2022
    Article
  18. Review
  19. DietaryFrontiers in veterinary science · 2022
    Article
  20. 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

10 authors.

Jinglei SiCollege of Animal Science & Technology, Guangxi University, Nanning, 530004, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1843-9989
Lingli FengCollege of Animal Science & Technology, Guangxi University, Nanning, 530004, China.
Jiuyu GaoCollege of Animal Science & Technology, Guangxi University, Nanning, 530004, China.
Ye HuangCollege of Animal Science & Technology, Guangxi University, Nanning, 530004, China.
Guangjie ZhangCollege of Animal Science & Technology, Guangxi University, Nanning, 530004, China.
Jiayuan MoCollege of Animal Science & Technology, Guangxi University, Nanning, 530004, China.
Siran ZhuCollege of Animal Science & Technology, Guangxi University, Nanning, 530004, China.
Wenjing QiCollege of Animal Science & Technology, Guangxi University, Nanning, 530004, China.
Jing LiangCollege of Animal Science & Technology, Guangxi University, Nanning, 530004, China. liangjing@gxu.edu.cn.
Ganqiu LanCollege of Animal Science & Technology, Guangxi University, Nanning, 530004, China. gqlan@gxu.edu.cn.

Funding

Guangxi Natural Science Foundation Program 2017GXNSFBA198157National Modern Agricultural Industrial Technology System nycytxgxcxtd-15-01National Natural Science Foundation of China 81860150Science and Technology Major Project of Guangxi Guike-AA17292002Special Project on Innovation Driven Development of Guangxi Guike-AA17204029
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Improving the predication efficiency of porcine production performance at early stage will contribute to reducing the breeding and production costs. The intestinal microbiota had received plenty of attention in recent years due to their influence on host health and performance. The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between the fecal microbiota at early growth period and porcine feed efficiency (FE) under a commercial feeding environment. Ninety-one pigs were reordered according to the residual feed intake (RFI) values between day 90 on test and day 160 off test, 9 lowest RFI pigs and 9 highest RFI pigs were selected as the LRFI group and the HRFI group, respectively. Fecal samples from pigs in the early grower phase (day 80) were performed for microbial diversity, composition, and predicted functionality by using 16S rRNA sequencing. The results showed that no significant differences in microbial alpha diversity were observed between two RFI groups, whereas, some RFI-associated compositional differences were revealed. In particular, the microbiota of the LRFI group (more feed-efficient) had significantly higher levels of some members of Clostridiales and Bacteroidales (e.g., g_1_68 and g_norank_f_p_2534_18B5), which may promoted FE through protecting gut barrier function, compared with those of the HRFI pigs. Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) pathways analysis found that the LRFI pigs were likely have microbiota with higher levels of amino acid metabolism. Moreover, redundancy analysis (RDA) showed that litter size, parity, and date of birth had significant effects on the bacterial community structure. These results improved our knowledge of the porcine early-life fecal microbiota and its potential link underlying RFI, which would be useful for future development of microbial biomarkers for predicting and improving porcine FE as well as investigation of targets for dietary strategies.

Indexed as

16S rRNAFecal microbiotaFeed efficiencyHigh-throughput sequencingPigResidual feed intake

Identifiers

PMID32562009
PMCPMC7305293

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.