Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32587688›Full record

ArticleJournal of animal science and biotechnology2020

Effects of dietary

Ilaria Biasato, Ilario Ferrocino, Elena Colombino, Francesco Gai, Achille Schiavone, Luca Cocolin, Valeria Vincenti, Maria Teresa Capucchio, Laura Gasco

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of animal science and biotechnology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Impact of dietary supplementation of black soldier fly larvae (Animal nutrition (Zhongguo xu mu shou yi xue hui) · 2025
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Combined Dietary Supplementation ofVeterinary sciences · 2024
    Article
  6. Gut microbiota changes in insect-fed monogastric species: state-of-the-art and future perspectives.Animal frontiers : the review magazine of animal agriculture · 2023
    Article
  7. Utilization ofVeterinary sciences · 2023
    Article
  8. Feeding ofNutrients · 2023
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Insect as feed ingredients for pigs.Animal bioscience · 2022
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

9 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Ilaria BiasatoDepartment of Agricultural, Forest and Food Sciences, University of Turin, Largo Paolo Braccini 2, 10095 Grugliasco, TO Italy.
Ilario FerrocinoDepartment of Agricultural, Forest and Food Sciences, University of Turin, Largo Paolo Braccini 2, 10095 Grugliasco, TO Italy.
Elena ColombinoDepartment of Veterinary Sciences, University of Turin, Largo Paolo Braccini 2, 10095 Grugliasco, TO Italy.
Francesco GaiInstitute of Science of Food Production, National Research Council, Largo Paolo Braccini 2, 10095 Grugliasco, TO Italy.
Achille SchiavoneDepartment of Veterinary Sciences, University of Turin, Largo Paolo Braccini 2, 10095 Grugliasco, TO Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-8011-6999
Luca CocolinDepartment of Agricultural, Forest and Food Sciences, University of Turin, Largo Paolo Braccini 2, 10095 Grugliasco, TO Italy.
Valeria VincentiDepartment of Veterinary Sciences, University of Turin, Largo Paolo Braccini 2, 10095 Grugliasco, TO Italy.
Maria Teresa CapucchioDepartment of Veterinary Sciences, University of Turin, Largo Paolo Braccini 2, 10095 Grugliasco, TO Italy.
Laura GascoDepartment of Agricultural, Forest and Food Sciences, University of Turin, Largo Paolo Braccini 2, 10095 Grugliasco, TO Italy.
University of Turin · ITNational Research Council · LKInstitute of Sciences of Food Production · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe constant interaction between diet and intestinal barrier has a crucial role in determining gut health in pigs.

resultsA total of 48 weaned piglets were randomly allotted to 3 dietary treatments (control diet [C] and 5% or 10% HI meal inclusion [HI5 and HI10], with 4 replicate boxes/treatment and 4 animals/box) and slaughtered after 61 days of trial (3 animals/box, 12 piglets/diet). The cecal microbiota assessment by 16S rRNA amplicon based sequencing showed higher beta diversity in the piglets fed the HI-based diets than the C (

conclusionsDietary HI meal utilization positively influenced the cecal microbiota and the small intestinal mucin dynamics of the piglets in terms of selection of potentially beneficial bacteria and preservation of mature mucin secretory architecture, without determining the development of gut inflammation. These findings further confirm the suitability of including insect meal in swine diets.

Indexed as

16S rRNAGut healthHermetia illucens L.HistologyInsect mealMicrobiotaMucinPig

Identifiers

PMID32587688
PMCPMC7313100
OpenAlexW3035994829

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.