Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32681160›Full record

ArticleThe ISME journal2020

The gut microbiota of brood parasite and host nestlings reared within the same environment: disentangling genetic and environmental effects.

Chop Yan Lee, Juan Manuel Peralta-Sánchez, Manuel Martínez-Bueno, Anders Pape Møller, Miguel Rabelo-Ruiz, Carmen Zamora-Muñoz, Juan José Soler

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The ISME journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing 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

22 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Comparative Analyses ofEcology and evolution · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

7 authors.

Chop Yan Lee *Departamento de Microbiología, Universidad de Granada, 18071, Granada, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8907-6831
Juan Manuel Peralta-Sánchez *Departamento de Microbiología, Universidad de Granada, 18071, Granada, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4648-7988
Manuel Martínez-BuenoDepartamento de Microbiología, Universidad de Granada, 18071, Granada, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1488-5642
Anders Pape MøllerEcologie Systématique Evolution, Université Paris-Sud, CNRS, AgroParisTech, Université Paris-Saclay, Orsay Cedex, France.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3739-4675
Miguel Rabelo-RuizDepartamento de Microbiología, Universidad de Granada, 18071, Granada, Spain.
Carmen Zamora-MuñozUnidad Asociada (CSIC): Coevolución: Cucos, Hospedadores y Bacterias Simbiontes, Universidad de Granada, 18071, Granada, Spain.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3037-1529
Juan José SolerUnidad Asociada (CSIC): Coevolución: Cucos, Hospedadores y Bacterias Simbiontes, Universidad de Granada, 18071, Granada, Spain. jsoler@eeza.csic.es.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2990-1489

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Gut microbiota are essential for host health and survival, but we are still far from understanding the processes involved in shaping their composition and evolution. Controlled experimental work under lab conditions as well as human studies pointed at environmental factors (i.e., diet) as the main determinant of the microbiota with little evidence of genetic effects, while comparative interspecific studies detected significant phylogenetic effects. Different species, however, also differ in diet, feeding behavior, and environmental characteristics of habitats, all of which also vary interspecifically, and, therefore, can potentially explain most of the detected phylogenetic patterns. Here, we take advantage of the reproductive strategy of avian brood parasites and investigate gut microbiotas (esophageal (food and saliva) and intestinal) of great spotted cuckoo (Clamator glandarius) and magpie (Pica pica) nestlings that grow in the same nests. We also estimated diet received by each nestling and explored its association with gut microbiota characteristics. Although esophageal microbiota of magpies and great spotted cuckoos raised within the same environment (nest) did not vary, the microbiota of cloacal samples showed clear interspecific differences. Moreover, diet of great spotted cuckoo and magpie nestlings explained the microbiota composition of esophageal samples, but not of cloaca samples. These results strongly suggest a genetic component determining the intestinal microbiota of host and parasitic bird species, indicating that interspecific differences in gut morphology and physiology are responsible for such interspecific differences.

Indexed as

Gastrointestinal MicrobiomeParasitesPasseriformesAnimalsClimateHumansPhylogeny

Identifiers

PMID32681160
PMCPMC7784868

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.