Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32793154›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in microbiology2020

Comparative Analysis of Microbial Community Structure and Function in the Gut of Wild and Captive Amur Tiger.

Yao Ning, Jinzhe Qi, Michael T Dobbins, Xin Liang, Jingxuan Wang, Shiyu Chen, Jianzhang Ma, Guangshun Jiang

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in microbiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

44 citing papers in PubMed, 65 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Metagenomic Comparison of Gut Microbes ofAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Dynamic Impacts of Stock Enhancement on Kaluga Sturgeon (International journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Microbiology spectrum · 2024
    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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Yao NingCollege of Wildlife and Protected Area, Northeast Forestry University, Harbin, China.
Jinzhe QiCollege of Wildlife and Protected Area, Northeast Forestry University, Harbin, China.
Michael T DobbinsDepartment of Wildlife, Fish, and Conservation, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA, United States.
Xin LiangCollege of Wildlife and Protected Area, Northeast Forestry University, Harbin, China.
Jingxuan WangCollege of Wildlife and Protected Area, Northeast Forestry University, Harbin, China.
Shiyu ChenCollege of Wildlife and Protected Area, Northeast Forestry University, Harbin, China.
Jianzhang MaCollege of Wildlife and Protected Area, Northeast Forestry University, Harbin, China.
Guangshun JiangCollege of Wildlife and Protected Area, Northeast Forestry University, Harbin, China.
Northeast Forestry University · CNUniversity of California, Davis · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

It has been well acknowledged that the gut microbiome is important for host health, composition changes in these microbial communities might increase susceptibility to infections and reduce adaptability to environment. Reintroduction, as an effective strategy for wild population recovery and genetic diversity maintenance for endangered populations, usually takes captive populations as rewilding resource. While, little is known about the compositional and functional differences of gut microbiota between captive and wild populations, especially for large carnivores, like Amur tiger. In this study, high throughput sequencing of the 16S ribosomal RNA (rRNA) gene (amplicon sequencing) and metagenomics were used to analyze the composition and function variations of gut microbiota communities between captive and wild Amur tiger populations based on total 35 fecal samples (13 from captive tigers and 22 from wild tigers). Our results showed that captive Amur tigers have higher alpha diversity in gut microbiota, but that the average unweighted UniFrac distance of bacterial taxa among wild Amur tigers was much larger. The function differences involve most aspects of the body functions, especially for metabolism, environmental information processing, cellular processes, and organismal systems. It was indicated that the diet habit and environment difference between captive and wild populations lead to composition differences of gut microbiota and then resulted in significant differences in functions. These contrasts of functional and compositional variations in gut microbiota between wild and captive Amur tigers are essential insights for guiding conservation management and policy decision-making, and call for more attention on the influence of gut microbiota on the ability of captive animals to survive in the wild.

Indexed as

16S ribosomal RNA gene sequencingAmur tigerconservation managementcore microbiomemetagenome sequencing

Identifiers

PMID32793154
PMCPMC7393233
OpenAlexW3044918235

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.