ArticleCurrent microbiology2020
A Comparative Study of Associated Microbiota Between Pig Farm and Pig Slaughterhouse in Guangdong, China.
Article in Current microbiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- WORKbiota: A Systematic Review about the Effects of Occupational Exposure on Microbiota and Workers' Health.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Pooled it
- Molecular Characterization of the Air Microbiome and Associated Toxicological Hazards in a Zoological Garden.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
- Associations Between Fine Particulate Matter-Associated Bacteria and Respiratory Tract Microbiota in Pigs.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026Article
- Animal farming and the oral microbiome in the Agricultural Health Study.Environmental research · 2025Article
- The Role of the Microbiome in Allergy, Asthma, and Occupational Lung Disease.Current allergy and asthma reports · 2024Review
- Bioaerosols in swine confinement buildings: A metaproteomic view.Environmental microbiology reports · 2023Article
- A One Health strategy for emerging infectious diseases based on the COVID-19 outbreak.Journal of biosafety and biosecurity · 2022Review
- Molecular Evaluation of Traditional Chicken Farm-Associated Bioaerosols for Methicillin-ResistantAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The goal of this study was to compare the microbiota in different pig-present settings in China. Bioaerosol samples from pig farms and slaughterhouses and nasal samples from pig farmers and slaughterhouse workers were collected in Guangdong, southern China. The bacterial genomic DNA was isolated and subjected to 16S sequencing. The data were analyzed using QIIME2 with the DADA2 pipeline. A total of 14,923,551 clean reads and 2785 operational taxonomic units (OTUs) were obtained, which were mostly grouped into 4 phyla (Proteobacteria, Bacteroidetes, Firmicutes, and Actinobacteria) and 220 families. The microbiota richness of nasal samples in pig-present workers was higher than that of bioaerosols collected in the vicinity of the pig enclosures. There were 31.7% (620/1954) shared OTUs between pig farm bioaerosols and pig farmers which was higher than that between pig slaughterhouses and slaughterhouse workers (23.4%, 364/1553) (p < 0.001). Acinetobacter and Pseudomonas were the most abundant in pig-present bioaerosols, and Staphylococcus, Pseudomonas, and Corynebacterium were dominant bacterial genus in pig farmers. The bacterial patterns are also specific to the location of sample collected. The results suggest that bioaerosol microbiota interact with human nasal microbes in the vicinity of the pig farm enclosures, providing the basis for further analysis of microbial transmission across hosts in pig-present settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.