Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33026173›Full record

ArticleMicrobial biotechnology2021

Bacillus subtilis and Enterococcus faecium co-fermented feed regulates lactating sow's performance, immune status and gut microbiota.

Cheng Wang, Siyu Wei, Bocheng Xu, Lihong Hao, Weifa Su, Mingliang Jin, Yizhen Wang

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Microbial biotechnology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

34 citing papers in PubMed, 44 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Multi-Omics Insights into the Impact of Fermented Wheat Bran-Soybean Meal-Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Effect ofFrontiers in microbiology · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Effects ofVeterinary world · 2024
    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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Cheng WangKey Laboratory of Molecular Animal Nutrition, Ministry of Education, Zhejiang University, 866 Yuhang Tang Road, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, 310058, China.
Siyu WeiKey Laboratory of Molecular Animal Nutrition, Ministry of Education, Zhejiang University, 866 Yuhang Tang Road, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, 310058, China.
Bocheng XuKey Laboratory of Molecular Animal Nutrition, Ministry of Education, Zhejiang University, 866 Yuhang Tang Road, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, 310058, China.
Lihong HaoKey Laboratory of Molecular Animal Nutrition, Ministry of Education, Zhejiang University, 866 Yuhang Tang Road, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, 310058, China.
Weifa SuKey Laboratory of Molecular Animal Nutrition, Ministry of Education, Zhejiang University, 866 Yuhang Tang Road, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, 310058, China.
Mingliang JinKey Laboratory of Molecular Animal Nutrition, Ministry of Education, Zhejiang University, 866 Yuhang Tang Road, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, 310058, China.ORCID 0000-0001-6358-5307
Yizhen WangKey Laboratory of Molecular Animal Nutrition, Ministry of Education, Zhejiang University, 866 Yuhang Tang Road, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, 310058, China.ORCID 0000-0002-3908-7102
Zhejiang University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Fermented feed (FF) is widely applied to improve swine performance. However, the understandings of the effects of FF on the immune status and gut microbiota of lactating sows and whether probiotics are the effective composition of FF are still limited. The present study aimed to investigate the performance, immune status and gut microbiota of lactating sows fed with a basal diet supplemented with Bacillus subtilis and Enterococcus faecium co-fermented feed (FF), with the probiotic combination (PRO) of B. subtilis and E. faecium and control diet (CON) as controls. Compared with the CON group, FF group remarkably improved the average daily feed intake of sows and the weight gain of piglets, while significantly decreased the backfat loss, constipation rate of sows and diarrhoea incidence of piglets. The yield and quality of milk of sows in FF group were improved. Besides, faecal acetate and butyrate were promoted in FF group. Additionally, FF increased the level of IgG, IgM and IL-10 and decreased the concentration of TNF-α in serum. Furthermore, FF reduced the abundance of Enterobacteriaceae and increased the level of Lactobacillus and Succiniclasticum, which were remarkably associated with growth performance and serum immune parameters. Accordingly, microbial metabolic functions including DNA repair and recombination proteins, glycolysis and gluconeogenesis, mismatch repair and d-alanine metabolism were significantly upregulated, while amino acid metabolism was downregulated in FF group. Overall, the beneficial effects of FF were superior to PRO treatment. Altogether, administration of FF during lactation improved the performance and immune status, and modulated gut microbiota of sows. Probiotics are not the only one effective compound of FF.

Indexed as

Enterococcus faeciumGastrointestinal MicrobiomeAnimal FeedAnimalsBacillus subtilisDietFemaleLactationSwine

Identifiers

PMID33026173
PMCPMC7936319
OpenAlexW3092238551

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.