Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33180171›Full record

ArticleApplied microbiology and biotechnology2020

Phytogenic products, used as alternatives to antibiotic growth promoters, modify the intestinal microbiota derived from a range of production systems: an in vitro model.

Yadav S Bajagai, Jenifer Alsemgeest, Robert J Moore, Thi T H Van, Dragana Stanley

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Applied microbiology and biotechnology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Dietary inclusion of black cumin (Veterinary and animal science · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Effects ofFrontiers in veterinary science · 2023
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Frontiers in pharmacology · 2021
    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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Yadav S BajagaiInstitute for Future Farming Systems, Central Queensland University, Rockhampton, Queensland, 4702, Australia.
Jenifer AlsemgeestInstitute for Future Farming Systems, Central Queensland University, Rockhampton, Queensland, 4702, Australia.
Robert J MooreSchool of Science, RMIT University, Bundoora, Victoria, 3083, Australia.
Thi T H VanSchool of Science, RMIT University, Bundoora, Victoria, 3083, Australia.
Dragana StanleyInstitute for Future Farming Systems, Central Queensland University, Rockhampton, Queensland, 4702, Australia. D.Stanley@cqu.edu.au.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7019-4726
Central Queensland University · AUMonash University · AURMIT University · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The removal of antibiotics from the feeds used in the livestock industry has resulted in the use of a wide range of alternative antimicrobial products that aim to deliver the productivity and health benefits that have traditionally been associated with antibiotics. Amongst the most popular alternatives are phytogenic product-based extracts from herbs and spices with known antimicrobial properties. Despite embracing such alternatives, the industry is still largely unaware of modes of action, their overall effects on animal health, and interactions with other feed additives such as probiotics. To address some of these issues, three phytogenic products were selected and their interactions with caecal microbiota of layers, grown under six different production systems, were investigated in vitro. Caecal microbiotas were grown with and without phytogenic products, and the changes in microbiota composition were monitored by sequencing of 16S rRNA gene amplicons. Phytogenic products and production system both significantly influenced microbiota composition. The three phytogenic products all altered the relative abundance of species within the Lactobacillus genus, by promoting the growth of some and inhibiting other Lactobacillus species. There were also significant alterations in the Bacillus genus. This was further investigated by comparing the effects of the phytogenic products on the growth of a commercially used Bacillus-based probiotic. The phytogens affected the probiotic mix differently, with some promoting the growth of Bacillus sp. at lower phytogenic concentrations, and fully suppressing growth at higher concentrations, indicating the importance of finding an optimal concentration that can control pathogens while promoting beneficial bacteria. KEY POINTS: • After removal of antibiotics from animal feed, urgent solutions for pathogen control were needed. • Alternative products entered the market without much knowledge on their effects on animal health. • Probiotic products are used in combination with phytogens despite the possible incompatibility.

Indexed as

Gastrointestinal MicrobiomeProbioticsAnimal FeedAnimalsAnti-Bacterial AgentsRNA, Ribosomal, 16SAnti-Bacterial AgentsRNA, Ribosomal, 16SBacillusChickenIn vitroMicrobiotaPhytobiotic

Identifiers

PMID33180171
PMCPMC7659417
OpenAlexW3102528910

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.