Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33208178›Full record

ArticleMicrobiome2020

Spatial heterogeneity of bacterial colonization across different gut segments following inter-species microbiota transplantation.

Na Li, Bin Zuo, Shimeng Huang, Benhua Zeng, Dandan Han, Tiantian Li, Ting Liu, Zhenhua Wu, Hong Wei, Jiangchao Zhao and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract readVideo-Audio Media
In one paragraph

Article in Microbiome, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 83 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
83citing papers in PubMed
5.6field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

83 citing papers in PubMed, 111 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Effects of High-Fat Diet on Intestinal Microbiota in Largemouth Bass (Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Spatiotemporal dynamics of mucosa-associatedAnimal nutrition (Zhongguo xu mu shou yi xue hui) · 2025
    Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

23 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

11 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Na LiState Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing, 100193, China.
Bin ZuoState Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing, 100193, China.
Shimeng HuangState Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing, 100193, China.
Benhua ZengDepartment of Laboratory Animal Science, College of Basic Medical Sciences, Third Military Medical University, Chongqing, 400038, China.
Dandan HanState Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing, 100193, China.
Tiantian LiState Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing, 100193, China.
Ting LiuState Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing, 100193, China.
Zhenhua WuState Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing, 100193, China.
Hong WeiState Key Laboratory of Agricultural Microbiology, Key Laboratory of Agricultural Animal Genetics, Breeding, and Reproduction of the Ministry of Education, and Key Laboratory of Swine Genetics and Breeding of Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, College of Animal Sciences and Technology, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan, Hubei, 430070, China. weihong63528@163.com.
Jiangchao ZhaoDepartment of Animal Science, Division of Agriculture, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, 72701, USA. jzhao77@uark.edu.
Junjun WangState Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing, 100193, China. wangjj@cau.edu.cn.ORCID 0000-0001-9427-3824
China Agricultural University · CNArmy Medical University · CNHuazhong Agricultural University · CNUniversity of Arkansas at Fayetteville · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe microbiota presents a compartmentalized distribution across different gut segments. Hence, the exogenous microbiota from a particular gut segment might only invade its homologous gut location during microbiota transplantation. Feces as the excreted residue contain most of the large-intestinal microbes but lack small-intestinal microbes. We speculated that whole-intestinal microbiota transplantation (WIMT), comprising jejunal, ileal, cecal, and colonic microbiota, would be more effective for reshaping the entire intestinal microbiota than conventional fecal microbiota transplantation fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT).

resultsWe modeled the compartmentalized colonization of the gut microbiota via transplanting the microbiota from jejunum, ileum, cecum, and colon, respectively, into the germ-free mice. Transplanting jejunal or ileal microbiota induced more exogenous microbes' colonization in the small intestine (SI) of germ-free mice rather than the large intestine (LI), primarily containing Proteobacteria, Lactobacillaceae, and Cyanobacteria. Conversely, more saccharolytic anaerobes from exogenous cecal or colonic microbiota, such as Bacteroidetes, Prevotellaceae, Lachnospiraceae, and Ruminococcaceae, established in the LI of germ-free mice that received corresponding intestinal segmented microbiota transplantation. Consistent compartmentalized colonization patterns of microbial functions in the intestine of germ-free mice were also observed. Genes related to nucleotide metabolism, genetic information processing, and replication and repair were primarily enriched in small-intestinal communities, whereas genes associated with the metabolism of essential nutrients such as carbohydrates, amino acids, cofactors, and vitamins were mainly enriched in large-intestinal communities of germ-free mice. Subsequently, we compared the difference in reshaping the community structure of germ-free mice between FMT and WIMT. FMT mainly transferred LI-derived microorganisms and gene functions into the recipient intestine with sparse SI-derived microbes successfully transplanted. However, WIMT introduced more SI-derived microbes and associated microbial functions to the recipient intestine than FMT. Besides, WIMT also improved intestinal morphological development as well as reduced systematic inflammation responses of recipients compared with FMT.

conclusionsSegmented exogenous microbiota transplantation proved the spatial heterogeneity of bacterial colonization along the gastrointestinal tract, i.e., the microbiota from one specific location selectively colonizes its homologous gut region. Given the lack of exogenous small-intestinal microbes during FMT, WIMT may be a promising alternative for conventional FMT to reconstitute the microbiota across the entire intestinal tract. Video Abstract.

Indexed as

Fecal Microbiota TransplantationGastrointestinal MicrobiomeAnimalsBacteriaFecesGastrointestinal TractGerm-Free LifeHeterograftsMiceSwineDifferent gut segmentsFecal microbiota transplantationGut microbiotaSpatial heterogeneityWhole-intestinal microbiota transplantation

Identifiers

PMID33208178
PMCPMC7677849
OpenAlexW3102900522

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.