Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33248618›Full record

ArticlePoultry science2020

Mild heat stress changes the microbiota diversity in the respiratory tract and the cecum of layer-type pullets.

Minghui Wang, Xiaoyan Lin, Hongchao Jiao, Victoria Uyanga, Jingpeng Zhao, Xiaojuan Wang, Haifang Li, Yunlei Zhou, Shuhong Sun, Hai Lin

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Poultry science, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  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

10 authors.

Minghui WangShandong Provincial Key Laboratory of Animal Biotechnology and Disease Control and Prevention, Shandong Agricultural University, Taian City, Shandong Province 271018, China.
Xiaoyan LinShandong Provincial Key Laboratory of Animal Biotechnology and Disease Control and Prevention, Shandong Agricultural University, Taian City, Shandong Province 271018, China.
Hongchao JiaoShandong Provincial Key Laboratory of Animal Biotechnology and Disease Control and Prevention, Shandong Agricultural University, Taian City, Shandong Province 271018, China.
Victoria UyangaShandong Provincial Key Laboratory of Animal Biotechnology and Disease Control and Prevention, Shandong Agricultural University, Taian City, Shandong Province 271018, China.
Jingpeng ZhaoShandong Provincial Key Laboratory of Animal Biotechnology and Disease Control and Prevention, Shandong Agricultural University, Taian City, Shandong Province 271018, China.
Xiaojuan WangShandong Provincial Key Laboratory of Animal Biotechnology and Disease Control and Prevention, Shandong Agricultural University, Taian City, Shandong Province 271018, China.
Haifang LiCollege of Life Sciences, Shandong Agricultural University, Taian City, Shandong Province 271018, China.
Yunlei ZhouCollege of Chemistry and Material Science, Shandong Agricultural University, Taian City, Shandong Province 271018, China.
Shuhong SunShandong Provincial Key Laboratory of Animal Biotechnology and Disease Control and Prevention, Shandong Agricultural University, Taian City, Shandong Province 271018, China. Electronic address: jqybfkyjs@163.com.
Hai LinShandong Provincial Key Laboratory of Animal Biotechnology and Disease Control and Prevention, Shandong Agricultural University, Taian City, Shandong Province 271018, China. Electronic address: hailin@sdau.edu.cn.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The present study aimed to research the effects of cyclic heat environment on the microbial diversity and structure of respiratory tract and cecum of chicken. A total of 360 layer-type pullets at 11 wk of age were subjected to different temperature treatments for 10 wk: constant 22°C; cyclic temperature 22°C to 24°C, 22°C to 26°C, 22°C to 28°C, 22°C to 30°C; the ambient temperature increased from 10:00, reached the set point within 1 h, and maintained until 18:00, thereafter the temperature was restored to 22°C; and the relative humidity was maintained at 60%. The result showed that feed intake of the chickens on ambient temperature 30°C group was significantly lower than that of the chickens on ambient temperature 24°C. The white blood cell, red blood cell, lymphocyte, hemoglobin, and pecked-cell volume content were highest at 24°C on 14, 16, and 18 wk. The ratio of CD3

Indexed as

BiodiversityCecumChickensHeat-Shock ResponseMicrobiotaRespiratory SystemAnimalsBlood Cell CountFemaleT-Lymphocytescecum microbiotalayer-type pulletmild heat stressrespiratory microbiota

Identifiers

PMID33248618
PMCPMC7704960

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.