Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33409770›Full record

ArticleAMB Express2021

Enzyme additives influence bacterial communities of Medicago sativa silage as determined by Illumina sequencing.

Zongfu Hu, Deying Ma, Huaxin Niu, Jie Chang, Jianhua Yu, Qing Tong, Shuguo Li

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in AMB Express, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Recent advances in the treatment of lignin in papermaking wastewater.World journal of microbiology & biotechnology · 2022
    Review
  5. Effects of antibacterial peptide-producingFrontiers in microbiology · 2022
    Article
  6. Effects of Cellulase andFrontiers in microbiology · 2022
    Article
  7. 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 2 institutions in 1 country.

Zongfu HuCollege of Animal Science and Technology, Northeast Agricultural University, Harbin, People's Republic of China.
Deying MaCollege of Animal Science and Technology, Northeast Agricultural University, Harbin, People's Republic of China. madeying@neau.edu.cn.
Huaxin NiuCollege of Animal Science and Technology, Inner Mongolia University for Nationalities, Tongliao, People's Republic of China.
Jie ChangCollege of Animal Science and Technology, Inner Mongolia University for Nationalities, Tongliao, People's Republic of China.
Jianhua YuCollege of Animal Science and Technology, Northeast Agricultural University, Harbin, People's Republic of China.
Qing TongCollege of Animal Science and Technology, Northeast Agricultural University, Harbin, People's Republic of China.
Shuguo LiCollege of Animal Science and Technology, Inner Mongolia University for Nationalities, Tongliao, People's Republic of China.
Inner Mongolia University for Nationalities · CNNortheast Agricultural University · CN

Funding

Natural Science Foundation of Inner Mongolia 2018 LH03013Natural Science Foundation of Inner Mongolia 2018 MS03022
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The goal of the present study was to evaluate the effects of enzymes (cellulase combined with galactosidase) and their combination with Lactobacillus plantarum (LP) on bacterial diversity in alfalfa silages using high-throughput sequencing. Alfalfa forages were treated with or without cellulase + ɑ-galactosidase (CEGA), cellulase + LP (CELP), or ɑ-galactosidase + LP (GALP). After 56 days of ensiling, all treated silages exhibited improved fermentation quality, as reflected by decreased pH, ammonium-N and increased lactic acid levels compared to the control silage (P < 0.05). Enzymatic treatment improved nutrient value by increasing crude protein levels and decreasing neutral detergent fibre (NDF) levels (P < 0.05). Silage treatment significantly altered the bacterial community, as determined by PCoA (P < 0.05). Lactic acid bacteria (LAB) dominated the bacterial community of the treated silage after ensiling. The dominant bacteria changed from Garciella, Enterococcus, Lactobacillus and Pediococcus in the control silage to Lactobacillus and Pediococcus in the CEGA silage and Lactobacillus in the CELP and GALP silages. Collectively, these results suggest that treatment with both enzymes alone and in combination with inoculants greatly increased the abundance of LAB, with Enterococcus, Lactobacillus and Pediococcus observed in the silage treated with enzymes alone (CEGA) and Lactobacillus observed in the silage treated with a combination of enzymes and inoculants (CELP and GALP).

Indexed as

Alfalfa silageɑ-GalactosidaseBacterial communityCellulaseIllumina sequencingL. plantarum

Identifiers

PMID33409770
PMCPMC7788151
OpenAlexW3116161550

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.