Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33477604›Full record

ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2021

On the Variability of Microbial Populations and Bacterial Metabolites within the Canine Stool. An in-Depth Analysis.

Carlo Pinna, Carla Giuditta Vecchiato, Costanza Delsante, Monica Grandi, Giacomo Biagi

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 49% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Carlo PinnaDepartment of Veterinary Medical Sciences, University of Bologna, via Tolara di Sopra 50, 40064 Ozzano Emilia (BO), Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-5861-4820
Carla Giuditta VecchiatoDepartment of Veterinary Medical Sciences, University of Bologna, via Tolara di Sopra 50, 40064 Ozzano Emilia (BO), Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-4962-5277
Costanza DelsanteDepartment of Veterinary Medical Sciences, University of Bologna, via Tolara di Sopra 50, 40064 Ozzano Emilia (BO), Italy.
Monica GrandiDepartment of Veterinary Medical Sciences, University of Bologna, via Tolara di Sopra 50, 40064 Ozzano Emilia (BO), Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-0750-9515
Giacomo BiagiDepartment of Veterinary Medical Sciences, University of Bologna, via Tolara di Sopra 50, 40064 Ozzano Emilia (BO), Italy.
University of Bologna · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Canine faecal microbial populations and metabolome are being increasingly studied to understand the interplay between host and gut microbiome. However, the distribution of bacterial taxa and microbial metabolites throughout the canine stool is understudied and currently no guidelines for the collection, storage and preparation of canine faecal samples have been proposed. Here, we assessed the effects that different sampling points have on the abundance of selected microbial populations and bacterial metabolites within the canine stool. Whole fresh faecal samples were obtained from five healthy adult dogs. Stool subsamples were collected from the surface to the inner part and from three equally sized areas (cranial, central, caudal) along the length axis of the stool log. All samples were finally homogenised and compared before and after homogenisation. Firmicutes, Bacteroidetes,

Indexed as

bacterial metabolitesCanis lupus familiarisDNA extractionfaecal microbiotaqPCRstool collection

Identifiers

PMID33477604
PMCPMC7831317
OpenAlexW3123165103

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.