Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33499935›Full record

ArticleAnimal microbiome2019

Looking like the locals - gut microbiome changes post-release in an endangered species.

Rowena Chong, Catherine E Grueber, Samantha Fox, Phil Wise, Vanessa R Barrs, Carolyn J Hogg, Katherine Belov

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Animal microbiome, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed
3.0field-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

39 citing papers in PubMed, 80 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Comparative assessment of Texas horned lizard (Frontiers in microbiomes · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. MakingAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024
    Article
  17. Gut Microbiome Profiling of the Endangered Southern Greater Glider (Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023
    Article
  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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Rowena ChongSchool of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia.
Catherine E GrueberSchool of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia.
Samantha FoxDepartment of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment, Hobart, TAS, Australia.
Phil WiseSan Diego Zoo Global, PO Box 120551, San Diego, CA, 92112, USA.
Vanessa R BarrsMarie Bashir Institute for Infectious Diseases and Biosecurity, Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia.
Carolyn J HoggSchool of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia.
Katherine BelovSchool of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia. kathy.belov@sydney.edu.au.
University of Sydney · AUZoological Society of San Diego · USDepartment of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment · AUTaronga Conservation Society Australia · AU

Funding

Australian Research Council LP140100508
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCaptivity presents extreme lifestyle changes relative to the wild, and evidence of microbiome dysbiosis in captive animals is growing. The gut microbiome plays a crucial role in host health. Whilst captive breeding and subsequent reintroduction to the wild is important for conservation, such efforts often have limited success. Post-release monitoring is essential for assessing translocation success, but changes to the microbiome of released individuals are poorly understood. The Tasmanian devil was previously shown to exhibit loss of microbiome diversity as a result of intense captive management. This current study examines changes in the devil gut microbiome in response to translocation and aims to determine if perturbations from captivity are permanent or reversible.

methodsUsing 16S rRNA amplicon sequencing, we conducted temporal monitoring of the gut microbiome of released devils during two translocation events, captive-to-wild and wild-to-wild. To investigate whether the microbiome of the released devils changed following translocation, we characterized their microbiome at multiple time points during the translocation process over the course of 6-12 months and compared them to the microbiome of wild incumbent devils (resident wild-born devils at the respective release sites).

resultsWe showed that the pre-release microbiome was significantly different to the microbiome of wild incumbent animals, but that the microbiomes of animals post-release (as early as 3 to 4 weeks post-release) were similar to wild incumbents. The gut microbiome of released animals showed significant compositional shifts toward the wild incumbent microbiome of both translocation events.

conclusionOur results suggest that the devil gut microbiome is dynamic and that loss of microbiome diversity in captivity can be restored following release to the wild. We recommend the broader application of microbiome monitoring in wildlife translocation programs to assess the impacts of translocation on animal microbiomes.

Indexed as

CaptivityCarnivoreDysbiosisReintroduction programWildlife translocation

Identifiers

PMID33499935
PMCPMC7807427
OpenAlexW2977366166

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.