Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33499943›Full record

ArticleAnimal microbiome2020

Cloacal swabs and alcohol bird specimens are good proxies for compositional analyses of gut microbial communities of Great tits (Parus major).

Kasun H Bodawatta, Katerina Puzejova, Katerina Sam, Michael Poulsen, Knud A Jønsson

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Animal microbiome, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 41 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Bacterial communities along parrot digestive and respiratory tracts: the effects of sample type, species and time.International microbiology : the official journal of the Spanish Society for Microbiology · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Great Tit (Frontiers in microbiology · 2020
    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 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Kasun H BodawattaNatural History Museum of Denmark, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. bodawatta@snm.ku.dk.
Katerina PuzejovaBiology Centre of Czech Academy of Sciences, Institute of Entomology, Branisovska 31, Ceske Budejovice, Czech Republic.
Katerina SamBiology Centre of Czech Academy of Sciences, Institute of Entomology, Branisovska 31, Ceske Budejovice, Czech Republic.
Michael PoulsenSection for Ecology and Evolution, Department of Biology, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Knud A JønssonNatural History Museum of Denmark, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
University of Copenhagen · DKCzech Academy of Sciences, Biology Centre · CZNatural History Museum Aarhus · DKUniversity of South Bohemia in České Budějovice · CZ

Funding

Carlsbergfondet CF17-0248Grantová Agentura České Republiky 18-23794YJihočeská Univerzita v Českých Budějovicích GAJU n.048/2019/P
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundComprehensive studies of wild bird microbiomes are often limited by difficulties of sample acquisition. However, widely used non-invasive cloacal swab methods and under-explored museum specimens preserved in alcohol provide promising avenues to increase our understanding of wild bird microbiomes, provided that they accurately portray natural microbial community compositions. To investigate this assertion, we used 16S rRNA amplicon sequencing of Great tit (Parus major) gut microbiomes to compare 1) microbial communities obtained from dissected digestive tract regions and cloacal swabs, and 2) microbial communities obtained from freshly dissected gut regions and from samples preserved in alcohol for 2 weeks or 2 months, respectively.

resultsWe found no significant differences in alpha diversities in communities of different gut regions and cloacal swabs (except in OTU richness between the dissected cloacal region and the cloacal swabs), or between fresh and alcohol preserved samples. However, we did find significant differences in beta diversity and community composition of cloacal swab samples compared to different gut regions. Despite these community-level differences, swab samples qualitatively captured the majority of the bacterial diversity throughout the gut better than any single compartment. Bacterial community compositions of alcohol-preserved specimens did not differ significantly from freshly dissected samples, although some low-abundant taxa were lost in the alcohol preserved specimens.

conclusionsOur findings suggest that cloacal swabs, similar to non-invasive fecal sampling, qualitatively depict the gut microbiota composition without having to collect birds to extract the full digestive tract. The satisfactory depiction of gut microbial communities in alcohol preserved samples opens up for the possibility of using an enormous resource readily available through museum collections to characterize bird gut microbiomes. The use of extensive museum specimen collections of birds for microbial gut analyses would allow for investigations of temporal patterns of wild bird gut microbiomes, including the potential effects of climate change and anthropogenic impacts. Overall, the utilization of cloacal swabs and museum alcohol specimens can positively impact bird gut microbiome research to help increase our understanding of the role and evolution of wild bird hosts and gut microbial communities.

Indexed as

Digestive tract microbiotaMicrobiomesMuseum alcohol bird collectionsNon-invasive samplingPasseriformes

Identifiers

PMID33499943
PMCPMC7807456
OpenAlexW3031316404

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.