Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33499952›Full record

ArticleAnimal microbiome2020

The fecal microbiota of wild and captive raptors.

Bruno C M Oliveira, Maureen Murray, Florina Tseng, Giovanni Widmer

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 35 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing 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

35 citing papers in PubMed, 69 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Antimicrobial Resistance inAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Detection ofMicroorganisms · 2024
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Bruno C M OliveiraDepartment of Infectious Disease & Global Health, Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine at Tufts University, North Grafton, MA, 01536, USA.
Maureen MurrayDepartment of Infectious Disease & Global Health, Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine at Tufts University, North Grafton, MA, 01536, USA.
Florina TsengDepartment of Infectious Disease & Global Health, Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine at Tufts University, North Grafton, MA, 01536, USA.
Giovanni WidmerDepartment of Infectious Disease & Global Health, Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine at Tufts University, North Grafton, MA, 01536, USA. giovanni.widmer@tufts.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7255-3761
Tufts University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe microorganisms populating the gastro-intestinal tract of vertebrates, collectively known as "microbiota", play an essential role in digestion and are important in regulating the immune response. Whereas the intestinal microbiota in humans and model organisms has been studied for many years, much less is known about the microbiota populating the intestinal tract of wild animals.

resultsThe relatively large number of raptors admitted to the Tufts Wildlife Clinic on the Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine at Tufts University campus provided a unique opportunity to investigate the bacterial microbiota in these birds. Opportunistic collection of fecal samples from raptors of 7 different species in the orders Strigiformes, Accipitriformes, and Falconiformes with different medical histories generated a collection of 46 microbiota samples. Based on 16S amplicon sequencing of fecal DNA, large β-diversity values were observed. Many comparisons exceeded weighted UniFrac distances of 0.9. Microbiota diversity did not segregate with the taxonomy of the host; no significant difference between microbiota from Strigiformes and from Accipitriformes/Falconiformes were observed. In contrast, in a sample of 22 birds admitted for rehabilitation, a significant effect of captivity was found. The change in microbiota profile was driven by an expansion of the proportion of Actinobacteria. Based on a small number of raptors treated with anti-microbials, no significant effect of these treatments on microbiota α-diversity was observed.

conclusionsThe concept of "meta-organism conservation", i.e., conservation efforts focused on the host and its intestinal microbiome has recently been proposed. The observed effect of captivity on the fecal microbiota is relevant to understanding the response of wildlife to captivity and optimizing wildlife rehabilitation and conservation efforts.

Indexed as

16S amplicon sequencingActinobacteriaFecal microbiotaRaptorRehabilitation

Identifiers

PMID33499952
PMCPMC7863374
OpenAlexW3029142101

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.