Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33499982›Full record

ArticleAnimal microbiome2020

Multi-kingdom characterization of the core equine fecal microbiota based on multiple equine (sub)species.

J E Edwards, S A Shetty, P van den Berg, F Burden, D A van Doorn, W F Pellikaan, J Dijkstra, H Smidt

Abstract 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 45 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

45 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Preliminary Functional Analysis of the Gut Microbiome in Colic Horses.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024
    Article
  16. Exploring the Effect of GastrointestinalAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024
    Review
  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

8 authors.

J E EdwardsLaboratory of Microbiology, Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen, 6708 WE, Netherlands. joanee2002@hotmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0759-633X
S A ShettyLaboratory of Microbiology, Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen, 6708 WE, Netherlands.
P van den BergLaboratory of Microbiology, Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen, 6708 WE, Netherlands.
F BurdenThe Donkey Sanctuary, Sidmouth, Devon, EX10 ONU, UK.
D A van DoornDivision of Nutrition, Department of Farm Animal Health, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrecht University, Utrecht, 3584 CM, Netherlands.
W F PellikaanAnimal Nutrition Group, Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen, 6708 WD, Netherlands.
J DijkstraAnimal Nutrition Group, Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen, 6708 WD, Netherlands.
H SmidtLaboratory of Microbiology, Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen, 6708 WE, Netherlands. hauke.smidt@wur.nl.

Funding

H2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions 706899
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEquine gut microbiology studies to date have primarily focused on horses and ponies, which represent only one of the eight extant equine species. This is despite asses and mules comprising almost half of the world's domesticated equines, and donkeys being superior to horses/ponies in their ability to degrade dietary fiber. Limited attention has also been given to commensal anaerobic fungi and archaea even though anaerobic fungi are potent fiber degrading organisms, the activity of which is enhanced by methanogenic archaea. Therefore, the objective of this study was to broaden the current knowledge of bacterial, anaerobic fungal and archaeal diversity of the equine fecal microbiota to multiple species of equines. Core taxa shared by all the equine fecal samples (n = 70) were determined and an overview given of the microbiota across different equine types (horse, donkey, horse × donkey and zebra).

resultsEquine type was associated with differences in both fecal microbial concentrations and community composition. Donkey was generally most distinct from the other equine types, with horse and zebra not differing. Despite this, a common bacterial core of eight OTUs (out of 2070) and 16 genus level groupings (out of 231) was found in all the fecal samples. This bacterial core represented a much larger proportion of the equine fecal microbiota than previously reported, primarily due to the detection of predominant core taxa belonging to the phyla Kiritimatiellaeota (formerly Verrucomicrobia subdivision 5) and Spirochaetes. The majority of the core bacterial taxa lack cultured representation. Archaea and anaerobic fungi were present in all animals, however, no core taxon was detected for either despite several taxa being prevalent and predominant.

conclusionsWhilst differences were observed between equine types, a core fecal microbiota existed across all the equines. This core was composed primarily of a few predominant bacterial taxa, the majority of which are novel and lack cultured representation. The lack of microbial cultures representing the predominant taxa needs to be addressed, as their availability is essential to gain fundamental knowledge of the microbial functions that underpin the equine hindgut ecosystem.

Indexed as

Anaerobic fungiArchaeaBacteriaBarcoded amplicon sequencingDonkeyFecesHinnyHorseMuleZebra

Identifiers

PMID33499982
PMCPMC7807809

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.