Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33945191›Full record

ArticleJournal of applied microbiology2021

Dead or alive: microbial viability treatment reveals both active and inactive bacterial constituents in the fish gut microbiota.

T P R A Legrand, M L Wos-Oxley, J W Wynne, L S Weyrich, A P A Oxley

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of applied microbiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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.

T P R A LegrandSchool of Biological Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3386-1598
M L Wos-OxleyCollege of Science and Engineering, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
J W WynneCSIRO, Agriculture and Food, Hobart, Tas, Australia.
L S WeyrichSchool of Biological Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
A P A OxleyFaculty of Science Engineering and Built Environment, School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Deakin University, Geelong, Vic., Australia.

Funding

Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation Postgraduate Scholarship program
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsThis study evaluated the microbial viability of fish gut microbiota in both digesta (faecal) and mucosal samples using a modified propidium monoazide (PMA) protocol, followed by 16S ribosomal RNA (rRNA) gene sequencing. METHODS AND

resultsDigesta and gut mucosal samples from farmed yellowtail kingfish (Seriola lalandi) were collected and a modified PMA treatment was applied prior to DNA extraction to differentiate both active and nonviable microbial cells in the samples. All samples were then sequenced using a standard 16S rRNA approach. The digesta and mucosal samples contained significantly different bacterial communities, with a higher diversity observed in digesta samples. In addition, PMA treatment significantly reduced the microbial diversity and richness of digesta and mucosal samples and depleted bacterial constituents typically considered to be important within fish, such as Lactobacillales and Clostridales taxa.

conclusionsThese findings suggest that important bacterial members may not be active in the fish gut microbiota. In particular, several beneficial lactic acid bacteria (LAB) were identified as nonviable bacterial cells, potentially influencing the functional potential of the fish microbiota. SIGNIFICANCE AND IMPACTS OF THE STUDY: Standardizing the methods for characterizing the fish microbiota are paramount in order to compare studies. In this study, we showed that both sample type and PMA treatment influence the bacterial communities found in the fish gut microbiota. Our findings also suggest that several microbes previously described in the fish gut may not be active constituents. As a result, these factors should be considered in future studies to better evaluate the active bacterial communities associated with the host.

Indexed as

Gastrointestinal MicrobiomeMicrobiotaAnimalsBacteriaDNA, BacterialMicrobial ViabilityRNA, Ribosomal, 16SDNA, BacterialRNA, Ribosomal, 16S16S rRNAfishgutmicrobiotaPMAviabilityyellowtail kingfish

Identifiers

PMID33945191
PMCPMC8596808

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.