Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34045683›Full record

ArticleHeredity2021

Experimental validation of small mammal gut microbiota sampling from faeces and from the caecum after death.

Dagmar Čížková, Ľudovít Ďureje, Jaroslav Piálek, Jakub Kreisinger

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Heredity, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 23 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. Frontiers in nutrition · 2023
    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 2 institutions in 1 country.

Dagmar ČížkováInstitute of Vertebrate Biology, Czech Academy of Sciences, Brno, Czech Republic. dejsha@seznam.cz.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5031-7792
Ľudovít ĎurejeInstitute of Vertebrate Biology, Czech Academy of Sciences, Brno, Czech Republic.
Jaroslav PiálekInstitute of Vertebrate Biology, Czech Academy of Sciences, Brno, Czech Republic.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0829-7481
Jakub KreisingerFaculty of Science, Department of Zoology, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic.
Czech Academy of Sciences, Institute of Vertebrate Biology · CZCharles University · CZ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Data on the gut microbiota (GM) of wild animals are key to studies on evolutionary biology (host-GM interactions under natural selection), ecology and conservation biology (GM as a fitness component closely connected to the environment). Wildlife GM sampling often requires non-invasive techniques or sampling from dead animals. In a controlled experiment profiling microbial 16S rRNA in 52 house mice (Mus musculus) from eight families and four genetic backgrounds, we studied the effects of live- and snap-trapping on small mammal GM and evaluated the suitability of microbiota from non-fresh faeces as a proxy for caecal GM. We compared CM from individuals sampled 16-18 h after death with those in live traps and caged controls, and caecal and faecal GM collected from mice in live-traps. Sampling delay did not affect GM composition, validating data from fresh cadavers or snap-trapped animals. Animals trapped overnight displayed a slight but significant difference in GM composition to the caged controls, though the change only had negligible effect on GM diversity, composition and inter-individual divergence. Hence, the trapping process appears not to bias GM profiling. Despite their significant difference, caecal and faecal microbiota were correlated in composition and, to a lesser extent, diversity. Both showed congruent patterns of inter-individual divergence following the natural structure of the dataset. Thus, the faecal microbiome represents a good non-invasive proxy of the caecal microbiome, making it suitable for detecting biologically relevant patterns. However, care should be taken when analysing mixed datasets containing both faecal and caecal samples.

Indexed as

Gastrointestinal MicrobiomeAnimalsCecumFecesMammalsMiceRNA, Ribosomal, 16SRNA, Ribosomal, 16S

Identifiers

PMID34045683
PMCPMC8322053
OpenAlexW3165277548

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.