Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34189610›Full record

ArticleMicrobial ecology2022

Comparative Analyses of the Gut Microbiome of Two Fox Species, the Red Fox (Vulpes Vulpes) and Corsac Fox (Vulpes Corsac), that Occupy Different Ecological Niches.

Xibao Wang, Yongquan Shang, Qinguo Wei, Xiaoyang Wu, Huashan Dou, Huanxin Zhang, Shengyang Zhou, Weilai Sha, Guolei Sun, Shengchao Ma and 1 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Microbial ecology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Effects ofAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Gut Microbiome of Two Rodent Species (Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Comparative Analyses ofEcology and evolution · 2024
    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

11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Xibao WangCollege of Life Science, Qufu Normal University, Qufu, China.
Yongquan ShangCollege of Life Science, Qufu Normal University, Qufu, China.
Qinguo WeiCollege of Life Science, Qufu Normal University, Qufu, China.
Xiaoyang WuCollege of Life Science, Qufu Normal University, Qufu, China.
Huashan DouHulunbuir Academy of Inland Lakes in Northern Cold & Arid Areas, Hulunbuir, China.
Huanxin ZhangCollege of Marine Life Sciences, Ocean University of China, Qingdao, China.
Shengyang ZhouCollege of Life Science, Qufu Normal University, Qufu, China.
Weilai ShaCollege of Life Science, Qufu Normal University, Qufu, China.
Guolei SunCollege of Life Science, Qufu Normal University, Qufu, China.
Shengchao MaCollege of Life Science, Qufu Normal University, Qufu, China.
Honghai ZhangCollege of Life Science, Qufu Normal University, Qufu, China. zhanghonghai67@126.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5010-2502
Qufu Normal University · CNHulunbuir University · CN

Funding

the national natural science foundation of china 31672313the national natural science foundation of china 31872242the national natural science foundation of china 32000291the national natural science foundation of china 32001228the national natural science foundation of china 32070405the national natural science foundation of china 61902368the Special Fund for Forest Scientific Research in the Public Welfare 201404420
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The gut microbiome is integral for the host's living and environmental adaptation and crucially important for understanding host adaptive mechanisms. The red fox (Vulpes vulpes) dominates a wider ecological niche and more complicated habitat than that of the corsac fox (V. corsac). However, the adaptive mechanisms (in particular, the gut microbiome responsible for this kind of difference) are still unclear. Therefore, we investigated the gut microbiome of these two species in the Hulunbuir grassland, China, and evaluated their microbiome composition, function, and adaptive mechanisms. We profiled the gut microbiome and metabolism function of red and corsac foxes via 16S rRNA gene and metagenome sequencing. The foxes harbored species-specific microbiomes and functions that were related to ecological niche and habitat. The red fox had abundant Bacteroides, which leads to significant enrichment of metabolic pathways (K12373 and K21572) and enzymes related to chitin and carbohydrate degradation that may help the red fox adapt to a wider niche. The corsac fox harbored large proportions of Blautia, Terrisporobacter, and ATP-binding cassette (ABC) transporters (K01990, K02003, and K06147) that can help maintain corsac fox health, allowing it to live in harsh habitats. These results indicate that the gut microbiome of the red and corsac foxes may have different abilities which may provide these species with differing capabilities to adapt to different ecological niches and habitats, thus providing important microbiome data for understanding the mechanisms of host adaptation to different niches and habitats.

Indexed as

FoxesGastrointestinal MicrobiomeAnimalsEcosystemRNA, Ribosomal, 16SSpecies SpecificityRNA, Ribosomal, 16SCorsac fox (Vulpes corsac)Ecological nicheGut microbiomeRed fox (Vulpes vulpes)

Identifiers

PMID34189610
OpenAlexW3177028466

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.