Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34207572›Full record

ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2021

Comparative Metagenomic Analysis of Chicken Gut Microbial Community, Function, and Resistome to Evaluate Noninvasive and Cecal Sampling Resources.

Kelang Kang, Yan Hu, Shu Wu, Shourong Shi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing 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

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. SCiMS: Sex Calling in Metagenomic Sequences.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Fluoroquinolone-resistantJAC-antimicrobial resistance · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. The effect ofFrontiers in veterinary science · 2024
    Article
  13. Investigating the modulatory effects ofFrontiers in veterinary science · 2023
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
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.

Kelang KangPoultry Institute, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Science, Yangzhou 225000, China.ORCID 0000-0002-8720-1395
Yan HuPoultry Institute, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Science, Yangzhou 225000, China.
Shu WuPoultry Institute, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Science, Yangzhou 225000, China.
Shourong ShiPoultry Institute, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Science, Yangzhou 225000, China.ORCID 0000-0002-8011-2883

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

When conducting metagenomic analysis on gut microbiomes, there is no general consensus concerning the mode of sampling: non-contact (feces), noninvasive (rectal swabs), or cecal. This study aimed to determine the feasibility and comparative merits and disadvantages of using fecal samples or rectal swabs as a proxy for the cecal microbiome. Using broiler as a model, gut microbiomes were obtained from cecal, cloacal, and fecal samples and were characterized according to an analysis of the microbial community, function, and resistome. Cecal samples had higher microbial diversity than feces, while the cecum and cloaca exhibited higher levels of microbial community structure similarity compared with fecal samples. Cecal microbiota possessed higher levels of DNA replicative viability than feces, while fecal microbiota were correlated with increased metabolic activity. When feces were excreted, the abundance of antibiotic resistance genes like

Indexed as

bacterial communitychickensmetagenomeresistomesampling resources

Identifiers

PMID34207572
PMCPMC8228302

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.