ReviewMammalian genome : official journal of the International Mammalian Genome Society2021
New insights into the microbiota of wild mice.
Review in Mammalian genome : official journal of the International Mammalian Genome Society, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The impact of microplastics on the mice gut microbiome: a meta-analysis.Scientific reports · 2026Pooled it
- Eco-tank Housing Maintains Wild-Type Microbiota and Rewilds the Laboratory Mouse Gut Microbiome to Restore Natural Immune Tone.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Integrating the Microbiome Into Infection Ecology and Evolution in Wild Animals.Molecular ecology · 2026Review
- Characterization of the gut microbiome of wildFrontiers in microbiomes · 2026Article
- Virus-induced perturbations in the mouse microbiome are impacted by microbial experience.mSphere · 2025Article
- Characteristic visual phenotypes in Korean wild mice (KWM/Hym).Laboratory animal research · 2024Article
- The potential importance of the built-environment microbiome and its impact on human health.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024Article
- The baseline immunological and hygienic status of pigs impact disease severity of African swine fever.PLoS pathogens · 2022Article
- Inflammation Controls Susceptibility of Immune-Experienced Mice to Sepsis.ImmunoHorizons · 2022Article
- Insights from targeting transferrin receptors to develop vaccines for pathogens of humans and food production animals.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Laboratory mice have long been an invaluable tool in biomedical science and have made significant contributions in research into life-threatening diseases. However, the translation of research results from mice to humans often proves difficult due to the incomplete nature of laboratory animal-based research. Hence, there is increasing demand for complementary methods or alternatives to laboratory mice that can better mimic human physiological traits and potentially bridge the translational research gap. Under these circumstances, the natural/naturalized mice including "wild", "dirty", "wildling", and "wilded" systems have been found to better reflect some aspects of human pathophysiology. Here, we discuss the pros and cons of the laboratory mouse system and contemplate how wild mice and wild microbiota are able to help in refining such systems to better mimic the real-world situation and contribute to more productive translational research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.