Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34322532›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2021

Comparative Analysis of the Fecal Bacterial Microbiota of Wintering Whooper Swans (

Wenxia Wang, Songlin Huang, Liangliang Yang, Guogang Zhang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing 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

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Metagenomic analysis of the gut microbiota inFrontiers in microbiology · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Comparison of the Gut Microbial Communities of Domestic and Wild Mallards (Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Comparative analysis of the intestinal microbiota of black-necked cranes (Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2023
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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.

Wenxia WangResearch Institute of Forestry Policy and Information, Chinese Academy of Forestry, Beijing, China.
Songlin HuangResearch Institute of Forest Ecology, Environment and Protection, Chinese Academy of Forestry, Beijing, China.
Liangliang YangResearch Institute of Forest Ecology, Environment and Protection, Chinese Academy of Forestry, Beijing, China.
Guogang ZhangResearch Institute of Forest Ecology, Environment and Protection, Chinese Academy of Forestry, Beijing, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There are many and diverse intestinal microbiota, and they are closely related to various physiological functions of the body. They directly participate in the host's food digestion, nutrient absorption, energy metabolism, immune response, and many other physiological activities and are also related to the occurrence of many diseases. The intestinal microbiota are extremely important for maintaining normal physical health. In order to explore the composition and differences of the intestinal microbiota of whooper swans in different wintering areas, we collected fecal samples of whooper swans in Sanmenxia, Henan, and Rongcheng, Shandong, and we used the Illumina HiSeq platform to perform high-throughput sequencing of bacterial 16S rRNA genes. Comparison between Sanmenxia and Rongcheng showed no significant differences in ACE, Chao 1, Simpson, and Shannon indices (

Indexed as

16S-rRNA gene sequencingbacterial microbiotaconservationLEfSe analysiswintering whooper swans

Identifiers

PMID34322532
PMCPMC8310996

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.