Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34429455›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2021

Wolves, dogs and humans in regular contact can mutually impact each other's skin microbiota.

Stefanie Urimare Wetzels, Cameron R Strachan, Beate Conrady, Martin Wagner, Iwan Anton Burgener, Zsófia Virányi, Evelyne Selberherr

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 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. Article
  3. Article
  4. Human microbiome acquisition and transmission.Nature reviews. Microbiology · 2025
    Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. High-throughput sequencing ofParasitology · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

7 authors.

Stefanie Urimare WetzelsInstitute for Food Safety, Food Technology and Veterinary Public Health, Department for Farm Animal and Public Health in Veterinary Medicine, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Cameron R StrachanFFoQSI - Austrian Competence Centre for Feed and Food Quality, Safety & Innovation, Tulln, Austria.
Beate ConradyDepartment of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, 1870, Frederiksberg C, Denmark.
Martin WagnerInstitute for Food Safety, Food Technology and Veterinary Public Health, Department for Farm Animal and Public Health in Veterinary Medicine, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Iwan Anton BurgenerSmall Animal Internal Medicine, Department for Small Animals and Horses, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Zsófia Virányi *Comparative Cognition, Messerli Research Institute, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Medical University of Vienna, University of Vienna, and Wolf Science Center, Domestication Lab, Konrad Lorenz Institute of Ethology, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Evelyne Selberherr *Institute for Food Safety, Food Technology and Veterinary Public Health, Department for Farm Animal and Public Health in Veterinary Medicine, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Vienna, Austria. Evelyne.Selberherr@vetmeduni.ac.at.

Funding

Austrian Science Fund FWF P 30704
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In contrast to humans and dogs, the skin microbiota of wolves is yet to be described. Here, we investigated the skin microbiota of dogs and wolves kept in outdoor packs at the Wolf Science Center (WSC) via 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing. Skin swab samples were also collected from human care takers and their pet dogs. When comparing the three canine groups, representing different degrees of human contact to the care takers and each other, the pet dogs showed the highest level of diversity. Additionally, while human skin was dominated by a few abundant phylotypes, the skin microbiota of the care takers who had particularly close contact with the WSC animals was more similar to the microbiota of dogs and wolves compared to the humans who had less contact with these animals. Our results suggest that domestication may have an impact on the diversity of the skin microbiota, and that the canine skin microbiota can be shared with humans, depending on the level of interaction.

Indexed as

MicrobiotaAnimalsDogsDomesticationHumansMetagenomeRNA, Ribosomal, 16SSkinWolvesRNA, Ribosomal, 16S

Identifiers

PMID34429455
PMCPMC8385068

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.