Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34857778›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2021

Intestinal microbiota modulation and improved growth in pigs with post-weaning antibiotic and ZnO supplementation but only subtle microbiota effects with Bacillus altitudinis.

Daniel Crespo-Piazuelo, Peadar G Lawlor, Samir Ranjitkar, Paul Cormican, Carmen Villodre, Meike A Bouwhuis, Alan Marsh, Fiona Crispie, Ruth Rattigan, Gillian E Gardiner

Open access · goldAbstract 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 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 28% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Characterization of the Effects of a Novel Probiotic onAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024
    Article
  11. 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

10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Daniel Crespo-PiazueloTeagasc, Pig Development Department, Animal and Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Moorepark, Fermoy, Co. Cork, Ireland.
Peadar G LawlorTeagasc, Pig Development Department, Animal and Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Moorepark, Fermoy, Co. Cork, Ireland.
Samir RanjitkarTeagasc, Pig Development Department, Animal and Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Moorepark, Fermoy, Co. Cork, Ireland.
Paul CormicanTeagasc, Food Research Centre, Moorepark, Fermoy, Co. Cork, Ireland.
Carmen VillodreTeagasc, Pig Development Department, Animal and Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Moorepark, Fermoy, Co. Cork, Ireland.
Meike A BouwhuisTeagasc, Pig Development Department, Animal and Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Moorepark, Fermoy, Co. Cork, Ireland.
Alan MarshEco-Innovation Research Centre, Department of Science, Waterford Institute of Technology, Waterford, Ireland.
Fiona CrispieTeagasc, Food Research Centre, Moorepark, Fermoy, Co. Cork, Ireland.
Ruth RattiganEco-Innovation Research Centre, Department of Science, Waterford Institute of Technology, Waterford, Ireland.
Gillian E GardinerEco-Innovation Research Centre, Department of Science, Waterford Institute of Technology, Waterford, Ireland. ggardiner@wit.ie.
Teagasc - The Irish Agriculture and Food Development Authority · IEWaterford Institute of Technology · IEAPC Microbiome Institute · IE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The objective was to evaluate the effect of dietary Bacillus altitudinis spore supplementation during day (D)0-28 post-weaning (PW) and/or D29-56 PW compared with antibiotic and zinc oxide (AB + ZnO) supplementation on pig growth and gut microbiota. Eighty piglets were selected at weaning and randomly assigned to one of five dietary treatments: (1) negative control (Con/Con); (2) probiotic spores from D29-56 PW (Con/Pro); (3) probiotic spores from D0-28 PW (Pro/Con); (4) probiotic spores from D0-56 PW (Pro/Pro) and (5) AB + ZnO from D0-28 PW. Overall, compared with the AB + ZnO group, the Pro/Con group had lower body weight, average daily gain and feed intake and the Pro/Pro group tended to have lower daily gain and feed intake. However, none of these parameters differed between any of the probiotic-treated groups and the Con/Con group. Overall, AB + ZnO-supplemented pigs had higher Bacteroidaceae and Prevotellaceae and lower Lactobacillaceae and Spirochaetaceae abundance compared to the Con/Con group, which may help to explain improvements in growth between D15-28 PW. The butyrate-producing genera Agathobacter, Faecalibacterium and Roseburia were more abundant in the Pro/Con group compared with the Con/Con group on D35 PW. Thus, whilst supplementation with B. altitudinis did not enhance pig growth performance, it did have a subtle, albeit potentially beneficial, impact on the intestinal microbiota.

Indexed as

Dietary SupplementsAnimalsAnti-Bacterial AgentsBacillusDietEatingFemaleGastrointestinal MicrobiomeMaleProbioticsSwineWeaningWeight GainZinc OxideAnti-Bacterial AgentsZinc Oxide

Identifiers

PMID34857778
PMCPMC8639915
OpenAlexW3215471400

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.