Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35011149›Full record

ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2021

Boar Semen Contamination: Identification of Gram-Negative Bacteria and Antimicrobial Resistance Profile.

Luminita Costinar, Viorel Herman, Elena Pitoiu, Ionica Iancu, Janos Degi, Anca Hulea, Corina Pascu

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 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing 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

23 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. A One Health Perspective onMicroorganisms · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Zoonotic Risks ofMicroorganisms · 2025
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Assessment of Bacterial Contamination in Semen.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Multiple Drug ResistantAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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.

Luminita CostinarInfectious Diseases Department, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Banat's University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine "King Michael I of Romania" from Timisoara, 119 Aradului Street Timisoara, Timis County, 300645 Timisoara, Romania.
Viorel HermanInfectious Diseases Department, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Banat's University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine "King Michael I of Romania" from Timisoara, 119 Aradului Street Timisoara, Timis County, 300645 Timisoara, Romania.ORCID 0000-0001-7118-6488
Elena PitoiuSynevovet Laboratory, Industriilor Street, No. 25, Chiajna, Ilfov County, 077040 Chiajna, Romania.
Ionica IancuInfectious Diseases Department, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Banat's University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine "King Michael I of Romania" from Timisoara, 119 Aradului Street Timisoara, Timis County, 300645 Timisoara, Romania.
Janos DegiInfectious Diseases Department, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Banat's University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine "King Michael I of Romania" from Timisoara, 119 Aradului Street Timisoara, Timis County, 300645 Timisoara, Romania.ORCID 0000-0002-5859-5057
Anca HuleaInfectious Diseases Department, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Banat's University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine "King Michael I of Romania" from Timisoara, 119 Aradului Street Timisoara, Timis County, 300645 Timisoara, Romania.
Corina PascuInfectious Diseases Department, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Banat's University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine "King Michael I of Romania" from Timisoara, 119 Aradului Street Timisoara, Timis County, 300645 Timisoara, Romania.ORCID 0000-0002-1013-0437

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Bacterial contamination of boar semen occurs with some frequency in artificial insemination centers and may have a negative effect on the quality of the semen as well as on the sows' reproductive capacity. Normally, the source of bacterial contamination in pig seminal doses is the own boar. However, distilled water or laboratory equipment used to elaborate the seminal doses can be an important source of bacterial contamination. This study focused on the identification of gram-negative bacteria in boar semen, and impact on the quality of ejaculates obtained from boar, as well as on the establishment of antimicrobial resistance patterns of isolated gram-negative bacteria. Semen samples were collected from 96 boars, ranging in age from 12-36 month, from three artificial insemination centers from the North-West of Romania. Bacterial species were identified by two methods: matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight (MALDI-TOF) mass spectrometry and API 20 E (BioMerieux, France). The main bacteria isolated from the doses diluted semen were gram-negative bacteria (47.91%), with a majority of the contaminant bacteria belonging to the family

Indexed as

antimicrobial resistance profileboarsemen microbiota

Identifiers

PMID35011149
PMCPMC8749634

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.