Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35193707›Full record

ArticleAnimal microbiome2022

Identification of bovine respiratory disease through the nasal microbiome.

Ruth Eunice Centeno-Martinez, Natalie Glidden, Suraj Mohan, Josiah Levi Davidson, Esteban Fernández-Juricic, Jacquelyn P Boerman, Jon Schoonmaker, Deepti Pillai, Jennifer Koziol, Aaron Ault and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Animal microbiome, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.0field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

41 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 48 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Effect of bovine respiratory disease on the respiratory microbiome: a meta-analysis.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2023
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  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

12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Ruth Eunice Centeno-MartinezDepartment of Animal Science, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1250-8875
Natalie GliddenDepartment of Animal Science, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA.
Suraj MohanDepartment of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9634-7679
Josiah Levi DavidsonDepartment of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2271-1984
Esteban Fernández-JuricicDepartment of Biological Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5290-8078
Jacquelyn P BoermanDepartment of Animal Science, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0336-8295
Jon SchoonmakerDepartment of Animal Science, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6641-0166
Deepti PillaiDepartment of Comparative Pathobiology, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0831-2407
Jennifer KoziolDepartment of Veterinary Clinical Science, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0096-5040
Aaron AultDepartment of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7060-6559
Mohit S VermaDepartment of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6374-3333
Timothy A JohnsonDepartment of Animal Science, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA. john2185@purdue.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8204-547X
Purdue University West Lafayette · USTexas Tech University · US

Funding

National Institute of Food and Agriculture 2020-68014-31302
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBovine respiratory disease (BRD) is an ongoing health and economic challenge in the dairy and beef cattle industries. Multiple risk factors make an animal susceptible to BRD. The presence of Mannheimia haemolytica, Pasteurella multocida, Histophilus somni, and Mycoplasma bovis in lung tissues have been associated with BRD mortalities, but they are also commonly present in the upper respiratory tract of healthy animals. This study aims to compare the cattle nasal microbiome (diversity, composition and community interaction) and the abundance of BRD pathogens (by qPCR) in the nasal microbiome of Holstein steers that are apparently healthy (Healthy group, n = 75) or with BRD clinical signs (BRD group, n = 58). We then used random forest models based on nasal microbial community and qPCR results to classify healthy and BRD-affected animals and determined the agreement with the visual clinical signs. Additionally, co-occurring species pairs were identified in visually BRD or healthy animal groups.

resultsCattle in the BRD group had lower alpha diversity than pen-mates in the healthy group. Amplicon sequence variants (ASVs) from Trueperella pyogenes, Bibersteinia and Mycoplasma spp. were increased in relative abundance in the BRD group, while ASVs from Mycoplasma bovirhinis and Clostridium sensu stricto were increased in the healthy group. Prevalence of H. somni (98%) and P. multocida (97%) was high regardless of BRD clinical signs whereas M. haemolytica (81 and 61%, respectively) and M. bovis (74 and 51%, respectively) were more prevalent in the BRD group than the healthy group. In the BRD group, the abundance of M. haemolytica and M. bovis was increased, while H. somni abundance was decreased. Visual observation of clinical signs agreed with classification by the nasal microbial community (misclassification rate of 32%) and qPCR results (misclassification rate 34%). Co-occurrence analysis demonstrated that the nasal microbiome of BRD-affected cattle presented fewer bacterial associations than healthy cattle.

conclusionsThis study offers insight into the prevalence and abundance of BRD pathogens and the differences in the nasal microbiome between healthy and BRD animals. This suggests that nasal bacterial communities provide a potential platform for future studies and potential pen-side diagnostic testing.

Indexed as

16S rRNA geneBovine respiratory diseaseCattle nasal microbiomeqPCR

Identifiers

PMID35193707
PMCPMC8862248
OpenAlexW4213053359

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.