Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35272712›Full record

ArticleAnimal microbiome2022

Resistomes and microbiome of meat trimmings and colon content from culled cows raised in conventional and organic production systems.

Margaret D Weinroth, Kevin M Thomas, Enrique Doster, Amit Vikram, John W Schmidt, Terrance M Arthur, Tommy L Wheeler, Jennifer K Parker, Ayanna S Hanes, Najla Alekoza and 4 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 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Transmission of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) during animal transport.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2022
    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

14 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Margaret D WeinrothDepartment of Animal Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8351-395X
Kevin M ThomasDepartment of Animal Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA.
Enrique DosterDepartment of Microbiology Immunology and Pathology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA.
Amit VikramU.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Roman L. Hruska U.S. Meat Animal Research Center, Clay Center, NE, USA.
John W SchmidtU.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Roman L. Hruska U.S. Meat Animal Research Center, Clay Center, NE, USA.
Terrance M ArthurU.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Roman L. Hruska U.S. Meat Animal Research Center, Clay Center, NE, USA.
Tommy L WheelerU.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Roman L. Hruska U.S. Meat Animal Research Center, Clay Center, NE, USA.
Jennifer K ParkerDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA.
Ayanna S HanesDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA.
Najla AlekozaDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA.
Cory WolfeDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA.
Jessica L MetcalfDepartment of Animal Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA.
Paul S Morley *Veterinary Education, Research, and Outreach Program, Texas A&M University and West Texas A&M University, Canyon, TX, 79105, USA. pmorley@cvm.tamu.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8138-2714
Keith E Belk *Department of Animal Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA.
Colorado State University · USAgricultural Research Service · USWest Texas A&M University · US

Funding

Agricultural Research Service 3040-42000-019
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe potential to distribute bacteria resistant to antimicrobial drugs in the meat supply is a public health concern. Market cows make up a fifth of the U.S. beef produced but little is known about the entire population of bacteria (the microbiome) and entirety of all resistance genes (the resistome) that are found in this population. The objective of this study was to characterize and compare the resistomes and microbiome of beef, dairy, and organic dairy market cows at slaughter.

methodsFifty-four (N = 54) composite samples of both colon content and meat trimmings rinsate samples were collected over six visits to two harvest facilities from cows raised in three different production systems: conventional beef, conventional dairy, and organic dairy (n = 3 samples per visit per production system). Metagenomic DNA obtained from samples were analyzed using target-enriched sequencing (resistome) and 16S rRNA gene sequencing (microbiome).

resultsAll colon content samples had at least one identifiable antimicrobial resistance gene (ARG), while 21 of the 54 meat trimmings samples harbored at least one identifiable ARGs. Tetracycline ARGs were the most abundant class in both colon content and carcass meat trimmings. The resistome found on carcass meat trimmings was not significantly different by production system (P = 0.84, R

conclusionsThese data provide a baseline characterization of an important segment of the beef industry and highlight the effect that the production system where cattle are raised and the harvest facilities where an animal is processed can impact associated microbiome and resistomes.

Indexed as

16SAntibiotic resistanceBovineMicrobiomeTarget-enriched metagenomics

Identifiers

PMID35272712
PMCPMC8908682
OpenAlexW4220894043

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.