Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35399089›Full record

ArticleJournal of animal science and biotechnology2022

Donor age and body weight determine the effects of fecal microbiota transplantation on growth performance, and fecal microbiota development in recipient pigs.

Xiaofan Wang, Tsungcheng Tsai, Bin Zuo, Xiaoyuan Wei, Feilong Deng, Ying Li, Charles V Maxwell, Hua Yang, Yingping Xiao, Jiangchao Zhao

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of animal science and biotechnology, 2022. 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
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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, 18 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. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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 2 countries.

Xiaofan Wang *Department of Animal Science, Division of Agriculture, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, USA.
Tsungcheng Tsai *Department of Animal Science, Division of Agriculture, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, USA.
Bin ZuoDepartment of Animal Science, Division of Agriculture, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, USA.
Xiaoyuan WeiDepartment of Animal Science, Division of Agriculture, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, USA.
Feilong DengDepartment of Animal Science, Division of Agriculture, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, USA.
Ying LiGuangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Animal Molecular Design and Precise Breeding, College of Life Science and Engineering, Foshan University, Foshan, 528225, China.
Charles V MaxwellDepartment of Animal Science, Division of Agriculture, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, USA.
Hua YangState Key Laboratory for Managing Biotic and Chemical Threats to the Quality and Safety of Agro-products, Institute of Agro-product Safety and Nutrition, Zhejiang Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Hangzhou, China.
Yingping XiaoState Key Laboratory for Managing Biotic and Chemical Threats to the Quality and Safety of Agro-products, Institute of Agro-product Safety and Nutrition, Zhejiang Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Hangzhou, China. ypxiaozj@hotmail.com.
Jiangchao ZhaoDepartment of Animal Science, Division of Agriculture, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, USA. jzhao77@uark.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2894-8560
University of Arkansas at Fayetteville · USFoshan University · CNZheJiang Academy of Agricultural Sciences · CN

Funding

National Institute of Food and Agriculture 2018-67015-27479
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe application of fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) to improve swine growth performance has been sporadically studied. Most of these studies used a single microbiota source and thus the effect of donor characteristics on recipient pigs' fecal microbiota development and growth performance is largely unknown.

resultsIn this study, we collected feces from six donors with heavy (H) or light (L) body weight and different ages (d 42, nursery; d 96, growing; and d 170, finisher) to evaluate their effects on the growth performance and fecal microbiota development of recipient pigs. Generally, recipients that received two doses of FMT from nursery and finisher stages donor at weaning (21 ± 2 days of age) inherited the donor's growth pattern, while the pigs gavaged with grower stage material exerted a numerically greater weight gain than the control pigs regardless of donor BW. FMT from heavier donors (NH, GH, and FH) led to the recipients to have numerically increased growth compared to their lighter counterparts (NL, GL, and FL, respectively) throughout the growing and most finishing stages. This benefit could be attributed to the enrichment of ASV25 Faecalibacterium, ASV61 Faecalibacterium, ASV438 Coriobacteriaceae_unclassified, ASV144 Bulleidia, and ASV129 Oribacterium and decrease of ASV13 Escherichia during nursery stage. Fecal microbiota transplantation from growing and finishing donors influenced the microbial community significantly in recipient pigs during the nursery stage. FMT of older donors' gut microbiota expedited recipients' microbiota maturity on d 35 and 49, indicated by increased estimated microbiota ages. The age-associated bacterial taxa included ASV206 Ruminococcaceae, ASV211 Butyrivibrio, ASV416 Bacteroides, ASV2 Streptococcus, and ASV291 Veillonellaceae. The body weight differences between GL and GH pigs on d 104 were associated with the increased synthesis of the essential amino acid, lysine and methionine, mixed acid fermentation, expedited glycolysis, and sucrose/galactose degradation.

conclusionsOverall, our study provided insights into how donor age and body weight affect FMT outcomes regarding growth performance, microbiota community shifts, and lower GI tract metabolic potentials. This study also provided guidance to select qualified donors for future fecal microbiota transplantation.

Indexed as

ColonizationFMTGrowth performanceSwine gut microbiome

Identifiers

PMID35399089
PMCPMC8996565
OpenAlexW4223613684

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.