Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35511785›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

Rumen sampling methods bias bacterial communities observed.

Jill V Hagey, Maia Laabs, Elizabeth A Maga, Edward J DePeters

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
7.1field-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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Effects of FermentedAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Gut Microbiota of Ruminants and Monogastric Livestock: An Overview.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Effects of diets for three growing stages by rumen inocula donors onJournal of animal science and technology · 2024
    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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jill V HageyDepartment of Animal Science, University of California Davis, Davis, California, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-1308-3429
Maia LaabsDepartment of Animal Science, University of California Davis, Davis, California, United States of America.
Elizabeth A MagaDepartment of Animal Science, University of California Davis, Davis, California, United States of America.
Edward J DePetersDepartment of Animal Science, University of California Davis, Davis, California, United States of America.
University of California, Davis · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The rumen is a complex ecosystem that plays a critical role in our efforts to improve feed efficiency of cattle and reduce their environmental impacts. Sequencing of the 16S rRNA gene provides a powerful tool to survey the bacterial and some archaeal. Oral stomach tubing a cow to collect a rumen sample is a rapid, cost-effective alternative to rumen cannulation for acquiring rumen samples. In this study, we determined how sampling method (oral stomach tubing vs cannulated grab sample), as well as rumen fraction type (liquid vs solid), bias the bacterial and archaeal communities observed. Liquid samples were further divided into liquid strained through cheesecloth and unstrained. Fecal samples were also collected to determine how these differed from the rumen sample types. The abundance of major archaeal communities was not different at the family level in samples acquired via rumen cannula or stomach tube. In contrast to the stable archaeal communities across sample type, the bacterial order WCHB1-41 (phylum Kiritimatiellaeota) was enriched in both liquid strained and unstrained samples as well as the family Prevotellaceae as compared to grab samples. However, these liquid samples had significantly lower abundance of Lachnospiraceae compared with grab samples. Solid samples strained of rumen liquid most closely resembled the grab samples containing both rumen liquid and solid particles obtained directly from the rumen cannula; therefore, inclusion of particulate matter is important for an accurate representation of the rumen bacteria. Stomach tube samples were the most variable and were most representative of the liquid phase. In comparison with a grab sample, stomach tube samples had significantly lower abundance of Lachnospiraceae, Fibrobacter and Treponema. Fecal samples did not reflect the community composition of the rumen, as fecal samples had significantly higher relative abundance of Ruminococcaceae and significantly lower relative abundance of Lachnospiraceae compared with grab samples.

Indexed as

EcosystemRumenAnimal FeedAnimalsArchaeaBacteriaCattleDietFemaleRNA, Ribosomal, 16SRNA, Ribosomal, 16S

Identifiers

PMID35511785
PMCPMC9070869
OpenAlexW4229014846

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
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.