Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35541943›Full record

ArticleRSC advances2018

Differences in gut microbiota between silkworms (

Hui-Ling Dong, Sheng-Xiang Zhang, Zhuo-Hua Chen, Hui Tao, Xue Li, Jian-Feng Qiu, Wen-Zhao Cui, Yang-Hu Sima, Wei-Zheng Cui, Shi-Qing Xu

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in RSC advances, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

32 citing papers in PubMed, 65 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Comparative analysis of gut microbiota inOpen veterinary journal · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Gut Microbiota Analysis in Silkworms (Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024
    Article
  14. Article
  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

10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Hui-Ling DongSchool of Biology and Basic Medical Sciences, Medical College, Soochow University Suzhou 215123 China szsqxu@suda.edu.cn.
Sheng-Xiang ZhangCollege of Forestry, Shandong Agricultural University Taian Shandong 271018 China wzcui88@163.com.
Zhuo-Hua ChenSchool of Biology and Basic Medical Sciences, Medical College, Soochow University Suzhou 215123 China szsqxu@suda.edu.cn.
Hui TaoSchool of Biology and Basic Medical Sciences, Medical College, Soochow University Suzhou 215123 China szsqxu@suda.edu.cn.
Xue LiSchool of Biology and Basic Medical Sciences, Medical College, Soochow University Suzhou 215123 China szsqxu@suda.edu.cn.
Jian-Feng QiuSchool of Biology and Basic Medical Sciences, Medical College, Soochow University Suzhou 215123 China szsqxu@suda.edu.cn.
Wen-Zhao CuiSchool of Biology and Basic Medical Sciences, Medical College, Soochow University Suzhou 215123 China szsqxu@suda.edu.cn.
Yang-Hu SimaSchool of Biology and Basic Medical Sciences, Medical College, Soochow University Suzhou 215123 China szsqxu@suda.edu.cn.
Wei-Zheng CuiCollege of Forestry, Shandong Agricultural University Taian Shandong 271018 China wzcui88@163.com.
Shi-Qing XuSchool of Biology and Basic Medical Sciences, Medical College, Soochow University Suzhou 215123 China szsqxu@suda.edu.cn.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8550-4288
Soochow University · CNSuzhou Research Institute · CNTaian City Central Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Artificial diets for silkworms have many potential applications and they are important in sericulture. However, the challenges of weak larvae and low silk protein synthesis efficiency in silkworms reared on artificial diets have not been resolved. Here, we used high-throughput sequencing to analyse the differences between the gut microbiota of 5th-instar larvae reared on mulberry leaves and larvae reared on an artificial diet. The results showed that at the phylum level, Cyanobacteria, Firmicutes, Proteobacteria, Bacteroidetes and Actinobacteria are the dominant bacteria in the intestines of silkworm larvae of all the strains. But the abundance of dominant bacteria in the gut microbiota differed between the silkworm strains that were reared on mulberry leaves, as well as between the silkworm strains that were reared on the artificial diet, while the gut microbiota diversity was lower in the silkworm strains that were reared on the artificial diet. Prediction of the functions of the gut microbiota in the hosts indicated that there was no significant difference between the silkworm strains that were reared on mulberry leaves, while there were significant differences between silkworm strains reared on the artificial diet. When the silkworm diet changed from mulberry leaves to the artificial diet, changes in gut microbiota in the silkworms affected host nutrient metabolism and immune resistance. These changes may be related to the adaptation of silkworms to their long evolutionary history of eating mulberry leaves.

Identifiers

PMID35541943
PMCPMC9082819
OpenAlexW2883840216

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.