Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35545042›Full record

ArticleCell reports2022

Reduced housing density improves statistical power of murine gut microbiota studies.

Amber Russell, Joanna N Copio, Yushu Shi, Sumin Kang, Craig L Franklin, Aaron C Ericsson

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cell reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Symposium: What Does the Microbiome Tell Us about Prevention and Treatment of AD/ADRD?The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2024
    Review
  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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Amber RussellDepartment of Veterinary Pathobiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65201, USA.
Joanna N CopioCollege of Veterinary Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210 USA.
Yushu ShiDepartment of Statistics, College of Arts and Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65201 USA.
Sumin KangDepartment of Statistics, College of Arts and Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65201 USA.
Craig L FranklinDepartment of Veterinary Pathobiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65201, USA; University of Missouri Metagenomics Center, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65201 USA; Mutant Mouse Resource and Research Center, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65201 USA.
Aaron C EricssonDepartment of Veterinary Pathobiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65201, USA; University of Missouri Metagenomics Center, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65201 USA; Mutant Mouse Resource and Research Center, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65201 USA. Electronic address: ericssona@missouri.edu.
Missouri College · USUniversity of Missouri · USThe Ohio State University · US

Funding

The Mutant Mouse Resource and Research Center at the University of Missouri - ResourceU42OD010918 · OD · UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI-COLUMBIA · PI James Amos-Landgraf · 2012 to 2026
$25.1M
MUTANT MOUSE RESOURCE AND RESEARCH CENTER: ANIMAL EMBRYONIC STEM CELLSU42RR014821 · NCRR · UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI-COLUMBIA · PI FRANKLIN, CRAIG L · 2000 to 2011
$15.8M
NCRR NIH HHS U42 RR014821NIH HHS U42 OD010918
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The gut microbiome of humans and animals is critical to host health. Mice are used to investigate the microbiome and its influences; however, the predictive value of such studies is hindered by cage effects due to coprophagy. Our objectives were to evaluate the influence of cage density on the statistical power to detect treatment-dependent effects of a selective pressure on microbiome composition. C57BL/6 mice were separated into groups of 2 or 4 mice per cage and then assigned to groups receiving enrofloxacin, broad-spectrum antibiotics, or control. Fecal samples were collected at weeks 0, 1, and 4, along with contents of the jejunum and cecum. Bacterial DNA analysis examined microbiome richness, diversity, and variability within and between cages. Statistical analyses reveal that reduced housing density consistently results in comparable susceptibility to antibiotics, reduced cage effects, and increased statistical power to detect treatment-associated effects, justifying the practice of reduced housing density.

Indexed as

Gastrointestinal MicrobiomeAnimalsAnti-Bacterial AgentsBacteriaFecesHousingMiceMice, Inbred C57BLAnti-Bacterial Agentsantibioticcage effectCP: Microbiologymicrobiomemicrobiotamousestatistical power

Identifiers

PMID35545042
PMCPMC9161176
OpenAlexW4280554070

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.