Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35606841›Full record

ArticleAnimal microbiome2022

Microbiome differences between wild and aquarium whitespotted eagle rays (Aetobatus narinari).

Ana G Clavere-Graciette, Mary E McWhirt, Lisa A Hoopes, Kim Bassos-Hull, Krystan A Wilkinson, Frank J Stewart, Zoe A Pratte

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 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 26% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Ana G Clavere-GracietteSchool of Biological Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Mary E McWhirtSchool of Biological Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Lisa A HoopesDepartment of Research and Conservation, Georgia Aquarium, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Kim Bassos-HullSharks and Rays Conservation Research Program, Mote Marine Laboratory, Sarasota, FL, USA.
Krystan A WilkinsonSharks and Rays Conservation Research Program, Mote Marine Laboratory, Sarasota, FL, USA.
Frank J StewartSchool of Biological Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Zoe A PratteSchool of Biological Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA. zoe.pratte@montana.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8323-8916
Georgia Institute of Technology · USMote Marine Laboratory · USFlorida Aquarium · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAnimal-associated microbiomes can be influenced by both host and environmental factors. Comparing wild animals to those in zoos or aquariums can help disentangle the effects of host versus environmental factors, while also testing whether managed conditions foster a 'natural' host microbiome. Focusing on an endangered elasmobranch species-the whitespotted eagle ray Aetobatus narinari-we compared the skin, gill, and cloaca microbiomes of wild individuals to those at Georgia Aquarium. Whitespotted eagle ray microbiomes from Georgia Aquarium were also compared to those of cownose rays (Rhinoptera bonasus) in the same exhibit, allowing us to explore the effect of host identity on the ray microbiome.

resultsLong-term veterinary monitoring indicated that the rays in managed care did not have a history of disease and maintained health parameters consistent with those of wild individuals, with one exception. Aquarium whitespotted eagle rays were regularly treated to control parasite loads, but the effects on animal health were subclinical. Microbiome α- and β-diversity differed between wild versus aquarium whitespotted eagle rays at all body sites, with α-diversity significantly higher in wild individuals. β-diversity differences in wild versus aquarium whitespotted eagle rays were greater for skin and gill microbiomes compared to those of the cloaca. At each body site, we also detected microbial taxa shared between wild and aquarium eagle rays. Additionally, the cloaca, skin, and gill microbiomes of aquarium eagle rays differed from those of cownose rays in the same exhibit. Potentially pathogenic bacteria were at low abundance in all wild and aquarium rays.

conclusionFor whitespotted eagle rays, managed care was associated with a microbiome differing significantly from that of wild individuals. These differences were not absolute, as the microbiome of aquarium rays shared members with that of wild counterparts and was distinct from that of a cohabitating ray species. Eagle rays under managed care appear healthy, suggesting that their microbiomes are not associated with compromised host health. However, the ray microbiome is dynamic, differing with both environmental factors and host identity. Monitoring of aquarium ray microbiomes over time may identify taxonomic patterns that co-vary with host health.

Indexed as

AquariumElasmobranchFishHost-associatedHost healthMicrobial community

Identifiers

PMID35606841
PMCPMC9128078
OpenAlexW4281385925

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.