Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35626971›Full record

ReviewFoods (Basel, Switzerland)2022

Gastrointestinal Microbiota and Their Manipulation for Improved Growth and Performance in Chickens.

Shahna Fathima, Revathi Shanmugasundaram, Daniel Adams, Ramesh K Selvaraj

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Foods (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 65 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
65citing papers in PubMed
15.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

65 citing papers in PubMed, 126 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. A meta-analysis ofVeterinary and animal science · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

5 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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 2 institutions in 1 country.

Shahna FathimaDepartment of Poultry Science, The University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30605, USA.
Revathi ShanmugasundaramToxicology and Mycotoxin Research Unit, US National Poultry Research Center, Athens, GA 30605, USA.
Daniel AdamsDepartment of Poultry Science, The University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30605, USA.
Ramesh K SelvarajDepartment of Poultry Science, The University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30605, USA.
University of Georgia · USU.S. National Poultry Research Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The gut of warm-blooded animals is colonized by microbes possibly constituting at least 100 times more genetic material of microbial cells than that of the somatic cells of the host. These microbes have a profound effect on several physiological functions ranging from energy metabolism to the immune response of the host, particularly those associated with the gut immune system. The gut of a newly hatched chick is typically sterile but is rapidly colonized by microbes in the environment, undergoing cycles of development. Several factors such as diet, region of the gastrointestinal tract, housing, environment, and genetics can influence the microbial composition of an individual bird and can confer a distinctive microbiome signature to the individual bird. The microbial composition can be modified by the supplementation of probiotics, prebiotics, or synbiotics. Supplementing these additives can prevent dysbiosis caused by stress factors such as infection, heat stress, and toxins that cause dysbiosis. The mechanism of action and beneficial effects of probiotics vary depending on the strains used. However, it is difficult to establish a relationship between the gut microbiome and host health and productivity due to high variability between flocks due to environmental, nutritional, and host factors. This review compiles information on the gut microbiota, dysbiosis, and additives such as probiotics, postbiotics, prebiotics, and synbiotics, which are capable of modifying gut microbiota and elaborates on the interaction of these additives with chicken gut commensals, immune system, and their consequent effects on health and productivity. Factors to be considered and the unexplored potential of genetic engineering of poultry probiotics in addressing public health concerns and zoonosis associated with the poultry industry are discussed.

Indexed as

microbiotapoultryprebioticprobioticsynbiotic

Identifiers

PMID35626971
PMCPMC9140538
OpenAlexW4280545742

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.