Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35679667›Full record

ArticlePoultry science2022

Effects of cage versus floor rearing system on goose intestinal histomorphology and cecal microbial composition.

Xuejian Li, Shenqiang Hu, Wanxia Wang, Bincheng Tang, Cancai Zheng, Jiwei Hu, Bo Hu, Liang Li, Hehe Liu, Jiwen Wang

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Poultry science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Dietary jack bean (Heliyon · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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 1 institution in 1 country.

Xuejian LiFarm Animal Genetic Resources Exploration and Innovation Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu, Sichuan 611130, China.
Shenqiang HuFarm Animal Genetic Resources Exploration and Innovation Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu, Sichuan 611130, China.
Wanxia WangGeneral Station of Animal Husbandry of Sichuan Province, Chengdu, Sichuan 610066, China.
Bincheng TangFarm Animal Genetic Resources Exploration and Innovation Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu, Sichuan 611130, China.
Cancai ZhengGeneral Station of Animal Husbandry of Sichuan Province, Chengdu, Sichuan 610066, China.
Jiwei HuFarm Animal Genetic Resources Exploration and Innovation Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu, Sichuan 611130, China.
Bo HuFarm Animal Genetic Resources Exploration and Innovation Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu, Sichuan 611130, China.
Liang LiFarm Animal Genetic Resources Exploration and Innovation Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu, Sichuan 611130, China.
Hehe LiuFarm Animal Genetic Resources Exploration and Innovation Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu, Sichuan 611130, China.
Jiwen WangFarm Animal Genetic Resources Exploration and Innovation Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu, Sichuan 611130, China. Electronic address: wjw2886166@163.com.
Sichuan Agricultural University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Due to the demand for modern goose production and the pressure of environmental protection, the rearing systems of geese are changing from traditional waterside rearing to intensive rearing systems such as floor rearing (FR) and cage rearing (CR) systems. However, little is known about the effects of different rearing systems on goose intestinal functions and cecal microbial composition. Therefore, this study aimed to compare intestinal histomorphology and cecal microbial composition differences in geese reared under CR and FR at 270 d of age. Histomorphological analysis showed that the ileal villus height (VH) to crypt depth (CD) ratio was significantly greater in CR than in FR (P < 0.001). Taxonomic analysis showed that the dominant bacteria of cecal microorganisms in both rearing systems were roughly similar, with Bacteroidota, Firmicutes, Fusobacteriota, and Proteobacteria being the dominant phyla while Bacteroides, Fusobacterium, and uncultured_bacterium_o_Bacteroidales being the dominant genera. Differentially abundant taxa between CR and FR were also identified using Linear Discriminant Analysis Effect Size (LEfSe) analysis (P < 0.05, LDA score > 3.5). Megamonas and Anaerobiospirillum were significantly enriched in the CR group at the genus level, while uncultured_bacterium_f_Rikenellaceae and Sutterella were significantly enriched in the FR group. Notably, we found that the relative abundance of uncultured_bacterium_f_Rikenellaceae was significantly negatively correlated with the ileal VH and VH/CD (P < 0.05). The relative abundance of Megamonas and Anaerobiospirillum were significantly negatively correlated with abdominal fat weight and relative abdominal fat weight (P < 0.01), whereas that of Sutterella was significantly positively correlated with abdominal fat weight and relative abdominal fat weight (P < 0.01). Furthermore, PICRUSt2 analysis indicated that the lipid metabolism pathways of cecal microorganisms were lower enriched in CR than in FR. In conclusion, compared with FR, the CR significantly changed goose ileal histomorphological characteristics and cecal microbial composition, thereby affecting goose physiological functions and production performance.

Indexed as

Gastrointestinal MicrobiomeGeeseAnimalsBacteriaBacteroidetesCecumChickensIntestinescecal microorganismsgooseintestinal histomorphologyrearing system

Identifiers

PMID35679667
PMCPMC9189207
OpenAlexW4224723129

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.