Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35749534›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

Phylogenetic diversity analysis of shotgun metagenomic reads describes gut microbiome development and treatment effects in the post-weaned pig.

Daniela Gaio, Matthew Z DeMaere, Kay Anantanawat, Graeme J Eamens, Linda Falconer, Toni A Chapman, Steven Djordjevic, Aaron E Darling

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 29% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Hackflex library preparation enables low-cost metagenomic profiling.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. From Farm to Fork:Viruses · 2022
    Review
  10. 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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Daniela GaioiThree Institute, University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-7695-3145
Matthew Z DeMaereiThree Institute, University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-7601-5108
Kay AnantanawatiThree Institute, University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo, Australia.
Graeme J EamensNSW Department of Primary Industries, Elizabeth Macarthur Agricultural Institute, Menangle, Australia.
Linda FalconerNSW Department of Primary Industries, Elizabeth Macarthur Agricultural Institute, Menangle, Australia.
Toni A ChapmanNSW Department of Primary Industries, Elizabeth Macarthur Agricultural Institute, Menangle, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-4571-1629
Steven DjordjeviciThree Institute, University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo, Australia.
Aaron E DarlingiThree Institute, University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo, Australia.
University of Technology Sydney · AUNew South Wales Department of Primary Industries · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Intensive farming practices can increase exposure of animals to infectious agents against which antibiotics are used. Orally administered antibiotics are well known to cause dysbiosis. To counteract dysbiotic effects, numerous studies in the past two decades sought to understand whether probiotics are a valid tool to help re-establish a healthy gut microbial community after antibiotic treatment. Although dysbiotic effects of antibiotics are well investigated, little is known about the effects of intramuscular antibiotic treatment on the gut microbiome and a few studies attempted to study treatment effects using phylogenetic diversity analysis techniques. In this study we sought to determine the effects of two probiotic- and one intramuscularly administered antibiotic treatment on the developing gut microbiome of post-weaning piglets between their 3rd and 9th week of life. Shotgun metagenomic sequences from over 800 faecal time-series samples derived from 126 post-weaning piglets and 42 sows were analysed in a phylogenetic framework. Differences between individual hosts such as breed, litter, and age, were found to be important contributors to variation in the community composition. Host age was the dominant factor in shaping the gut microbiota of piglets after weaning. The post-weaning pig gut microbiome appeared to follow a highly structured developmental program with characteristic post-weaning changes that can distinguish hosts that were born as little as two days apart in the second month of life. Treatment effects of the antibiotic and probiotic treatments were found but were subtle and included a higher representation of Mollicutes associated with intramuscular antibiotic treatment, and an increase of Lactobacillus associated with probiotic treatment. The discovery of correlations between experimental factors and microbial community composition is more commonly addressed with OTU-based methods and rarely analysed via phylogenetic diversity measures. The latter method, although less intuitive than the former, suffers less from library size normalization biases, and it proved to be instrumental in this study for the discovery of correlations between microbiome composition and host-, and treatment factors.

Indexed as

Gastrointestinal MicrobiomeMicrobiotaProbioticsAnimalsAnti-Bacterial AgentsDysbiosisFemalePhylogenySwineWeaningAnti-Bacterial Agents

Identifiers

PMID35749534
PMCPMC9232140
OpenAlexW4283461083

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.