Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35783446›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in microbiology2022

The Gut Microbiome of 54 Mammalian Species.

Nadieh de Jonge, Benjamin Carlsen, Mikkel Hostrup Christensen, Cino Pertoldi, Jeppe Lund Nielsen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in microbiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 60 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
60citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

60 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Investigation of probiotic, anticancer and antimicrobial activity of Enterococcus bacteria isolated from the gut microbiota of marine snails.International microbiology : the official journal of the Spanish Society for Microbiology · 2026
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. The prairie vole gut-brain-microbiota-axis: a narrative review.Gut microbiome (Cambridge, England) · 2026
    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

5 authors.

Nadieh de JongeDepartment of Chemistry and Bioscience, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark.
Benjamin CarlsenDepartment of Chemistry and Bioscience, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark.
Mikkel Hostrup ChristensenDepartment of Chemistry and Bioscience, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark.
Cino PertoldiDepartment of Chemistry and Bioscience, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark.
Jeppe Lund NielsenDepartment of Chemistry and Bioscience, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The gut microbiome plays a critical role in many aspects of host life, and the microbial community composition is heavily influenced by the prevailing conditions in the gut environment. Community composition has been suggested to have large implications for conservation efforts, and gut health has become of interest for optimizing animal care in captivity. In this study, we explore the gut microbiome of a wide range of animals in the context of conservation biology. The composition of the gut microbial community of 54 mammalian animal species was investigated using 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing. The composition of the gut microbiota clearly reflects diet and the structure of the gastrointestinal system, and it is to a certain degree more similar between closely related animals. Specific clusters of taxa were observed across animals of the same species, diet, and gut morphology. The microbiota retained regardless of captivity status is hypothesized to cover important symbiotic relationships with the host, while the remaining part reflects the artificial living conditions and can therefore be used as a future tool for conservation biologists. For five animal species (giraffes, horses, baboons, elephants, and zebras), it was possible to compare the microbiota of wild and captive individuals. Differences were observed in the proportion of microbiota detected between wild and captive specimens of the same animal species. We propose that the gut microbiota harbours important species, which can potentially serve as indicators for the well-being of the animal and the effect of living in captivity.

Indexed as

captivityconservation biologydietgut microbiotagut physiologymammals

Identifiers

PMID35783446
PMCPMC9246093

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.