Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35814657›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in microbiology2022

Wild and Captive Environments Drive the Convergence of Gut Microbiota and Impact Health in Threatened Equids.

Zhichao Zhou, Liping Tang, Liping Yan, Huiping Jia, Yu Xiong, Jin Shang, Changliang Shao, Qiangwei Zhang, Hongjun Wang, Lun He and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract 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 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Unstable pathogen profile in spotted seal (Phoca largha) gut microbiota and limited turnover with habitat microbiome.International microbiology : the official journal of the Spanish Society for Microbiology · 2025
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

12 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Zhichao ZhouSchool of Ecology and Nature Conservation, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing, China.
Liping TangSchool of Ecology and Nature Conservation, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing, China.
Liping YanSchool of Ecology and Nature Conservation, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing, China.
Huiping JiaSchool of Ecology and Nature Conservation, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing, China.
Yu XiongSchool of Ecology and Nature Conservation, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing, China.
Jin ShangSchool of Ecology and Nature Conservation, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing, China.
Changliang ShaoMt. Kalamaili Ungulate Nature Reserve, Changji, China.
Qiangwei ZhangGansu Endangered Animals Protection Center, Wuwei, China.
Hongjun WangGansu Endangered Animals Protection Center, Wuwei, China.
Lun HeChina Wildlife Conservation Association, Beijing, China.
Defu HuSchool of Ecology and Nature Conservation, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing, China.
Dong ZhangSchool of Ecology and Nature Conservation, Beijing Forestry University, Beijing, China.
Beijing Forestry University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To explore how the living environment influences the establishment of gut microbiota in different species, as well as the extent to which changes in the living environment caused by captive breeding affect wildlife's gut microbiota and health, we used 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing and shotgun metagenomic sequencing to compare the gut microbiome of two species of threatened equids, the Przewalski's Horse and the Asian wild ass, in the wild and captivity. The results revealed that different species of Equidae living in the same environment showed remarkable convergence of gut microflora. At the same time, captive populations exhibited significantly "unhealthy" microbiota, such as low Alpha diversity, high levels of potentially pathogenic bacteria and biomarkers of physical or psychological disease, and enrichment of microbial functions associated with exogenous exposure and susceptibility, implying that the artificial environment created by captivity may adversely impact the health of wildlife to some extent. Our findings demonstrate the importance of the environmental factors for the establishment of gut microbiota and host health and provide new insights into the conservation of wildlife in captivity from the perspective of the microbiome.

Indexed as

equidgut microbiotahealthmicrobiome convergencesympatrywild and captive

Identifiers

PMID35814657
PMCPMC9259803
OpenAlexW4283315830

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.