Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35904731›Full record

ArticleProbiotics and antimicrobial proteins2023

Evaluation of the Efficacy of Enterococcus faecium L3 as a Feed Probiotic Additive in Chicken.

Alexander Suvorov, Shuangzhi Zhao, Galina Leontieva, Galina Alekhina, Jinyu Yang, Anna Tsapieva, Alena Karaseva, Valentina Smelova, Danyang Guo, Leilei Chen

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Probiotics and antimicrobial proteins, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing 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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Effects of Mink-OriginAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024
    Article
  12. Effects of dietary supplementation ofFrontiers in veterinary science · 2024
    Article
  13. Article
  14. 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.

Alexander SuvorovInstitute of Experimental Medicine, Akademika Pavlova, 12, St. Petersburg, 197376, Russia. alexander_suvorov1@hotmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2312-5589
Shuangzhi ZhaoInstitute of Agro-Food Science and Technology & Shandong Provincial Key Laboratory of Agro-Products Processing Technology, Shandong Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Jinan, China.
Galina LeontievaInstitute of Experimental Medicine, Akademika Pavlova, 12, St. Petersburg, 197376, Russia.
Galina AlekhinaInstitute of Experimental Medicine, Akademika Pavlova, 12, St. Petersburg, 197376, Russia.
Jinyu YangInstitute of Agro-Food Science and Technology & Shandong Provincial Key Laboratory of Agro-Products Processing Technology, Shandong Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Jinan, China.
Anna TsapievaInstitute of Experimental Medicine, Akademika Pavlova, 12, St. Petersburg, 197376, Russia.
Alena KarasevaInstitute of Experimental Medicine, Akademika Pavlova, 12, St. Petersburg, 197376, Russia.
Valentina SmelovaInstitute of Experimental Medicine, Akademika Pavlova, 12, St. Petersburg, 197376, Russia.
Danyang GuoInstitute of Agro-Food Science and Technology & Shandong Provincial Key Laboratory of Agro-Products Processing Technology, Shandong Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Jinan, China.
Leilei ChenInstitute of Agro-Food Science and Technology & Shandong Provincial Key Laboratory of Agro-Products Processing Technology, Shandong Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Jinan, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The study was devoted to the comparison of the probiotic effect of enterococcal Enterococcus faecium L3 to the antibiotic enramycin as a chicken feed additive. Two hundred and sixteen chickens were divided into three groups and tested by different parameters including weight gain, food consumption, blood biochemistry, immunology, and caecal microbiome at two checkpoints, 21 and 39 days after birth. By the end of the experiment, a group of chickens getting probiotic demonstrated weight gain of more than 100 g at the average relative to the control group with no additive in animal feed (P < 0.05). Blood serum biochemistry showed a significant increase in HDL level (P < 0.05) relative to the control group. The 16S RNA sequencing demonstrated the growth abundance of Lachnospiraceae and the decrease of Proteobacteria in probiotic fed group. On the contrary, the antibiotic fed group showed a noticeable increase in the abundance of Proteobacteria which included the genus Salmonella. Thus, probiotic E. faecium L3 being added to chicken food as a single additive may be considered as a possible replacement of antibiotic enramycin.

Indexed as

Enterococcus faeciumMicrobiotaProbioticsAnimal FeedAnimalsAnti-Bacterial AgentsChickensAnti-Bacterial AgentsAnimal feedChickenEnterococcus faeciumEnterotypeMicrobiomeMicrobiotaProbiotic

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.