Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36314753›Full record

ArticleMicrobiologyOpen2022

Enriching captivity conditions with natural elements does not prevent the loss of wild-like gut microbiota but shapes its compositional variation in two small mammals.

Adam Koziol, Iñaki Odriozola, Lasse Nyholm, Aoife Leonard, Carlos San José, Joana Pauperio, Clara Ferreira, Anders J Hansen, Ostaizka Aizpurua, M Thomas P Gilbert and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in MicrobiologyOpen, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

11 authors.

Adam KoziolCenter for Evolutionary Hologenomics, Globe Institute, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-7721-4790
Iñaki OdriozolaCenter for Evolutionary Hologenomics, Globe Institute, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Lasse NyholmCenter for Evolutionary Hologenomics, Globe Institute, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Aoife LeonardCenter for Evolutionary Hologenomics, Globe Institute, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Carlos San JoséBiodonostia Health Research Institute, Donostia-San Sebastian, Spain.
Joana PauperioCIBIO-Centro de Investigação em Biodiversidade e Recursos Genéticos, InBIO Laboratório Associado, Universidade do Porto, Vila do Conde, Campus de Vairão, Portugal.
Clara FerreiraAnimal Ecology, Institute for Biochemistry and Biology, University of Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany.
Anders J HansenCenter for Evolutionary Hologenomics, Globe Institute, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Ostaizka AizpuruaCenter for Evolutionary Hologenomics, Globe Institute, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
M Thomas P GilbertCenter for Evolutionary Hologenomics, Globe Institute, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Antton AlberdiCenter for Evolutionary Hologenomics, Globe Institute, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As continued growth in gut microbiota studies in captive and model animals elucidates the importance of their role in host biology, further pursuit of how to retain a wild-like microbial community is becoming increasingly important to obtain representative results from captive animals. In this study, we assessed how the gut microbiota of two wild-caught small mammals, namely Crocidura russula (Eulipotyphla, insectivore) and Apodemus sylvaticus (Rodentia, omnivore), changed when bringing them into captivity. We analyzed fecal samples of 15 A. sylvaticus and 21 C. russula, immediately after bringing them into captivity and 5 weeks later, spread over two housing treatments: a "natural" setup enriched with elements freshly collected from nature and a "laboratory" setup with sterile artificial elements. Through sequencing of the V3-V4 region of the 16S recombinant RNA gene, we found that the initial microbial diversity dropped during captivity in both species, regardless of treatment. Community composition underwent a change of similar magnitude in both species and under both treatments. However, we did observe that the temporal development of the gut microbiome took different trajectories (i.e., changed in different directions) under different treatments, particularly in C. russula, suggesting that C. russula may be more susceptible to environmental change. The results of this experiment do not support the use of microbially enriched environments to retain wild-like microbial diversities and compositions, yet show that specific housing conditions can significantly affect the drift of microbial communities under captivity.

Indexed as

Gastrointestinal MicrobiomeMicrobiotaAnimalsBacteriaFecesMammalsRNA, Ribosomal, 16SRNA, Ribosomal, 16S16Scaptivitydiversity lossgut-microbiomehost-associated microbiotanon-model organism

Identifiers

PMID36314753
PMCPMC9517064

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.