Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36337103›Full record

ArticleJDS communications2021

Comparing noninvasive sampling techniques with standard cannula sampling method for ruminal microbial analysis.

N Indugu, M Hennessy, V S Kaplan-Shabtai, C F de Assis Lage, S E Räisänen, A Melgar, K Nedelkov, X Chen, J Oh, B Vecchiarelli and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JDS communications, 2021. 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
7.0field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  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

13 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

N InduguDepartment of Clinical Studies, University of Pennsylvania, School of Veterinary Medicine, New Bolton Center, Kennett Square 19348.
M HennessyDepartment of Clinical Studies, University of Pennsylvania, School of Veterinary Medicine, New Bolton Center, Kennett Square 19348.
V S Kaplan-ShabtaiDepartment of Clinical Studies, University of Pennsylvania, School of Veterinary Medicine, New Bolton Center, Kennett Square 19348.
C F de Assis LageDepartment of Animal Science, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park 16802.
S E RäisänenDepartment of Animal Science, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park 16802.
A MelgarDepartment of Animal Science, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park 16802.
K NedelkovDepartment of Animal Science, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park 16802.
X ChenDepartment of Animal Science, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park 16802.
J OhDepartment of Animal Science, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park 16802.
B VecchiarelliDepartment of Clinical Studies, University of Pennsylvania, School of Veterinary Medicine, New Bolton Center, Kennett Square 19348.
J S BenderDepartment of Clinical Studies, University of Pennsylvania, School of Veterinary Medicine, New Bolton Center, Kennett Square 19348.
A N HristovDepartment of Animal Science, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park 16802.
D W PittaDepartment of Clinical Studies, University of Pennsylvania, School of Veterinary Medicine, New Bolton Center, Kennett Square 19348.
Pennsylvania State University · USUniversity of Pennsylvania · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Rumen microbes play an important role in the conversion of indigestible plant material to energy and protein in dairy cows. Sampling for ruminal contents via cannula is considered the gold standard technique for microbial analysis, but the technique requires ruminally cannulated animals and specialized animal facilities. The purpose of this study was to determine whether other sampling methods and locations along the digestive tract may serve as noninvasive proxies to the cannula method for microbial analysis. Six ruminally cannulated lactating Holstein dairy cows were adapted to a standard total mixed ration for 2 wk and sampled during the third week. Sampling locations and methods included salivary content, rumination bolus (regurgitated digesta collected from the cow's mouth), feces, and rumen contents via stomach tube and cannula. Stomach tube and cannula samples differ in proportions of solid and liquid material and were therefore separated into whole (as collected), liquid, and solid fractions. Samples were collected at 0 (before feeding), 2, 4, 6, 8, and 12 h after feeding over 2 d. All samples were extracted for total genomic DNA and selected samples for metabolically active DNA (RNA), PCR-amplified for the V1-V2 region of the 16S rRNA bacterial gene, and analyzed for bacterial diversity using the QIIME2 pipeline followed by statistical analysis in R (https://www.R-project.org/). In DNA-based analysis, at the community level, saliva, rumination bolus, and fecal samples clustered in separate groups, whereas all fractions of stomach tube and cannula samples clustered together, indicating that microbial communities of stomach tube and cannula samples were homogeneous. Rumination bolus samples at 6, 8, and 12 h after feeding clustered with stomach tube and cannula samples, indicating that rumination bolus samples may be an alternative for cannula samples; however, time of sampling is critical for sampling of bolus digesta. Results of the RNA-based analysis of rumination bolus samples and solid samples from cannula and stomach tube at 0 and 6 h after feeding were similar. We concluded that the solid fraction of samples obtained via the stomach tube method may serve as a proxy for the solid fraction of whole ruminal contents obtained via cannula for DNA-based microbial investigations. Both rumination bolus and stomach tube solid samples may serve as proxies for cannula solid samples for RNA-based microbial analysis.

Identifiers

PMID36337103
PMCPMC9623630
OpenAlexW3202221767

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.