ArticleFrontiers in microbiology2022
Microbial infection risk predicts antimicrobial potential of avian symbionts.
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 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Environmental factors associated with nesting habits and age shape the composition and connection between skin and uropygial gland microbiomes of birds.The Journal of animal ecology · 2026Article
- Exploring the associations between preen oil bacterial, chemical and proteomic profiles of passerines.Antonie van Leeuwenhoek · 2025Article
- Nesting hoopoes cultivate in their uropygial gland the microbial symbionts with the highest antimicrobial capacity.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Microbiota and the volatile profile of avian nests are associated with each other and with the intensity of parasitism.FEMS microbiology ecology · 2024Article
- Social environment influences microbiota and potentially pathogenic bacterial communities on the skin of developing birds.Animal microbiome · 2024Article
- Volatiles of symbiotic bacterial origin explain ectoparasitism and fledging success of hoopoes.Animal microbiome · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Symbiotic bacteria on animal hosts can prevent pathogenic bacterial infections by several mechanisms. Among them, symbiotic bacteria can indirectly enhance host's immune responses or, directly, produce antimicrobial substances against pathogens. Due to differences in life-style, different host species are under different risks of microbial infections. Consequently, if symbiotic bacteria are somewhat selected by genetically determined host characteristics, we would expect the antimicrobial properties of bacterial symbionts to vary among host species and to be distributed according to risk of infection. Here we have tested this hypothesis by measuring the antimicrobial ability of the bacterial strains isolated from the uropygial-gland skin of 19 bird species differing in nesting habits, and, therefore, in risk of microbial infection. In accordance with our predictions, intensity and range of antimicrobial effects against the indicator strains assayed varied among bird species, with hole-and open-nesters showing the highest and the lowest values, respectively. Since it is broadly accepted that hole-nesters have higher risks of microbial infection than open nesters, our results suggest that the risk of infection is a strong driver of natural selection to enhance immunocompetence of animals through selecting for antibiotic-producing symbionts. Future research should focus on characterizing symbiotic bacterial communities and detecting coevolutionary processes with particular antibiotic-producing bacteria within-host species.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.