Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36583056›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in microbiology2022

Evaluating the effects of antimicrobial drug use on the ecology of antimicrobial resistance and microbial community structure in beef feedlot cattle.

Enrique Doster, Lee J Pinnell, Noelle R Noyes, Jennifer K Parker, Cameron A Anderson, Calvin W Booker, Sherry J Hannon, Tim A McAllister, Sheryl P Gow, Keith E Belk and 1 more

Abstract 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 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Microbiology spectrum · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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.

Enrique DosterDepartment of Microbiology, Immunology, & Pathology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, United States.
Lee J PinnellVeterinary Education, Research, and Outreach Program, Texas A&M University, Canyon, TX, United States.
Noelle R NoyesDepartment of Veterinary Population Medicine, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, United States.
Jennifer K ParkerDepartment of Microbiology, Immunology, & Pathology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, United States.
Cameron A AndersonDepartment of Microbiology, Immunology, & Pathology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, United States.
Calvin W BookerFeedlot Health Management Services, Okotoks, AB, Canada.
Sherry J HannonFeedlot Health Management Services, Okotoks, AB, Canada.
Tim A McAllisterAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Lethbridge, AB, Canada.
Sheryl P GowPublic Health Agency of Canada, Saskatoon, SK, Canada.
Keith E BelkDepartment of Microbiology, Immunology, & Pathology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, United States.
Paul S MorleyVeterinary Education, Research, and Outreach Program, Texas A&M University, Canyon, TX, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Use of antimicrobial drugs (AMDs) in food producing animals has received increasing scrutiny because of concerns about antimicrobial resistance (AMR) that might affect consumers. Previously, investigations regarding AMR have focused largely on phenotypes of selected pathogens and indicator bacteria, such as Methods: This study leveraged samples collected during a previous longitudinal study of cattle at beef feedlots in Canada. This included fecal samples collected from randomly selected individual cattle, as well as composite-fecal samples from randomly selected pens of cattle. All AMD use was recorded and characterized across different drug classes using animal defined daily dose (ADD) metrics. Results: Overall, fecal resistome composition was dominated by genes conferring resistance to tetracycline and macrolide-lincosamide-streptogramin (MLS) drug classes. The diversity of bacterial phyla was greater early in the feeding period and decreased over time in the feedlot. This decrease in diversity occurred concurrently as the microbiome represented in different individuals and different pens shifted toward a similar composition dominated by Proteobacteria and Firmicutes. Some antimicrobial drug exposures in individuals and groups were associated with explaining a statistically significant proportion of the variance in the resistome, but the amount of variance explained by these important factors was very small (<0.6% variance each), and smaller than associations with other factors measured in this study such as time and feedlot ID. Time in the feedlot was associated with greater changes in the resistome for both individual animals and composite pen-floor samples, although the proportion of the variance associated with this factor was small (2.4% and 1.2%, respectively). Discussion: Results of this study are consistent with other investigations showing that, compared to other factors, AMD exposures did not have strong effects on antimicrobial resistance or the fecal microbial ecology of beef cattle.

Indexed as

antimicrobial drug exposureantimicrobial resistancebeef feedlotcattlemicrobial ecologymicrobiomeresistome

Identifiers

PMID36583056
PMCPMC9792868

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.