ArticleFrontiers in microbiology2022
Evaluating a potential model to analyze the function of the gut microbiota of the giant panda.
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Adaptive changes in the intestinal microbiota of giant pandas following reintroduction.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Review
- Diet and high altitude strongly drive convergent adaptation of gut microbiota in wild macaques, humans, and dogs to high altitude environments.Frontiers in microbiology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To contribute to the conservation of endangered animals, the utilization of model systems is critical to analyze the function of their gut microbiota. In this study, the results of a fecal microbial transplantation (FMT) experiment with germ-free (GF) mice receiving giant panda or horse fecal microbiota showed a clear clustering by donor microbial communities in GF mice, which was consistent with the results of blood metabolites from these mice. At the genus level, FMT re-established approximately 9% of the giant panda donor microbiota in GF mice compared to about 32% for the horse donor microbiota. In line with this, the difference between the panda donor microbiota and panda-mice microbiota on whole-community level was significantly larger than that between the horse donor microbiota and the horse-mice microbiota. These results were consistent with source tracking analysis that found a significantly higher retention rate of the horse donor microbiota (30.9%) than the giant panda donor microbiota (4.0%) in GF mice where the microbiota remained stable after FMT. Further analyzes indicated that the possible reason for the low retention rate of the panda donor microbiota in GF mice was a low relative abundance of
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.