Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36741899›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in microbiology2022

Metagenomic insights into the relationship between gut microbiota and residual feed intake of small-sized meat ducks.

Hao Bai, Lei Shi, Qixin Guo, Yong Jiang, Xiaofan Li, Dandan Geng, Chenxiao Wang, Yulin Bi, Zhixiu Wang, Guohong Chen and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

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

12 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Hao BaiJoint International Research Laboratory of Agriculture and Agri-Product Safety, The Ministry of Education of China, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou, China.
Lei ShiCollege of Animal Science and Technology, Hebei Agricultural University, Baoding, China.
Qixin GuoJoint International Research Laboratory of Agriculture and Agri-Product Safety, The Ministry of Education of China, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou, China.
Yong JiangJoint International Research Laboratory of Agriculture and Agri-Product Safety, The Ministry of Education of China, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou, China.
Xiaofan LiJoint International Research Laboratory of Agriculture and Agri-Product Safety, The Ministry of Education of China, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou, China.
Dandan GengJoint International Research Laboratory of Agriculture and Agri-Product Safety, The Ministry of Education of China, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou, China.
Chenxiao WangJoint International Research Laboratory of Agriculture and Agri-Product Safety, The Ministry of Education of China, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou, China.
Yulin BiJoint International Research Laboratory of Agriculture and Agri-Product Safety, The Ministry of Education of China, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou, China.
Zhixiu WangJoint International Research Laboratory of Agriculture and Agri-Product Safety, The Ministry of Education of China, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou, China.
Guohong ChenJoint International Research Laboratory of Agriculture and Agri-Product Safety, The Ministry of Education of China, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou, China.
Fuguang XueNanchang Key Laboratory of Animal Health and Safety Production, Jiangxi Agricultural University, Nanchang, China.
Guobin ChangJoint International Research Laboratory of Agriculture and Agri-Product Safety, The Ministry of Education of China, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou, China.
Yangzhou University · CNHebei Agricultural University · CNJiangxi Agricultural University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: The objective of this study was to determine the regulatory effects of gut microbiota on the feed efficiency (FE) of small-sized meat ducks by evaluating correlations between gut microbiota and residual feed intake (RFI). Methods: A total of 500 21-day-old healthy male ducks with similar initial body weights (645 ± 15.0 g) were raised contemporaneously in the same experimental facility until slaughter at 56 days of age. In total, nine low-RFI (LR) and nine high-RFI (HR) birds were selected for further gut microbiota composition and functional analyses based on the production performance, and the RFI was calculated from 22 to 56 days of age. Results: Growth performance results indicated a significantly lower RFI, feed conversion ratio, feed intake, and average daily feed intake in the LR ducks ( Conclusion: In conclusion, the communities related to carbohydrate metabolism had positive regulatory effects on the FE of small-sized meat ducks, promoting it by improving the relative abundance and utilization of these communities. The present study provides valuable insight into the dynamics of gut microbiota underlying the variations in the FE of small-sized meat ducks.

Indexed as

carbohydrate metabolismfeed efficiencygut microbiotaresidual feed intakesmall-sized meat ducks

Identifiers

PMID36741899
PMCPMC9889972
OpenAlexW4317107767

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.