ArticleScientific reports2023
Nanopore Sequencing Discloses Compositional Quality of Commercial Probiotic Feed Supplements.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. 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.
- Whole-genome sequencing reveals hidden antimicrobial resistance genes in phenotypically susceptible probiotic candidate lactic acid bacteria.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Full-Length 16S rRNA Amplicon Sequencing for the Simple and Simultaneous Detection of Multiple Probiotic Species in Commercial Products.Journal of microbiology and biotechnology · 2026Article
- Integrative genomic characterization of five Pediococcus acidilactici strains reveals differing probiotic safety profiles.PloS one · 2025Article
- Nanopore sequencing in veterinary medicine: from concepts to clinical applications.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2025Review
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
The market for the application of probiotics as a livestock health improvement supplement has increased in recent years. However, most of the available products are quality-controlled using low-resolution techniques and un-curated databases, resulting in misidentification and incorrect product labels. In this work, we deployed two workflows and compared results obtained by full-length 16S rRNA genes (16S) and metagenomic (Meta) data to investigate their reliability for the microbial composition of both liquid and solid forms of animal probiotic products using Oxford Nanopore long-read-only (without short-read). Our result revealed that 16S amplicon data permits to detect the bacterial microbiota even with the low abundance in the samples. Moreover, the 16S approach has the potential to provide species-level resolution for prokaryotes but not for assessing yeast communities. Whereas, Meta data has more power to recover of high-quality metagenome-assembled genomes that enables detailed exploration of both bacterial and yeast populations, as well as antimicrobial resistance genes, and functional genes in the population. Our findings clearly demonstrate that implementing these workflows with long-read-only monitoring could be applied to assessing the quality and safety of probiotic products for animals and evaluating the quality of probiotic products on the market. This would benefit the sustained growth of the livestock probiotic industry.
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.