Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37003969›Full record

ArticleBMC microbiology2023

Assessment of cecal microbiota modulation from piglet dietary supplementation with copper.

Ana Carolina Laureano Paganin, Paulo Sérgio Monzani, Marcelo Falsarella Carazzolle, Raquel Bighetti Araujo, Ricardo Gonzalez-Esquerra, Douglas Haese, João L Kill, Graziela Silva Rezende, César Gonçalves de Lima, Iran Malavazi and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial, Veterinary
In one paragraph

Article in BMC microbiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 25% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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 4 institutions in 1 country.

Ana Carolina Laureano PaganinDepartamento de Genética e Evolução, Universidade Federal de São Carlos, São Carlos, SP, Brasil.
Paulo Sérgio MonzaniFaculdade de Zootecnia e Engenharia de Alimentos, Departamento de Medicina Veterinária, Universidade de São Paulo, Pirassununga, SP, Brasil.
Marcelo Falsarella CarazzolleDepartamento de Genética, Evolução, Microbiologia e Imunologia, Universidade de Campinas, Campinas, SP, Brasil.
Raquel Bighetti AraujoNovus International, Indaiatuba, SP, Brasil.
Ricardo Gonzalez-EsquerraNovus International, Indaiatuba, SP, Brasil.
Douglas HaeseCentro de Tecnologia Animal Ltda, Espirito Santo - ES, Domingos Martins, Brasil.
João L KillCentro de Tecnologia Animal Ltda, Espirito Santo - ES, Domingos Martins, Brasil.
Graziela Silva RezendeDepartamento de Genética e Evolução, Universidade Federal de São Carlos, São Carlos, SP, Brasil.
César Gonçalves de LimaFaculdade de Zootecnia e Engenharia de Alimentos, Departamento de Medicina Veterinária, Universidade de São Paulo, Pirassununga, SP, Brasil.
Iran MalavaziDepartamento de Genética e Evolução, Universidade Federal de São Carlos, São Carlos, SP, Brasil.
Caio César de Melo FreireDepartamento de Genética e Evolução, Universidade Federal de São Carlos, São Carlos, SP, Brasil.
Anderson Ferreira da CunhaDepartamento de Genética e Evolução, Universidade Federal de São Carlos, São Carlos, SP, Brasil. anderf@ufscar.br.ORCID 0000-0003-3485-5659
Universidade Federal de São Carlos · BRCentro Universitário do Espírito Santo · BRUniversidade de São Paulo · BRUniversidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP) · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSwine production expanded in the last decades. Efforts have been made to improve meat production and to understand its relationship to pig gut microbiota. Copper (Cu) is a usual supplement to growth performance in animal production. Here, two performance studies were conducted to investigate the effects of three different sources of Cu on the microbiota of piglets. A total of 256 weaned piglets were randomly allocated into 4 treatments (10 replicates per treatment of 4 piglets per pen in Trial 1 and 8 replicates of 3 piglets per pen in Trial 2). Treatments included a control group (fed 10 mg/kg of Cu from CuSO

resultsA total of 1337 Operational Taxonomic Units (OTUs) were identified. Dominance and Simpson ecological metrics were statistically different between control and treated groups (P < 0.10) showing that different Cu sources altered the gut microbiota composition with the proliferation of some bacteria that improve gut health. A high abundance of Prevotella was observed in all treatments while other genera were enriched and differentially modulated, according to the Cu source and dosage. The supplementation with Cu-MHAC can modify a group of bacteria involved in feed efficiency (FE) and short chain fatty acids (SCFA) production (Clostridium XIVa, Desulfovibrio, and Megasphera). These bacteria are also important players in the activation of ghrelin and growth hormones that were previously reported to correlate with Cu-MHAC supplementation.

conclusionsThese results indicated that some genera seem to be directly affected by the Cu source offered to the animals. TBCC and Cu-MHAC (even in low doses) can promote healthy modifications in the gut bacterial composition, being a promising source of supplementation for piglets.

Indexed as

CopperGastrointestinal MicrobiomeAnimal FeedAnimalsCecumCopper SulfateDietDietary SupplementsSwineCopperCopper Sulfate16S rRNA geneAnimal nutritionCopperFeed supplementMicrobiotaSwine

Identifiers

PMID37003969
PMCPMC10064724
OpenAlexW4362523618

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.