Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37032869›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in microbiology2023

Impact of oestrus synchronization devices on ewes vaginal microbiota and artificial insemination outcome.

Edgar L Reinoso-Peláez, María Saura, Óscar González-Recio, Carmen González, Almudena Fernández, Ramón Peiro-Pastor, Adrián López-García, Alejandro Saborío-Montero, Jorge H Calvo, Manuel Ramón and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in microbiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
–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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. In Vitro Interaction betweenMicroorganisms · 2024
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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.

Edgar L Reinoso-PeláezDepartamento de Mejora Genética Animal, Instituto Nacional de Investigación y Tecnología Agraria y Alimentaria (INIA-CSIC), Madrid, Spain.
María SauraDepartamento de Mejora Genética Animal, Instituto Nacional de Investigación y Tecnología Agraria y Alimentaria (INIA-CSIC), Madrid, Spain.
Óscar González-RecioDepartamento de Mejora Genética Animal, Instituto Nacional de Investigación y Tecnología Agraria y Alimentaria (INIA-CSIC), Madrid, Spain.
Carmen GonzálezDepartamento de Mejora Genética Animal, Instituto Nacional de Investigación y Tecnología Agraria y Alimentaria (INIA-CSIC), Madrid, Spain.
Almudena FernándezDepartamento de Mejora Genética Animal, Instituto Nacional de Investigación y Tecnología Agraria y Alimentaria (INIA-CSIC), Madrid, Spain.
Ramón Peiro-PastorDepartamento de Mejora Genética Animal, Instituto Nacional de Investigación y Tecnología Agraria y Alimentaria (INIA-CSIC), Madrid, Spain.
Adrián López-GarcíaDepartamento de Mejora Genética Animal, Instituto Nacional de Investigación y Tecnología Agraria y Alimentaria (INIA-CSIC), Madrid, Spain.
Alejandro Saborío-MonteroDepartamento de Mejora Genética Animal, Instituto Nacional de Investigación y Tecnología Agraria y Alimentaria (INIA-CSIC), Madrid, Spain.
Jorge H CalvoDepartamento de Ciencia Animal, Centro de Investigación y Tecnología Agroalimentaria de Aragón (CITA-ARAID-IA2), Zaragoza, Spain.
Manuel RamónDepartamento de Investigación en Reproducción y Mejora Genética Animal, Centro Regional de Selección y Reproducción Animal de Castilla La Mancha (CERSYRA-IRIAF), Valdepeñas, Spain.
Malena SerranoDepartamento de Mejora Genética Animal, Instituto Nacional de Investigación y Tecnología Agraria y Alimentaria (INIA-CSIC), Madrid, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: The low pregnancy rate by artificial insemination in sheep represents a fundamental challenge for breeding programs. In this species, oestrus synchronization is carried out by manipulating hormonal regimens through the insertion of progestogen intravaginal devices. This reproductive strategy may alter the vaginal microbiota affecting the artificial insemination outcome. Methods: In this study, we analyzed the vaginal microbiome of 94 vaginal swabs collected from 47 ewes with alternative treatments applied to the progesterone-releasing intravaginal devices (probiotic, maltodextrin, antibiotic and control), in two sample periods (before placing and after removing the devices). To our knowledge, this is the first study using nanopore-based metagenome sequencing for vaginal microbiome characterization in livestock. Results: Our results revealed a significant lower abundance of the genera Discussion: Although the use of probiotics represents a promising practice to improve insemination results, the election of the suitable species and concentration requires further investigation. In addition, the use of progestogen in the synchronization devices seemed to increase the alpha-diversity and decrease the abundance of harmful microorganisms belonging to Gammaproteobacteria and Fusobacteriia classes, suggesting a beneficial effect of their use.

Indexed as

artificial inseminationfertilitymetagenomemicrobiomenanoporeovinereproductionvaginal microbiota

Identifiers

PMID37032869
PMCPMC10076614

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.