Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37165350›Full record

ArticleBMC microbiology2023

Impact of coprophagy prevention on the growth performance, serum biochemistry, and intestinal microbiome of rabbits.

Zhitong Wang, Hui He, Mengjuan Chen, Mengke Ni, Dongdong Yuan, Hanfang Cai, Zhi Chen, Ming Li, Huifen Xu

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
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 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Gut Microbiota of Ruminants and Monogastric Livestock: An Overview.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. International journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    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

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Zhitong Wang *College of Animal Science and Technology, Henan Agricultural University, Zhengzhou, 450046, China.
Hui He *College of Animal Science and Technology, Henan Agricultural University, Zhengzhou, 450046, China.
Mengjuan ChenCollege of Animal Science and Technology, Henan Agricultural University, Zhengzhou, 450046, China.
Mengke NiCollege of Animal Science and Technology, Henan Agricultural University, Zhengzhou, 450046, China.
Dongdong YuanCollege of Animal Science and Technology, Henan Agricultural University, Zhengzhou, 450046, China.
Hanfang CaiCollege of Animal Science and Technology, Henan Agricultural University, Zhengzhou, 450046, China.
Zhi ChenCollege of Animal Science and Technology, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou, 225000, China.
Ming LiCollege of Animal Science and Technology, Henan Agricultural University, Zhengzhou, 450046, China. liming@henau.edu.cn.
Huifen XuCollege of Animal Science and Technology, Henan Agricultural University, Zhengzhou, 450046, China. huifen221@126.com.
Henan Agricultural University · CNYangzhou University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCoprophagy plays a vital role in maintaining growth and development in many small herbivores. Here, we constructed a coprophagy model by dividing rabbits into three groups, namely, control group (CON), sham-coprophagy prevention group (SCP), and coprophagy prevention group (CP), to explore the effects of coprophagy prevention on growth performance and cecal microecology in rabbits.

resultsResults showed that CP treatment decreased the feed utilization and growth performance of rabbits. Serum total cholesterol and total triglyceride in the CP group were remarkably lower than those in the other two groups. Furthermore, CP treatment destroyed cecum villi and reduced the content of short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs) in cecum contents. Gut microbiota profiling showed significant differences in the phylum and genus composition of cecal microorganisms among the three groups. At the genus level, the abundance of Oscillospira and Ruminococcus decreased significantly in the CP group. Enrichment analysis of metabolic pathways showed a significantly up-regulated differential metabolic pathway (PWY-7315, dTDP-N-acetylthomosamine biosynthesis) in the CP group compared with that in the CON group. Correlation analysis showed that the serum biochemical parameters were positively correlated with the abundance of Oscillospira, Sutterella, and Butyricimonas but negatively correlated with the abundance of Oxalobacte and Desulfovibrio. Meanwhile, the abundance of Butyricimonas and Parabacteroidesde was positively correlated with the concentration of butyric acid in the cecum.

conclusionsIn summary, coprophagy prevention had negative effects on serum biochemistry and gut microbiota, ultimately decreasing the growth performance of rabbits. The findings provide evidence for further revealing the biological significance of coprophagy in small herbivorous mammals.

Indexed as

Gastrointestinal MicrobiomeLactobacillalesAnimalsBacteroidetesCoprophagiaFatty Acids, VolatileMammalsRabbitsTriglyceridesFatty Acids, VolatileTriglyceridesCaecotrophyGrowth performanceMicrobiomeRabbitsSCFAs

Identifiers

PMID37165350
PMCPMC10170819
OpenAlexW4376132670

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.