Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37420170›Full record

ArticleBMC microbiology2023

The 16S rDNA high-throughput sequencing correlation analysis of milk and gut microbial communities in mastitis Holstein cows.

Chenxi Jiang, Xiaolu Hou, Xiaona Gao, Pei Liu, Xiaoquan Guo, Guoliang Hu, Qingqing Li, Cheng Huang, Guyue Li, Weile Fang and 4 more

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 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
6.2field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
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

14 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Chenxi Jiang *Jiangxi Provincial Key Laboratory for Animal Health, Institute of Animal Population Health, College of Animal Science and Technology, Jiangxi Agricultural University, Nanchang, 330045, People's Republic of China.
Xiaolu Hou *Guangxi Vocational University of Agriculture, Nanning, 530007, Guangxi, China.
Xiaona GaoJiangxi Provincial Key Laboratory for Animal Health, Institute of Animal Population Health, College of Animal Science and Technology, Jiangxi Agricultural University, Nanchang, 330045, People's Republic of China.
Pei LiuJiangxi Provincial Key Laboratory for Animal Health, Institute of Animal Population Health, College of Animal Science and Technology, Jiangxi Agricultural University, Nanchang, 330045, People's Republic of China.
Xiaoquan GuoJiangxi Provincial Key Laboratory for Animal Health, Institute of Animal Population Health, College of Animal Science and Technology, Jiangxi Agricultural University, Nanchang, 330045, People's Republic of China.
Guoliang HuJiangxi Provincial Key Laboratory for Animal Health, Institute of Animal Population Health, College of Animal Science and Technology, Jiangxi Agricultural University, Nanchang, 330045, People's Republic of China.
Qingqing LiJiangxi Provincial Key Laboratory for Animal Health, Institute of Animal Population Health, College of Animal Science and Technology, Jiangxi Agricultural University, Nanchang, 330045, People's Republic of China.
Cheng HuangJiangxi Provincial Key Laboratory for Animal Health, Institute of Animal Population Health, College of Animal Science and Technology, Jiangxi Agricultural University, Nanchang, 330045, People's Republic of China.
Guyue LiJiangxi Provincial Key Laboratory for Animal Health, Institute of Animal Population Health, College of Animal Science and Technology, Jiangxi Agricultural University, Nanchang, 330045, People's Republic of China.
Weile FangJiangxi Provincial Key Laboratory for Animal Health, Institute of Animal Population Health, College of Animal Science and Technology, Jiangxi Agricultural University, Nanchang, 330045, People's Republic of China.
Wanrui MaiJiangxi Provincial Key Laboratory for Animal Health, Institute of Animal Population Health, College of Animal Science and Technology, Jiangxi Agricultural University, Nanchang, 330045, People's Republic of China.
Cong WuJiangxi Provincial Key Laboratory for Animal Health, Institute of Animal Population Health, College of Animal Science and Technology, Jiangxi Agricultural University, Nanchang, 330045, People's Republic of China.
Zheng XuDepartment of Mathematics and Statistics, Wright State University, Dayton, OH, 45435, USA.
Ping LiuJiangxi Provincial Key Laboratory for Animal Health, Institute of Animal Population Health, College of Animal Science and Technology, Jiangxi Agricultural University, Nanchang, 330045, People's Republic of China. Pingliujx@163.com.
Jiangxi Agricultural University · CNWright State University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study aimed to understand the changes in the milk and gut microbiota of dairy cows with mastitis, and to further explore the relationship between mastitis and the microbiota. In this study, we extracted microbial DNA from healthy and mastitis cows and performed high-throughput sequencing using the Illumina NovaSeq sequencing platform. OTU clustering was performed to analyze complexity, multi-sample comparisons, differences in community structure between groups, and differential analysis of species composition and abundance. The results showed that there were differences in microbial diversity and community composition in the milk and feces of normal and mastitis cows, where the diversity of microbiota decreased and species abundance increased in the mastitis group. There was a significant difference in the flora composition of the two groups of samples (P < 0.05), especially at the genus level, the difference in the milk samples was Sphingomonas (P < 0.05) and Stenotrophomonas (P < 0.05), the differences in stool samples were Alistipes (P < 0.05), Flavonifractor (P < 0.05), Agathobacter (P < 0.05) and Pygmaiobacter (P < 0.05). In conclusion, the microbiota of the udder and intestinal tissues of dairy cows suffering from mastitis will change significantly. This suggests that the development of mastitis is related to the endogenous pathway of microbial intestinal mammary glands, but the mechanisms involved need further study.

Indexed as

LactobacillalesMastitisMicrobiotaAnimalsCattleDNA, RibosomalFemaleHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingHumansMilkDNA, Ribosomal16S rDNA high-throughput sequencingGut microbial communityHolstein cowMastitisMilk microorganism

Identifiers

PMID37420170
PMCPMC10327393
OpenAlexW4383554134

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.