ArticleJournal of animal science2023
Differences of semen microbiota among breeding boars with different reproductive ages.
Article in Journal of animal science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Microbial Landscape of Bull (Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026Article
- Storage-associated shifts in the raw boar seminal microbiome at 17 °C.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2026Article
- Factors Influencing Reproductive Performance in Austrian Sow Farms Challenged by Reproductive Disorders.Veterinary sciences · 2025Article
- Age-Related Dynamics in the Conventional, Non-Conventional, and Bacteriological Characteristics of Fresh and Liquid-Stored Porcine Semen.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Article
- Puberty status influences bacterial communities of the boar urogenital tract.Journal of animal science · 2025Article
- Variations in bacterial profiles associated with semen collection timing and bull breed, analyzed using 16S rRNA sequencing and MALDI-TOF MS.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this study, we investigated 18 healthy and fertile Duroc boars, dividing them into two groups based on their reproductive age: 9 boars aged 18 mo and 9 boars aged 36 mo. Prior to semen sampling, all boars were raised together under identical management conditions for a period of 3 mo. Our findings revealed that older boars exhibited lower sperm motility and a higher proportion of abnormal sperm morphology compared to younger boars. Furthermore, older boars demonstrated lower anti-oxidant capacity in their semen, as indicated by elevated levels of malondialdehyde and decreased levels of superoxide dismutase and glutathione peroxidase. Microbiota analysis utilizing the 16S rRNA technique showed that the semen microbiota of older boars had reduced alpha-diversity and beta-diversity in comparison to younger boars. We identified the Streptococcus genus and Streptococcus gallolyticus subsp macedonicus species served as biomarkers for semen from younger breeding boars, while the Bacteroides pyogenes species as a biomarker for semen from older breeding boars. Additionally, the semen from older boars exhibited a higher abundance of Aerococcus, Gallicola, Ulvibacter, and Proteiniphilum compared to younger boars. Spearman correlation analysis showed that these four bacteria were negatively correlated with semen quality. The abundance of Gallicola and Proteiniphilum were negatively correlated with semen anti-oxidant capacity. Additionally, the reduction of semen anti-oxidant capacity was correlated to the decrease of semen quality. Based on these findings, we concluded that the semen of older boars contains a higher abundance of harmful bacteria, which contributes to the observed reduction in semen anti-oxidant capacity and overall semen quality in this group.
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.