Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37496083›Full record

ArticleMicrobiome2023

Early-life prophylactic antibiotic treatment disturbs the stability of the gut microbiota and increases susceptibility to H9N2 AIV in chicks.

Xianghui Liang, Zhipeng Zhang, Hai Wang, Xingbang Lu, Wen Li, Haoran Lu, Ayan Roy, Xuejuan Shen, David M Irwin, Yongyi Shen

Open access · goldAbstract readVideo-Audio Media
In one paragraph

Article in Microbiome, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

10 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Xianghui Liang *Guangdong Laboratory for Lingnan Modern Agriculture, State Key Laboratory for Animal Disease Control and Prevention, Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Diseases, College of Veterinary Medicine, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou, 510642, China.
Zhipeng Zhang *Guangdong Laboratory for Lingnan Modern Agriculture, State Key Laboratory for Animal Disease Control and Prevention, Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Diseases, College of Veterinary Medicine, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou, 510642, China.
Hai WangGuangdong Laboratory for Lingnan Modern Agriculture, State Key Laboratory for Animal Disease Control and Prevention, Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Diseases, College of Veterinary Medicine, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou, 510642, China.
Xingbang LuGuangdong Laboratory for Lingnan Modern Agriculture, State Key Laboratory for Animal Disease Control and Prevention, Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Diseases, College of Veterinary Medicine, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou, 510642, China.
Wen LiGuangdong Laboratory for Lingnan Modern Agriculture, State Key Laboratory for Animal Disease Control and Prevention, Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Diseases, College of Veterinary Medicine, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou, 510642, China.
Haoran LuSchool of Mathematics, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, 510275, China.
Ayan RoyMailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, 10032, USA.
Xuejuan ShenGuangdong Laboratory for Lingnan Modern Agriculture, State Key Laboratory for Animal Disease Control and Prevention, Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Diseases, College of Veterinary Medicine, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou, 510642, China.
David M IrwinDepartment of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology, University of Toronto, Toronto, M5S1A8, Canada.
Yongyi ShenGuangdong Laboratory for Lingnan Modern Agriculture, State Key Laboratory for Animal Disease Control and Prevention, Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Diseases, College of Veterinary Medicine, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou, 510642, China. shenyy@scau.edu.cn.
South China Agricultural University · CNColumbia University · USKey Laboratory of Guangdong Province · CNSun Yat-sen University · CNUniversity of Toronto · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAntibiotics are widely used for prophylactic therapy and for improving the growth performance of chicken. The problem of bacterial drug resistance caused by antibiotic abuse has previously attracted extensive attention; however, the influence of early-day use of prophylactic antibiotics on the gut microflora and on the disease resistance ability in chicks has not been explored. Here, we comprehensively evaluate the growth performance, gut microbial dynamics, level of antibiotic resistance genes (ARGs) in the gut microbial community, and resistance to H9N2 avian influenza virus (AIV) in chickens following long-term and short-term early-day prophylactic antibiotic treatment.

resultsUnexpectedly, long-term prophylactic enrofloxacin treatment slowed the growth rate of chickens, whereas short-term antibiotics treatments were found to increase the growth rate, but these changes were not statistically significant. Strikingly, expansions of Escherichia-Shigella populations were observed in early-life prophylactic antibiotics-treated groups of chickens, which is in contrast to the general perception that antibiotics should control their pathogenicity in chicks. The gut microbiota composition of chickens treated long term with antibiotics or received early-day antibiotics treatment tend to be more dramatically disturbed compared to the gut microbiome of chickens treated with antibiotics for a short term at a later date, especially after H9N2 AIV infection.

conclusionsOur data provide evidence that early-day and long-term antibiotic treatments have a more adverse effect on the intestinal microbiome of chickens, compared to short-term late age antibiotic treatment. Furthermore, our metagenomic data reveal that both long-term and short-term antibiotic treatment increase the relative abundance of ARGs. Our findings highlight the adverse effects of prophylactic antibiotic treatment and provide a theoretical basis for the cautious administration of antibiotics in food-producing animal management. Video Abstract.

Indexed as

Gastrointestinal MicrobiomeInfluenza A Virus, H9N2 SubtypeMicrobiotaAnimalsAnti-Bacterial AgentsChickensAnti-Bacterial AgentsAntibiotic resistance genesChickenDisease resistanceGut microbiotaH9N2 influenza virusProphylactic antibiotic

Identifiers

PMID37496083
PMCPMC10369819
OpenAlexW4385294657

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.