Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37970497›Full record

ArticleJournal of animal science and technology2023

Comparative analysis of the pig gut microbiome associated with the pig growth performance.

Jun Hyung Lee, San Kim, Eun Sol Kim, Gi Beom Keum, Hyunok Doo, Jinok Kwak, Sriniwas Pandey, Jae Hyoung Cho, Sumin Ryu, Minho Song and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of animal science and technology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Protective Effects ofJournal of microbiology and biotechnology · 2026
    Article
  3. Review
  4. ProbioticJournal of animal science and technology · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Journal of microbiology and biotechnology · 2024
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

13 authors.

Jun Hyung LeeBRD Korea, Hwaseong 18471, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0637-8250
San KimBRD Korea, Hwaseong 18471, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4642-037X
Eun Sol KimDepartment of Animal Resources Science, Dankook University, Cheonan 31116, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8801-421X
Gi Beom KeumDepartment of Animal Resources Science, Dankook University, Cheonan 31116, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6006-9577
Hyunok DooDepartment of Animal Resources Science, Dankook University, Cheonan 31116, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4329-4128
Jinok KwakDepartment of Animal Resources Science, Dankook University, Cheonan 31116, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1217-3569
Sriniwas PandeyDepartment of Animal Resources Science, Dankook University, Cheonan 31116, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6947-3469
Jae Hyoung ChoDepartment of Animal Resources Science, Dankook University, Cheonan 31116, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1128-3451
Sumin RyuDepartment of Animal Resources Science, Dankook University, Cheonan 31116, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1569-3394
Minho SongDivision of Animal and Dairy Science, Chungnam National University, Daejeon 34134, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4515-5212
Jin Ho ChoDivision of Food and Animal Science, Chungbuk National University, Cheongju 28644, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7151-0778
Sheena KimDepartment of Animal Resources Science, Dankook University, Cheonan 31116, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5410-1347
Hyeun Bum KimDepartment of Animal Resources Science, Dankook University, Cheonan 31116, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1366-6090

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There are a variety of microorganisms in the animal intestine, and it has been known that they play important roles in the host such as suppression of potentially pathogenic microorganisms, modulation of the gut immunity. In addition, the gut microbiota and the livestock growth performance have long been known to be related. Therefore, we evaluated the interrelation between the growth performance and the gut microbiome of the pigs from 3 different farms, with pigs of varied ages ready to be supplied to the market. When pigs reached average market weight of 118 kg, the average age of pigs in three different farms were < 180 days, about 190 days, and > 200 days, respectively. Fecal samples were collected from pigs of age of 70 days, 100 days, 130 days, and 160 days. The output data of the 16S rRNA gene sequencing by the Illumina Miseq platform was filtered and analyzed using Quantitative Insights into Microbial Ecology (QIIME)2, and the statistical analysis was performed using Statistical Analysis of Metagenomic Profiles (STAMP). The results of this study showed that the gut microbial communities shifted as pigs aged along with significant difference in the relative abundance of different phyla and genera in different age groups of pigs from each farm. Even though, there was no statistical differences among groups in terms of Chao1, the number of observed operational taxonomic units (OTUs), and the Shannon index, our results showed higher abundances of

Indexed as

Growth performanceGut microbiotaMicrobiomeMicroorganismSwine

Identifiers

PMID37970497
PMCPMC10640952

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.