ArticleAnimal microbiome2024
Characterization of the hoof bacterial communities in feedlot cattle affected with digital dermatitis, foot rot or both using a surface swab technique.
Article in Animal microbiome, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- An experimental infection model for rapid reproduction of treponeme-associated hoof disease in captive elk (Microbiology spectrum · 2026Article
- Hoof, Vaginal and Milk Microbiota Alterations in Dairy Cows with Foot Rot.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026Article
- Profiling bacterial communities in feedlot cattle affected with bovine foot rot and bovine digital dermatitis lesions using 16S rRNA gene sequencing and quantitative real-time PCR.BMC microbiology · 2025Article
- Characterization of the Hoof Bacterial Communities of Active Digital Dermatitis Lesions in Feedlot Cattle.Microorganisms · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLameness is defined as altered or abnormal gait due to dysfunction of the locomotor system, and is a health issue of feedlot cattle, having major economic, labour, and welfare implications. Digital dermatitis (DD-a lesion of the plantar surface of the foot) and foot rot (FR-affects the interdigital cleft) are common infectious causes of lameness in feedlots. These hoof lesions can occur alone or in combination (DD + FR) in the same hoof. A total of 208 hoof swabs were collected from three commercial feedlots located in southern Alberta. Every lesion sample was matched with a corresponding control skin sample taken from a healthy contralateral foot. Control skin samples were also collected from cattle with no lesion on any feet. Bacterial communities of three types of hoof lesions (DD, DD + FR, FR) and healthy skin were profiled using 16S amplicon sequencing.
resultsAlpha diversity analysis revealed a lower bacterial diversity on DD and FR lesions compared to control skin. Beta diversity analysis showed that bacterial communities of DD, FR, and DD + FR lesions were distinct from those of the control skin. While the impact of feedlot was minimal, lesion type contributed to 22% of the variation observed among bacterial communities (PERMANOVA-R = 0.22, P < 0.01). Compared to the corresponding control skin, there were 11, 12, and 3 differentially abundant (DA) bacterial genera in DD, DD + FR, and FR lesions, respectively.
conclusionsThe bacterial community description of a DD + FR lesion is a novel finding. Not only did lesions lead to altered bacterial communities when compared to healthy skin, but the composition of those communities also differed depending on the hoof lesion. The 16S amplicon sequencing of surface swabs has significant value as a research tool in separating different hoof lesions and can provide additional insights to the polybacterial etiology of DD and FR in feedlot cattle.
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.