ArticleEcology and evolution2024
Are fecal samples an appropriate proxy for amphibian intestinal microbiota?
Article in Ecology and evolution, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- A non-invasive method for profiling the gut microbiome and virome of honey bee queens.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- A non-lethal method for the sampling of the gut microbiota inFrontiers in veterinary science · 2026Article
- Effects of Dietary Supplementation of Omega-3 PUFA Enriched Fish Oil During Late-Pregnancy and Lactation on Reproductive Performance, Immune Activity and Fecal Microbiota Composition in Postpartum Sows.Veterinary sciences · 2025Article
- Intestinal microbiota as biomarkers for different colorectal lesions based on colorectal cancer screening participants in community.Frontiers in microbiology · 2025Article
- Location Matters: Variations in Cloacal Microbiota Composition of Spatially Separated Freshwater Turtles.Microbial ecology · 2024Article
- Are fecal samples an appropriate proxy for amphibian intestinal microbiota?Ecology and evolution · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The intestinal microbiota, an invisible organ supporting a host's survival, has essential roles in metabolism, immunity, growth, and development. Since intestinal microbiota influences a host's biology, application of such data to wildlife conservation has gained interest. There are standard protocols for studying the human intestinal microbiota, but no equivalent for wildlife. A major challenge is sampling the intestinal microbiota in an effective, unbiased way. Fecal samples are a popular proxy for intestinal microbiota because collection is non-invasive and allows for longitudinal sampling. Yet it is unclear whether the fecal microbiota is representative of the intestinal microbiota. In wildlife studies, research on the sampling methodology is limited. In this study focusing on amphibians, we characterize and compare the microbiota (small intestine, large intestine, and feces) of two Hong Kong stream-dwelling frog species: Lesser Spiny Frog (
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.