Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38317171›Full record

ArticleJournal of animal science and biotechnology2024

Layer chicken microbiota: a comprehensive analysis of spatial and temporal dynamics across all major gut sections.

Yadav Sharma Bajagai, Thi Thu Hao Van, Nitish Joat, Kapil Chousalkar, Robert J Moore, Dragana Stanley

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of animal science and biotechnology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed
–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

33 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

6 authors.

Yadav Sharma BajagaiInstitute for Future Farming Systems, Central Queensland University, Rockhampton, QLD, 4701, Australia. y.sharmabajagai@cqu.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3043-071X
Thi Thu Hao VanSchool of Science, RMIT University, Bundoora, VIC, 3083, Australia.
Nitish JoatSchool of Animal and Veterinary Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Roseworthy, South Australia, 5371, Australia.
Kapil ChousalkarSchool of Animal and Veterinary Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Roseworthy, South Australia, 5371, Australia.
Robert J MooreSchool of Science, RMIT University, Bundoora, VIC, 3083, Australia.
Dragana StanleyInstitute for Future Farming Systems, Central Queensland University, Rockhampton, QLD, 4701, Australia.

Funding

Australian Eggs 18AEC
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe gut microbiota influences chicken health, welfare, and productivity. A diverse and balanced microbiota has been associated with improved growth, efficient feed utilisation, a well-developed immune system, disease resistance, and stress tolerance in chickens. Previous studies on chicken gut microbiota have predominantly focused on broiler chickens and have usually been limited to one or two sections of the digestive system, under controlled research environments, and often sampled at a single time point. To extend these studies, this investigation examined the microbiota of commercially raised layer chickens across all major gut sections of the digestive system and with regular sampling from rearing to the end of production at 80 weeks. The aim was to build a detailed picture of microbiota development across the entire digestive system of layer chickens and study spatial and temporal dynamics.

resultsThe taxonomic composition of gut microbiota differed significantly between birds in the rearing and production stages, indicating a shift after laying onset. Similar microbiota compositions were observed between proventriculus and gizzard, as well as between jejunum and ileum, likely due to their anatomical proximity. Lactobacillus dominated the upper gut in pullets and the lower gut in older birds. The oesophagus had a high proportion of Proteobacteria, including opportunistic pathogens such as Gallibacterium. Relative abundance of Gallibacterium increased after peak production in multiple gut sections. Aeriscardovia was enriched in the late-lay phase compared to younger birds in multiple gut sections. Age influenced microbial richness and diversity in different organs. The upper gut showed decreased diversity over time, possibly influenced by dietary changes, while the lower gut, specifically cecum and colon, displayed increased richness as birds matured. However, age-related changes were inconsistent across all organs, suggesting the influence of organ-specific factors in microbiota maturation.

conclusionAddressing a gap in previous research, this study explored the microbiota across all major gut sections and tracked their dynamics from rearing to the end of the production cycle in commercially raised layer chickens. This study provides a comprehensive understanding of microbiota structure and development which help to develop targeted strategies to optimise gut health and overall productivity in poultry production.

Indexed as

Chicken microbiotaGut microbiotaLayersSpatial variationTemporal variation

Identifiers

PMID38317171
PMCPMC10840231

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.