Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38374338›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2024

A comparative study of the bacterial diversity and composition of nursery piglets' oral fluid, feces, and housing environment.

Vinicius Buiatte, Ana Fonseca, Paloma Alonso Madureira, Andréia Cristina Nakashima Vaz, Polyana Cristine Tizioto, Ana Maria Centola Vidal, Erika Ganda, Vera Letticie de Azevedo Ruiz

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Vinicius BuiatteDepartment of Animal Science, College of Agricultural Sciences, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, 16802, USA.
Ana FonsecaDepartment of Animal Science, College of Agricultural Sciences, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, 16802, USA.
Paloma Alonso MadureiraDepartment of Veterinary Medicine, Faculty of Animal Science and Food Engineering, Universidade de São Paulo, Pirassununga, SP, Brazil.
Andréia Cristina Nakashima VazDepartment of Veterinary Medicine, Faculty of Animal Science and Food Engineering, Universidade de São Paulo, Pirassununga, SP, Brazil.
Polyana Cristine TiziotoNGS Genomic Solutions, Piracicaba, SP, Brazil.
Ana Maria Centola VidalDepartment of Veterinary Medicine, Faculty of Animal Science and Food Engineering, Universidade de São Paulo, Pirassununga, SP, Brazil.
Erika GandaDepartment of Animal Science, College of Agricultural Sciences, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, 16802, USA.
Vera Letticie de Azevedo RuizDepartment of Veterinary Medicine, Faculty of Animal Science and Food Engineering, Universidade de São Paulo, Pirassununga, SP, Brazil. letticie@usp.br.
Universidade de São Paulo · BRPennsylvania State University · USForest Science and Research Institute · BR

Funding

Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior 001Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo 2017/22184-7Hatch PEN04752
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The oral cavity is the portal of entry for many microorganisms that affect swine, and the swine oral fluid has been used as a specimen for the diagnosis of several infectious diseases. The oral microbiota has been shown to play important roles in humans, such as protection against non-indigenous bacteria. In swine, studies that have investigated the microbial composition of the oral cavity of pigs are scarce. This study aimed to characterize the oral fluid microbiota of weaned pigs from five commercial farms in Brazil and compare it to their respective fecal and environmental microbiotas. Bacterial compositions were determined by 16S rRNA gene sequencing and analyzed in R Studio. Oral fluid samples were significantly less diverse (alpha diversity) than pen floor and fecal samples (P < 0.01). Alpha diversity changed among farms in oral fluid and pen floor samples, but no differences were observed in fecal samples. Permutational ANOVA revealed that beta diversity was significantly different among sample types (P = 0.001) and farms (P = 0.001), with separation of sample types (feces, pen floor, and oral fluid) on the principal coordinates analysis. Most counts obtained from oral fluid samples were classified as Firmicutes (80.4%) and Proteobacteria (7.7%). The genera Streptococcus, members of the Pasteurellaceae family, and Veillonella were differentially abundant in oral fluid samples when compared to fecal samples, in which Streptococcus was identified as a core genus that was strongly correlated (SparCC) with other taxa. Firmicutes and Bacteroidota were the most relatively abundant phyla identified in fecal and pen floor samples, and Prevotella_9 was the most classified genus. No differentially abundant taxa were identified when comparing fecal samples and pen floor samples. We concluded that under the conditions of our study, the oral fluid microbiota of weaned piglets is different (beta diversity) and less diverse (alpha diversity) than the fecal and environmental microbiotas. Several differentially abundant taxa were identified in the oral fluid samples, and some have been described as important colonizers of the oral cavity in human microbiome studies. Further understanding of the relationship between the oral fluid microbiota and swine is necessary and would create opportunities for the development of innovative solutions that target the microbiota to improve swine health and production.

Indexed as

Gastrointestinal MicrobiomeAnimalsBacillotaBacteriaFecesHousingHumansRNA, Ribosomal, 16SSwineRNA, Ribosomal, 16S16S rRNA geneFecesMicrobiomeSalivaSwine

Identifiers

PMID38374338
PMCPMC10876639
OpenAlexW4391944282

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.