Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38414655›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2024

Effects of cage vs. net-floor mixed rearing system on goose spleen histomorphology and gene expression profiles.

Qingliang Chen, Yang Song, Zhiyu He, Guang Yang, Junqi Wang, Xiaopeng Li, Wanxia Wang, Xin Yuan, Jiwei Hu, Hua He and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 35% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Qingliang Chen *Farm Animal Genetic Resources Exploration and Innovation Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu, China.
Yang Song *Farm Animal Genetic Resources Exploration and Innovation Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu, China.
Zhiyu HeFarm Animal Genetic Resources Exploration and Innovation Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu, China.
Guang YangFarm Animal Genetic Resources Exploration and Innovation Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu, China.
Junqi WangFarm Animal Genetic Resources Exploration and Innovation Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu, China.
Xiaopeng LiFarm Animal Genetic Resources Exploration and Innovation Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu, China.
Wanxia WangDepartment of Animal Production, General Station of Animal Husbandry of Sichuan Province, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.
Xin YuanFarm Animal Genetic Resources Exploration and Innovation Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu, China.
Jiwei HuFarm Animal Genetic Resources Exploration and Innovation Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu, China.
Hua HeFarm Animal Genetic Resources Exploration and Innovation Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu, China.
Liang LiFarm Animal Genetic Resources Exploration and Innovation Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu, China.
Jiwen WangFarm Animal Genetic Resources Exploration and Innovation Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu, China.
Shenqiang HuFarm Animal Genetic Resources Exploration and Innovation Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu, China.
Sichuan Agricultural University · CNMinistry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Due to the demands for both environmental protection and modernization of the goose industry in China, the traditional goose waterside rearing systems have been gradually transitioning to the modern intensive dryland rearing ones, such as the net-floor mixed rearing system (MRS) and cage rearing system (CRS). However, the goose immune responses to different dryland rearing systems remain poorly understood. This study aimed to investigate and compare the age-dependent effects of MRS and CRS on the splenic histomorphological characteristics and immune-related genes expression profiles among three economically important goose breeds, including Sichuan White goose (SW), Gang goose (GE), and Landes goose (LD). Morphological analysis revealed that the splenic weight and organ index of SW were higher under CRS than under MRS (

Indexed as

dryland rearing systemgene expressiongoosehistomorphologyspleen

Identifiers

PMID38414655
PMCPMC10896902
OpenAlexW4391784897

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.