ArticleApplied microbiology and biotechnology2024
Effects of inoculation and dry matter content on microbiome dynamics and metabolome profiling of sorghum silage.
Article in Applied microbiology and biotechnology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Synergistic bacterial‒fungal interactions modulate the fermentation quality and in vitro degradation rate of triticale silage.Journal of animal science and biotechnology · 2026Article
- Fermentation Characteristics, Nutrient Content, and Microbial Population ofAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Sorghum forage was ensiled for 90 days at two dry matter (DM) contents (27 vs. 39%) without or with Lactiplantibacillus plantarum inoculation. On day 90 of fermentation, silages were sampled to assess the microbial community dynamics and metabolome profile. L. plantarum inoculation improved silage quality, as shown by a lower pH and greater acetic acid concentration. Loss of DM remained unaffected by L. plantarum inoculation but was greater in low- vs. high-DM sorghum silages (14.4 vs. 6.62%). The microbiome analysis revealed that Pseudomonas congelans represented the dominant species of the epiphytic microbiota in both low- and high-DM sorghum forage before ensiling. However, L. buchneri represented the dominant species at the end of ensiling. Ensiling fermentation resulted in distinct metabolic changes in silages with varying DM content. In low-DM silages, ensiling fermentation led to the accumulation of 24 metabolites and a reduction in the relative concentration of 13 metabolites. In high-DM silages, ensiling fermentation resulted in an increase in the relative concentration of 26 metabolites but a decrease in the concentration of 8 metabolites. Compared to non-inoculated silages, L. plantarum inoculation resulted in an increased concentration of 3 metabolites and a reduced concentration of 5 metabolites in low-DM silages. Similarly, in high-DM silages, there was an elevation in the relative concentration of 3 metabolites, while a decrease in 7 other metabolites. Ten metabolites with bio-functional activity were identified, including chrysoeriol, isorhamnetin, petunidin 3-glucoside, apigenin, caffeic acid, gallic acid, p-coumaric acid, trans-cinnamic acid, herniarin, and 3,4-dihydroxy-trans-cinnamate. This study presents a comprehensive analysis of microbiome and metabolome profiling of sorghum forage during ensiling as a function of DM content and L. plantarum inoculation, with a particular emphasis on identifying metabolites that may possess bio-functional properties. KEY POINTS: • DM loss was not different by L. plantarum but higher in low- vs. high-DM silage. • L. buchneri dominated ensiling, regardless of DM level. • 10 metabolites with bio-functional activity were identified.
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.