Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38525038›Full record

ReviewAIMS microbiology2024

What we need to know about the germ-free animal models.

Fatemeh Aghighi, Mahmoud Salami

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in AIMS microbiology, 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
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Fatemeh AghighiPhysiology Research Center, Institute for Basic Sciences, Kashan University of Medical Sciences, Kashan, I. R. Iran.
Mahmoud SalamiPhysiology Research Center, Institute for Basic Sciences, Kashan University of Medical Sciences, Kashan, I. R. Iran.
Kashan University of Medical Sciences · IR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The gut microbiota (GM), as a forgotten organ, refers to the microbial community that resides in the gastrointestinal tract and plays a critical role in a variety of physiological activities in different body organs. The GM affects its targets through neurological, metabolic, immune, and endocrine pathways. The GM is a dynamic system for which exogenous and endogenous factors have negative or positive effects on its density and composition. Since the mid-twentieth century, laboratory animals are known as the major tools for preclinical research; however, each model has its own limitations. So far, two main models have been used to explore the effects of the GM under normal and abnormal conditions: the isolated germ-free and antibiotic-treated models. Both methods have strengths and weaknesses. In many fields of host-microbe interactions, research on these animal models are known as appropriate experimental subjects that enable investigators to directly assess the role of the microbiota on all features of physiology. These animal models present biological model systems to either study outcomes of the absence of microbes, or to verify the effects of colonization with specific and known microbial species. This paper reviews these current approaches and gives advantages and disadvantages of both models.

Indexed as

Antibiotic–treated animal modeldysbiosiseubiosisgut microbiotaisolated germ-free animal model

Identifiers

PMID38525038
PMCPMC10955174
OpenAlexW4392733334

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.