ArticleMicrobial ecology2024
Bats, Bacteria, and Bat Smell V.2.0: Repeatable Sex-Specific Differences in Scent Organ Microbiota.
Article in Microbial ecology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Individual Variation in the Chemical Profiles of Odorous Male Bat Crusts.Journal of chemical ecology · 2026Article
- Bacterial Composition Across Bat Species: A Human Health Perspective.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Review
- Common scents? A review of potentially shared chemical signals in the order Carnivora.Chemical senses · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Reproducibility is a fundamental principle in science, ensuring reliable and valid findings. However, replication studies are scarce, particularly in ecology, due to the emphasis on novelty for publication. We explored the possibility of replicating original findings in the field of microbial and chemical ecology by conducting a conceptual replication of a previous study analysing the sex-specific differences in the microbial communities inhabiting the wing sacs, a scent organ with crucial functions in olfactory communication, of greater sac-winged bat (Saccopteryx bilineata). In the original study, the skin swabs from the antebrachial wing sacs of the males and wing sac rudiments of the females were analysed using culture-dependent methods to test sex-specific differences. The authors demonstrated that males have lower microbial richness and different microbial composition than females. We attempted to reproduce these findings using 16S rRNA sequencing, which offers improved accuracy in pinpointing microbial members than culture-dependent methods because of advanced statistical methods. Our study validated the original study's findings: Males had a lower microbial richness, and the community composition differed between the sexes. Furthermore, in the current study, males had an increased abundance of bacteria that might potentially be involved in odour production and degradation of malodorous substances and antimicrobial production. Our conceptual replication study corroborated that microbes can play a role in shaping their host's olfactory phenotype and consequently influence sexual selection. Furthermore, the current study emphasises the importance of replication efforts and hopefully encourages a culture that values replication studies in scientific practice.
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.