ArticleAnimal models and experimental medicine2024
Effects of host identity on the gut microbiota: A comparative study on three microtinae species.
Article in Animal models and experimental medicine, 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Virome characteristics of small mammals and their associated environments in pastoral areas on the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau.NPJ biofilms and microbiomes · 2025Article
- Effects of host identity on the gut microbiota: A comparative study on three microtinae species.Animal models and experimental medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundGut microbiota exert an immense effect on host health and host environmental adaptation. Furthermore, the composition and structure of gut microbiota are determined by the environment and host genetic factors. However, the relative contribution of the environment and host genetic factors toward shaping the structure of gut microbiota has been poorly understood.
methodsIn this study, we characterized the fecal microbial communities of the closely related voles Neodon fuscus, Lasiopodomys brandtii, and L. mandarinus after caged feeding in the laboratory for 6 months, through high-throughput sequencing and bioinformatics analysis.
resultsThe results of pairwise comparisons of N. fuscus vs. L. brandtii and L. mandarinus vs. L. brandtii revealed significant differences in bacterial diversity and composition after domestication. While 991 same operational taxonomic units (OTUs) were shared in three voles, there were 362, 291, and 303 species-specific OTUs in N. fuscus, L. brandtii, and L. mandarinus, respectively. The relative abundances of Proteobacteria and Prevotella, which are reported to be enriched in high-altitude populations, were significantly higher in high-altitude N. fuscus than in low-altitude L. brandtii after domestication. Firmicutes, which produce various digestive enzymes for energy metabolism, and Spirochaetes, which can degrade cellulose, were found in higher abundance in subterranean L. mandarinus than that in L. brandtii which dwells on the earth surface.
conclusionOur findings showed that some components of gut microbiota still maintained dominance even when different host species are reared under the same environmental conditions, suggesting that these bacteria are substantially influenced by host factors.
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.