ArticleAnimal microbiome2024
Social environment influences microbiota and potentially pathogenic bacterial communities on the skin of developing birds.
Article in Animal microbiome, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Adaptive Features of the Avian Integument: A Comparative Study of the Laughing Dove, Quail, Muscovy Duck, With Emphasis on the Preen Gland Secretions and Associated Microbial Communities.Journal of experimental zoology. Part A, Ecological and integrative physiology · 2026Article
- Environmental factors associated with nesting habits and age shape the composition and connection between skin and uropygial gland microbiomes of birds.The Journal of animal ecology · 2026Article
- Temporal stability and geographical divergence of skin microbiota in a treefrog: insights from microbial communities and volatile secretions.ISME communications · 2026Article
- Comparative Analysis of Environmental and Host-Associated Microbiome inMicroorganisms · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAnimal bacterial symbionts are established early in life, either through vertical transmission and/or by horizontal transmission from both the physical and the social environment, such as direct contact with con- or heterospecifics. The social environment particularly can influence the acquisition of both mutualistic and pathogenic bacteria, with consequences for the stability of symbiotic communities. However, segregating the effects of the shared physical environment from those of the social interactions is challenging, limiting our current knowledge on the role of the social environment in structuring bacterial communities in wild animals. Here, we take advantage of the avian brood-parasite system of Eurasian magpies (Pica pica) and great spotted cuckoos (Clamator glandarius) to explore how the interspecific social environment (magpie nestlings developing with or without heterospecifics) affects bacterial communities on uropygial gland skin.
resultsWe demonstrated interspecific differences in bacterial community compositions in members of the two species when growing up in monospecific nests. However, the bacterial community of magpies in heterospecific nests was richer, more diverse, and more similar to their cuckoo nest-mates than when growing up in monospecific nests. These patterns were alike for the subset of microbes that could be considered core, but when looking at the subset of potentially pathogenic bacterial genera, cuckoo presence reduced the relative abundance of potentially pathogenic bacterial genera on magpies.
conclusionsOur findings highlight the role of social interactions in shaping the assembly of the avian skin bacterial communities during the nestling period, as exemplified in a brood parasite-host system.
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.