ArticlePloS one2025
Impact of Chlorella vulgaris and probiotic supplementation on performance, immunity and intestinal microbiota of broiler chickens.
Article in PloS one, 2025. 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.
- Probiotics in Poultry: A Comprehensive Review of Mechanisms, Applications, and Future Directions.Veterinary sciences · 2026Review
- Microalgae Applications in the Agricultural and Food Sector: Towards a Sustainable Future.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Advancing Nigerian Indigenous Poultry Health and Production, Use of Probiotics as Viable Alternatives to Antibiotics: A Review.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Chlorella vulgaris has antioxidant, antimicrobial, and anti-inflammatory properties, as well as the probiotic that is important for keeping the intestinal microbiota balanced. The objective was to test the impact of supplementation with microalgae and/or probiotics on broiler chickens' performance, immunity, and intestinal microbiota. The experimental design was in randomized blocks in a 4x2 factorial scheme, with four levels of inclusion of C. vulgaris (0; 0.25; 0.50 and 1%) associated or not with a commercial probiotic with five replications of 26 chickens per experimental unit. The results showed that probiotics improved feed conversion. Probiotics increased the productivity index only at 0.25% C. vulgaris supplementation. There was a reduction in spleen weight at 42 days of age in chickens fed with probiotics, but the different treatments did not alter serum antibodies. Sampling age had a significant impact on richness addressed by the number of observed genera and diversity addressed by the Shannon index. The most abundant phylum in the chicken intestinal tract was Firmicutes followed by Bacteroidetes and Proteobacteria. Bifidobacterium spp. was found in animals receiving 1% microalgae and probiotics on day 42, suggesting that this genus has benefited from microalgae supplementation. It is concluded that the probiotic and C. vulgaris have the potential to improve performance without causing major changes in the immunity and cecal microbiota.
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.