Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39881387›Full record

ArticleMicrobiome2025

Impact of commercial gut health interventions on caecal metagenome and broiler performance.

Gladys Maria Pangga, Banaz Star-Shirko, Androniki Psifidi, Dong Xia, Nicolae Corcionivoschi, Carmel Kelly, Callie Hughes, Ursula Lavery, Anne Richmond, Umer Zeeshan Ijaz and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Microbiome, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Therapeutic and protective approaches to combatFrontiers in pharmacology · 2025
    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

11 authors.

Gladys Maria PanggaFaculty of Infectious and Tropical Diseases, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Banaz Star-ShirkoFaculty of Infectious and Tropical Diseases, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Androniki PsifidiRoyal Veterinary College, London, UK.
Dong XiaRoyal Veterinary College, London, UK.
Nicolae CorcionivoschiBacteriology Branch, Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute, Veterinary Sciences Division, Belfast, UK.
Carmel KellyBacteriology Branch, Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute, Veterinary Sciences Division, Belfast, UK.
Callie HughesPilgrim's Europe Ltd, Craigavon, UK.
Ursula LaveryPilgrim's Europe Ltd, Craigavon, UK.
Anne RichmondPilgrim's Europe Ltd, Craigavon, UK.
Umer Zeeshan IjazJames Watt School of Engineering, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK. Umer.Ijaz@glasgow.ac.uk.
Ozan GundogduFaculty of Infectious and Tropical Diseases, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK. Ozan.Gundogdu@lshtm.ac.uk.

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/T008709/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMaintaining gut health is a persistent and unresolved challenge in the poultry industry. Given the critical role of gut health in chicken performance and welfare, there is a pressing need to identify effective gut health intervention (GHI) strategies to ensure optimal outcomes in poultry farming. In this study, across three broiler production cycles, we compared the metagenomes and performance of broilers provided with ionophores (as the control group) against birds subjected to five different GHI combinations involving vaccination, probiotics, prebiotics, essential oils, and reduction of ionophore use.

resultsUsing a binning strategy, 84 (≥ 75% completeness, ≤ 5% contamination) metagenome-assembled genomes (MAGs) from 118 caecal samples were recovered and annotated for their metabolic potential. The majority of these (n = 52, 61%) had a differential response across all cohorts and are associated with the performance parameter - European poultry efficiency factor (EPEF). The control group exhibited the highest EPEF, followed closely by the cohort where probiotics are used in conjunction with vaccination. The use of probiotics B, a commercial Bacillus strain-based formulation, was determined to contribute to the superior performance of birds. GHI supplementation generally affected the abundance of microbial enzymes relating to carbohydrate and protein digestion and metabolic pathways relating to energy, nucleotide synthesis, short-chain fatty acid synthesis, and drug-transport systems. These shifts are hypothesised to differentiate performance among groups and cycles, highlighting the beneficial role of several bacteria, including Rikenella microfusus and UBA7160 species.

conclusionsAll GHIs are shown to be effective methods for gut microbial modulation, with varying influences on MAG diversity, composition, and microbial functions. These metagenomic insights greatly enhance our understanding of microbiota-related metabolic pathways, enabling us to devise strategies against enteric pathogens related to poultry products and presenting new opportunities to improve overall poultry performance and health. Video Abstract.

Indexed as

CecumChickensGastrointestinal MicrobiomeMetagenomeAnimal FeedAnimalsBacteriaPrebioticsProbioticsPrebioticsBroiler performanceChicken gut microbiomeGut healthMetagenomicsProbioticsShotgun sequencing

Identifiers

PMID39881387
PMCPMC11776324

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.