ArticleAnimal microbiome2025
Contrasting recovery of metagenome‑assembled genomes and derived bacterial communities and functional profiles from lizard fecal and cloacal samples.
Article in Animal microbiome, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
Abstract
Genome-resolved metagenomics, based on shotgun sequencing, has become a powerful strategy for investigating animal-associated bacterial communities, due its heightened capability for delivering detailed taxonomic, phylogenetic, and functional insights compared to amplicon sequencing-based approaches. While genome-resolved metagenomics holds promise across various non-lethal sample types, their effectiveness in yielding high-quality metagenome-assembled genomes remains largely unexplored. Our investigation of fecal and cloacal microbiota of the mesquite lizards (Sceloporus grammicus) using genome-resolved metagenomics revealed that fecal samples contributed 97% of the 127 reconstructed bacterial genomes, whereas only 3% were recovered from cloacal swabs, which were largely enriched with host DNA. Taxonomic, phylogenetic and functional alpha bacterial diversity was greater in fecal samples than in cloacal swabs. We also observed significant differences in bacterial community composition between sampling methods, and higher inter-individual variation in cloacal swabs. Bacteroides, Phocaeicola and Parabacteroides (all Bacteroidota) were more abundant in the feces, whereas Hafnia and Salmonella (both Pseudomonadota) increased in the cloaca. Functional analyses showed that metabolic capacities of the microbiota to degrade polysaccharides, sugars and nitrogen compounds were enriched in fecal samples, likely reflecting the role of intestinal bacteria in nutrient metabolism. Overall, our results indicate that fecal samples outperform cloacal swabs in characterizing bacterial assemblages within lizards using genome-resolved metagenomics.
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.