Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39961999›Full record

ArticleBrazilian journal of microbiology : [publication of the Brazilian Society for Microbiology]2025

Differences in gut microbiota composition, diversity, and predicted functional activity between wild and captive zoo Carollia perspicillata in a One Health perspective.

Ilia V Popov, Igor V Popov, Iuliia P Chebotareva, Iuliia A Tikhmeneva, Daria A Peshkova, Anastasia A Krikunova, Elizaveta V Tkacheva, Ammar R Algburi, Alyaa M Abdulhameed, Ariunbold Jargalsaikhan and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Brazilian journal of microbiology : [publication of the Brazilian Society for Microbiology], 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
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

14 authors.

Ilia V PopovFaculty "Bioengineering and Veterinary Medicine" and Center for Agrobiotechnology, Rostov-on-Don, 344000, Russian Federation.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7947-1654
Igor V PopovFaculty "Bioengineering and Veterinary Medicine" and Center for Agrobiotechnology, Rostov-on-Don, 344000, Russian Federation. ipopov@donstu.ru.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9223-8731
Iuliia P ChebotarevaDivision of Nanobiomedicine, Center of Genetics and Life Sciences, Sirius University of Science and Technology, Federal Territory Sirius, 354340, Russian Federation.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0001-0013-1137
Iuliia A TikhmenevaFaculty "Bioengineering and Veterinary Medicine" and Center for Agrobiotechnology, Rostov-on-Don, 344000, Russian Federation.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0339-8187
Daria A PeshkovaDivision of Immunobiology and Biomedicine, Center of Genetics and Life Sciences, Sirius University of Science and Technology, Federal Territory Sirius, 354340, Russian Federation.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1017-9695
Anastasia A KrikunovaFaculty "Bioengineering and Veterinary Medicine" and Center for Agrobiotechnology, Rostov-on-Don, 344000, Russian Federation.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0006-5475-5056
Elizaveta V TkachevaFaculty "Bioengineering and Veterinary Medicine" and Center for Agrobiotechnology, Rostov-on-Don, 344000, Russian Federation.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0001-6508-6429
Ammar R AlgburiDepartment of Microbiology, Veterinary Medicine College, University of Diyala, Baqubah, 32001, Iraq.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2073-7128
Alyaa M AbdulhameedDepartment of Microbiology, Veterinary Medicine College, University of Diyala, Baqubah, 32001, Iraq.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3323-6979
Ariunbold JargalsaikhanDepartment of Biology, School of Mathematics and Natural Science, Mongolian National University of Education, Ulaanbaatar, 210646, Mongolia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0615-2078
Onolragchaa GanboldDepartment of Biology, School of Mathematics and Natural Science, Mongolian National University of Education, Ulaanbaatar, 210646, Mongolia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8480-3630
Michael L ChikindasFaculty "Bioengineering and Veterinary Medicine" and Center for Agrobiotechnology, Rostov-on-Don, 344000, Russian Federation.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7265-4562
Koen VenemaBeneficial Microbes® Consultancy, Wageningen, 6709 TN, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7046-5127
Alexey M ErmakovFaculty "Bioengineering and Veterinary Medicine" and Center for Agrobiotechnology, Rostov-on-Don, 344000, Russian Federation.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9834-3989

Funding

Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation 075-10-2021-093Russian Science Foundation 23-14-00316
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Bats play an important role in global microbial ecology, as they are the host of various microbes. Carollia perspicillata is one of the most popular bat species in zoos. The influence of the captive environment on the gut microbiota of this species is underinvestigated. In this study, we compared gut microbiota composition, diversity, and the potential functional activity of wild and captive C. perspicillata from Panama and Russia (Moscow Zoo), respectively, based on high-throughput 16S rRNA sequencing data. The abundance of 13 bacterial phyla and 35 bacterial genera significantly differed. Environment- and farm animal health-related bacteria (Mannheimia, unclassified Pasteurellaceae, Staphylococcus, and Mycoplasma) dominated wild bats, while bacteria important for public health (Bacteroides, Clostridium sensu stricto 1, and Acinetobacter) were higher in zoo bats. We also observed significantly greater alpha diversity in zoo bats, while there were no significant differences in beta diversity. These findings were accompanied by significant differences in the abundance of 32 functional pathways of gut bacteria, which are probably associated with the different diets of wild and zoo bats. This study shows that the rearing environment significantly affects the gut microbiota of C. perspicillata and highlights that the outcomes of microbiome research of captive bats need to be interpreted with care. Such differences in gut bacterial communities should be the basis for the development of new handling and veterinary care protocols, and also be the justification for further studies of the impact of microbiota of wild and zoo bats on One Health.

Indexed as

Animals, WildAnimals, ZooBacteriaChiropteraGastrointestinal MicrobiomeAnimalsBiodiversityPanamaRNA, Ribosomal, 16SRussiaRNA, Ribosomal, 16S16S rRNABatsFunctional pathwaysGut microbiotaMicrobial ecologyOne health

Identifiers

PMID39961999
PMCPMC12095714

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.