ArticleBMC microbiology2025
Profiling bacterial communities in feedlot cattle affected with bovine foot rot and bovine digital dermatitis lesions using 16S rRNA gene sequencing and quantitative real-time PCR.
Article in BMC microbiology, 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.
- Bos indicus cattle resistant to digital dermatitis exhibit a balanced proinflammatory cytokine response upon exposure to Treponema phagedenis in contrast to Bos taurus cattle.Veterinary research · 2026Article
- Molecular detection and distribution of Treponema species in a commercial dairy cattle herd in Slovakia.Veterinary research communications · 2025Article
- Characterization of T cell responses againstFrontiers in immunology · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe primary infectious foot diseases in cattle, bovine foot rot (BFR) and bovine digital dermatitis (BDD), commonly associated with Fusobacterium necrophorum and Treponema spp., respectively, are considered polybacterial in etiology with several additional bacteria involved such as Porphyromonas levii, Bacteroides pyogenes, and Fusobacterium mortiferum. BDD is further classified into several M-stages (M2: active and ulcerative; M4: chronic proliferative). Using quantitative real-time PCR and 16S rRNA gene (V3-V4 region) sequencing, we quantified several specific bacteria and analyzed bacterial communities present in biopsies of visually diagnosed cases of BFR (n = 32), M2 (n = 17), and M4 (n = 12) stages of BDD in feedlot cattle in contrast to inconclusive (n = 14) clinical cases and healthy (n = 25) cattle.
resultsBacterial composition of healthy skin differed significantly from that of skin lesions, and between BFR and both lesion stages of BDD, which also differed from each other. All animal groups had generally the same bacterial species, albeit in distinct ratios. Differential abundance analysis relative to the healthy group identified a higher abundance of Fusobacterium spp. in BFR and Treponema spp. in both BDD-M2 and BDD-M4. P. levii had the highest absolute abundance in all animal groups. A significantly higher abundance of F. necrophorum was observed in BFR compared to BDD-M2, and F. mortiferum in both stages of BDD compared to the inconclusive group. Both BDD M-stages had a significantly higher abundance of Treponema phagedenis and Treponema pedis. Treponema medium was significantly more abundant in BDD-M4 compared to BDD-M2.
conclusionThese results further the evidence of the involvement of Treponema spp., in BDD in feedlot cattle. However, it suggests further exploration of the role of Fusobacterium spp. in BFR and BDD. Importantly, a discriminating polybacterial involvement in these infections was evident demonstrated by changes in the population of multiple bacteria when compared to healthy animals.
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.