Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40608691›Full record

ArticlePloS one2025

Social structuring of the gut microbiome in communally roosting bats.

Eleonore Lebeuf-Taylor, Alexandria Cosby, Quinn Webber, Karl Cottenie

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

4 authors.

Eleonore Lebeuf-TaylorDepartment of Integrative Biology, College of Biological Sciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9082-6049
Alexandria CosbyDepartment of Integrative Biology, College of Biological Sciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0005-8750-0992
Quinn WebberDepartment of Integrative Biology, College of Biological Sciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada.
Karl CottenieDepartment of Integrative Biology, College of Biological Sciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The gut microbiome is the community of microbes that inhabits the gastrointestinal tracts of animals. Laboratory findings have shown that the gut microbiome plays a crucial role in host metabolism, physiology, and immunity. This has led to speculation that selection acts on both host and microbiome-although identifying functionally essential coevolving microbes in wild animals remains challenging. A recent surge of studies in wild populations has identified phylogenetic, spatiotemporal, dietary, and social patterns in host-associated microbiomes. Here, we describe and assess the gut microbiomes of two sympatric bat species: big brown bats (Eptesicus fuscus) and little brown bats (Myotis lucifugus). Although these species share similar diets and environments throughout much of their North American ranges, we found they have distinct gut microbiomes. We find no evidence of a functional core microbiome among big brown bats and identify roost identity as a driver of microbiome composition, likely arising from social transmission among hosts through physical proximity. We conclude that both environmental and social factors drive microbiome composition in big brown bats and that repeated, extensive sampling is required to bring ecological reality to host-associated microbiome studies in wild populations.

Indexed as

ChiropteraGastrointestinal MicrobiomeSocial BehaviorAnimalsPhylogenyRNA, Ribosomal, 16SRNA, Ribosomal, 16S

Identifiers

PMID40608691
PMCPMC12225880

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.