Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40611941›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2025

Eukaryotic gut community of the bat

Lia Ramírez-Fernández, Mónica Saldarriaga-Córdoba, Andrea X Silva, Constanza Napolitano, Annia Rodríguez-San Pedro

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 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

5 authors.

Lia Ramírez-FernándezLaboratorio de Genómica de Ambientes Extremos, Facultad de Recursos Naturales Renovables, Universidad Arturo Prat, Iquique, Chile.
Mónica Saldarriaga-CórdobaCentro de Investigación en Recursos Naturales y Sustentabilidad (CIRENYS), Universidad Bernardo O'Higgins, Santiago, Chile.
Andrea X SilvaAUSTRAL-omics, Vicerrectoría de Investigación, Desarrollo y Creación Artística, Universidad Austral de Chile, Valdivia, Chile.ORCID 0000-0002-4346-5524
Constanza NapolitanoDepartamento de Ciencias Biológicas y Biodiversidad, Universidad de los Lagos, Osorno, Chile.ORCID 0000-0002-7081-6975
Annia Rodríguez-San PedroCentro de Investigación e Innovación para el Cambio Climático (CiiCC), Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad Santo Tomás, Santiago, Chile.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Human-driven environmental changes can disrupt wildlife habitats, forcing animals to adapt to fragmented or degraded ecosystems. In some cases, this leads to increased proximity between wildlife and human populations, heightening the risk of pathogen spillover. Bats, as key ecological players, are particularly sensitive to such disturbances. While some species decline in heavily altered environments, others adapt and thrive near human settlements, increasing the likelihood of encounters. Given that bats can host a wide range of zoonotic pathogens, this adaptive behavior raises important public health concerns. Despite their ecological significance and their role in zoonotic disease dynamics, the gut eukaryotes communities associated with bats remain less studied. Methods: This study focused on the Valparaíso Myotis ( Results: Our analyses revealed that the gut eukaryotic community of Conclusions: This study highlights the significant role of native vegetation in shaping the eukaryotic gut community of

Indexed as

ChiropteraEukaryotaGastrointestinal MicrobiomeAnimalsChileEcosystemFecesHumansAnthropizationBat gut microbiomeEukaryotic microbesHabitat fragmentationHuman–bat interactionsMyotis arescensNative vegetationPublic health risksZoonotic pathogens

Identifiers

PMID40611941
PMCPMC12225633

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.