ArticleThe ISME journal2025
Differential microbial community assembly following co-housing versus microbiota transplant.
Article in The ISME journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Mouse models are vital tools for discerning the relative contributions of host and microbial genetics to disease, often requiring the transfer of microbiota between different mouse strains. Transfer methods include antibiotic treatment of recipients and colonization using either co-housing with donors or the transplantation of faecal or caecal donor material. However, the efficiency and dynamics of these methods in reconstituting recipients with donor microbes is not well understood. We thus directly compared co-housing, faecal transplantation, and caecal transplantation methods. Donor mice from Taconic Biosciences, possessing distinct microbial communities, served as the microbial source for recipient mice from Jackson Laboratories, which were treated with antibiotics to disrupt their native microbiota. We monitored bacterial and viral populations longitudinally over the course of antibiotics treatment and reconstitution using 16S rRNA gene sequencing, quantitative PCR (qPCR), and shotgun sequencing of viral-like particles (VLPs). As expected, antibiotic treatment rapidly depleted microbial biomass and diversity, with slow and incomplete natural recovery of the microbiota in non-transfer-recipient control mice. Although all transfer methods reconstituted recipient mice with donor microbiota, co-housing achieved this more rapidly for both bacterial and viral communities. Overall, faecal and caecal transplant resulted in highly similar colonization processes with some minor variation in enrichment for two specific bacterial families. This study provides valuable insights into microbial ecology, as well as the dynamics underlying experimental microbial transfer methods, enhancing reproducibility and informing best practices for microbiota transfer in mouse models.
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.