Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41507780›Full record

ArticleBMC microbiology2026

Microbiome and resistome dynamics in different stages of commercial broiler production with restricted antimicrobial use.

Pankaj Prakash Gaonkar, Alinne L R Santana-Pereira, Reed Golden, Alyssa Lambert, Courtney Higgins, Yagya Adhikari, Matthew Bailey, Kenneth Macklin, Laura Huber

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC microbiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. 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

9 authors.

Pankaj Prakash Gaonkar *Department of Pathobiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Auburn University, Auburn, USA.
Alinne L R Santana-Pereira *Department of Pathobiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Auburn University, Auburn, USA. alp0051@auburn.edu.
Reed GoldenDepartment of Pathobiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Auburn University, Auburn, USA.
Alyssa LambertDepartment of Pathobiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Auburn University, Auburn, USA.
Courtney HigginsDepartment of Pathobiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Auburn University, Auburn, USA.
Yagya AdhikariDepartment of Poultry Science, College of Agriculture, Auburn University, Auburn, USA.
Matthew BaileyDepartment of Poultry Science, College of Agriculture, Auburn University, Auburn, USA.
Kenneth MacklinDepartment of Poultry Science, College of Agriculture, Mississippi State University, Starkville, USA.
Laura HuberDepartment of Pathobiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Auburn University, Auburn, USA. lzh0067@auburn.edu.

Funding

Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station Intramural fundingUnited States Department of Agriculture (USDA) G00017930
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAntimicrobial use (AMU) in poultry production is central to curb the Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR) crisis. Institutional and market pressure led many commercial poultry operations to practice distinct levels of AMU restriction. On-farm data remains one of the main bottlenecks in understanding the impacts of AMU restriction at the farm level and across production systems. However, AMR dynamics in company-wide production chains remain largely unexplored, precluding improvement of AMU policies and stewardship. STUDY

aimHere, we shotgun sequenced soil and litter samples from 26 poultry farms and carcass rinses from a processing plant to reconstruct the microbiome and resistome of two vertically integrated commercial poultry operations to explore their dynamics under AMU restriction.

resultsShotgun sequencing revealed that litter microbiome and resistome changed significantly by production stage and company, reflecting management practices and possible effects of historical AMU. Meanwhile, broiler farms had increased detection of potential pathogens and AMR diversity. We found no evidence of farm-to-fork transmission. Effective biosecurity protocols largely maintained the separation between the internal and external environments of the poultry houses, except on two farms where breaches might have led to external spread of pathogens and AMR.

conclusionOur study highlights that AMR in commercial poultry system reflects the combined effect of production-stage, company practices, and environmental boundaries. Future studies should integrate quantitative AMR data and culture-based techniques with metagenomic findings to strengthen tracking and surveillance of AMR in poultry farm environments.

Indexed as

Anti-Bacterial AgentsAnti-Infective AgentsBacteriaChickensDrug Resistance, BacterialMicrobiotaAnimal HusbandryAnimalsFarmsShotgun SequencingSoil MicrobiologyAnti-Bacterial AgentsAnti-Infective AgentsAntimicrobial resistanceEnvironmentMicrobiomePoultryResistome

Identifiers

PMID41507780
PMCPMC12908346

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.