Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42020632›Full record

SynthesisScientific reports2026

The impact of microplastics on the mice gut microbiome: a meta-analysis.

Anika Kalra, Davide Dominoni, Jelle Boonekamp

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Scientific reports, 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. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
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

3 authors.

Anika KalraSchool of Biodiversity, One Health & Veterinary Medicine, Graham Kerr Building, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Davide DominoniSchool of Biodiversity, One Health & Veterinary Medicine, Graham Kerr Building, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Jelle BoonekampSchool of Biodiversity, One Health & Veterinary Medicine, Graham Kerr Building, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK. jelle.boonekamp@glasgow.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1900-627X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Microplastics are nearly ubiquitous in the natural environment. There is increasing awareness of the ingestion of microplastics in a wide range of wild animals and humans, but their health and fitness impacts remain poorly understood. Mounting evidence suggests that microplastics could accumulate in the gut, affecting the microbiome and hindering its function. This may constitute a direct pathway through which exposure to microplastics could affect health and disease. However, prior studies on the effects of microplastic exposure on the microbiome show contrasting findings raising the question whether microplastics truly affect the microbiome. Here, we performed the first meta-analysis on the effects of dietary microplastic exposure on the gut microbiome of mice. Overall, we found support for a significant impact of microplastic exposure on the relative abundance of gut bacteria. Microplastic exposure significantly increased the relative abundance of phyla Bacillota and Pseudomonadota. More in depth order-level analysis revealed significant increases in relative abundance within Bacillota of orders Lachnospirales and Lactobacillales and within Pseudomonadota of orders Burkholderiales, Hyphomicrobiales and Moraxellales. In the gut microbiome, Bacillota is associated with carbohydrate metabolism and Pseudomonadota is associated with facultative anaerobes, thus these changes may have functional consequences. Our findings highlight the importance of distinguishing among differing bacterial taxa when assessing the impacts of microplastics on the gut microbiome as the direction and size of the impact varies by phyla.

Indexed as

Gastrointestinal MicrobiomeMicroplasticsAnimalsBacteriaMiceMicroplasticsGut microbiomeMicroplasticsNanoplasticsRelative abundanceShannon index

Identifiers

PMID42020632
PMCPMC13272680

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.