ArticleFrontiers in microbiomes2026
Protist community sites and structure under two barn management systems at a commercial dairy.
Article in Frontiers in microbiomes, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Investigations into the location and load of protists in the environment arounddairies are scarce but are essential to maintaining the health of livestock.Moreover, the design of dairy barns has fluctuated over the decades to maximizecattle health and milk production without regard to influences on environmentalmicrobiomes. Beyond cost, the major emphasis of barn design is the managementof appropriate temperature and comfort for cattle. However, there havebeen no corresponding investigations into whether these design changes affect protist communities within barns. Methods: In this study, community shotgun metagenomic analysis was used to define the spatial composition and relative abundance of protist communities from 118 samples of manure, lagoons, troughs, and house and stable flies at a commercial dairy implementing two free-stall management systems: flow-through and cross-vent. Sequence reads were mapped to the CosmosID database. Viability was not assessed; therefore, results reflect DNA detection only not viability or disease occurrence. Results: The protist composition differed significantly between dairy components. Ecological findings showed that troughs and lagoons harbored high protist diversity, including the possible pathogen Neobalantidium coli and potential carriers Paramecium biaurelia and Acanthamoeba. Manure had the lowest protist diversity. Stable flies carried more protist taxa than house flies. Both fly species uniquely carried the non-pathogenic alveolate parasite Hammondia hammondi. The water mold plant pathogen Pseudoperonospora cubensis was identified in all sample types. Of the total relative abundance of protists, 2.10% were amoebas, 7.63% alveolate parasites, 62.71% water molds, 23.31% ciliates, 1.74% foraminifera, and 2.50% diatoms. Discussion: These results describe preliminary spatial overlaps and possible avenues of dissemination, providing a basis for assessing appropriate management systems and identifying protist reservoir sites within dairy operations.
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.