ArticleVeterinary research communications2026
Observational study of the microbiome of perforated abomasal ulcers in unweaned beef calves in Canada.
Article in Veterinary research communications, 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
In western Canada, perforating abomasal ulcers (AU) are generally diagnosed postmortem in beef calves up to 2 months of age. Certain microbes have been associated with AU, but the evidence is circumstantial. Thus, analyzing the abomasal microbiome in calves with and without AU may provide insight into the etiology of the disease. Using 16S rRNA gene sequencing, abomasal tissues from Western Canadian beef calves, with (n = 27) and without AU (n = 17), were analyzed for microbial diversity. No significant differences were seen between microbiomes of AU and CON calves despite numerical differences in abundance. Therefore, a subsample of 18 tissues (12 AU, 6 CON) were analyzed using untargeted metagenomic sequencing for determination of phylogeny, and the presence of antimicrobial resistance genes (ARGs). Staphylococcaceae (1.5%), Campylobacteraceae (1.4%) and Enterobacteriaceae (1.4%) were seen across all samples. Differential abundance analysis revealed Streptomyces spp. REN17 to be less abundant in AU calves, suggesting a potential association between Streptomyces spp. and calf gut health. An ARG associated with polymyxin resistance was found to be differentially abundant in calves with a history of antimicrobial therapy. Although differences were observed in the predicted metabolic functions among groups, none reached statistical significance. In our study, no consistent microbial signature associated with AU was identified, despite the differential abundance of individual taxon, nor did prior antimicrobial therapy associate to the growth of specific microbiota. To better understand the potential role of the abomasal microbiota in AU etiology and the impact of early life interventions in beef calves, a larger sample size is needed.
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.