Description of the bacterial microbiota of anal sacs in healthy dogs.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of the present study was to characterize the bacterial microbiota of anal sacs in healthy dogs using NGS. Swabs were used to sample the rectum and secretions from each anal sac in 15 healthy dogs. DNA was extracted from swabs and the V4 hypervariable region of the 16S rRNA gene was amplified and sequenced with Illumina MiSeq. Overall, 14 different bacterial phyla were identified in the rectum and in both anal sacs, the 5 main ones being Firmicutes, Bacteroidetes, Proteobacteria, Actinobacteria, and Fusobacteria. The rectum had higher microbial diversity and richness than the left and right anal sacs. Community membership and structure significantly differed between the rectum and both anal sacs, but not between the right and the left anal sacs. This study showed that the diversity and richness of the bacterial microbiota of the anal sacs in dogs is greater than what has been reported in previous studies with culture-based methods. In conclusion, the bacterial microbiota of the anal sacs in dogs varies between individuals and differs from the rectal bacterial microbiota.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".