Route of oxytetracycline administration differentially impacts the growth and gut microbiome of pigs co-infected with <i>Bordetella bronchiseptica</i> and <i>Pasteurella multocida</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Along with judicious antibiotic use, there is great interest in how the dose regimen of an antibiotic affects the animal gut microbiota. This study evaluated the impact of experimental respiratory infection alone or respiratory infection followed by oxytetracycline (oxytet) treatment on the animal’s health and its fecal microbiome. Piglets of approximately three weeks-of-age were separated into four groups ( n= 20 per group). One group remained non-infected and administered non-medicated feed and the other three groups were infected with Bordetella bronchiseptica (day 0) and Pasteurella multocida (day 4), with one group receiving non- medicated feed and the remaining two groups receiving oxytetr starting on day 7 by injection or in-feed (day 7-14). Infection with B. bronchiseptica and P. multocida negatively impacted piglet growth and induced mild pneumonia. Infection alone had minimal effect on the fecal microbiota community. When oxytet was administered either by injection or in-feed to treat the respiratory infections, both routes had minimal effect on clearing B. bronchiseptica and P. multocida in the animal. However, both routes appeared to limit lung lesion severity, and injected oxytet reduced the negative impact of infection on weight gain. Both routes had limited impact on the animal’s overall gut microbiome, including relative abundances of bacterial taxa and antibiotic resistance genes tet32, tetW, and aph2 . Overall, oxytet administered by either route did not clear the respiratory infection, but oxytet administration minimized the negative health impacts of infection and had minor impact on the pig gut microbiome. Importance Efforts to address antibiotic resistance calls for improved antibiotic stewardship, including considering antibiotic administration route. While our previous study found in-feed oxytet had greater impact on the gut microbiome of healthy piglets than injected oxytet, it remained unknown if oxytet treatments would have the same impact on the microbiota of infected piglets. We evaluated the impact of respiratory infection alone or respiratory infection followed by oxytet treatment on the animals’ health and their gut microbiome profile. Respiratory infection negatively affected piglets’ health, but infection alone had minimal impact on the gut community. When oxytet was administered either in-feed or by injection to treat the respiratory infection, neither route of administration led to the clearance of the respiratory pathogens. However, oxytet minimized the negative health impacts of infection, and had minor impact on the pig gut microbiome. These findings are informative for disease management in food animals while integrating antibiotic stewardship practices.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".