MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4291413831 · doi:10.1186/s40168-022-01319-7

Systematic profiling of the chicken gut microbiome reveals dietary supplementation with antibiotics alters expression of multiple microbial pathways with minimal impact on community structure

2022· article· en· W4291413831 on OpenAlexafffund
Angela E. Zou, Kerry Nadeau, Xuejian Xiong, Pauline W. Wang, Julia K. Copeland, Jee Yeon Lee, James St. Pierre, Maxine Ty, Billy Taj, John H. Brumell, David S. Guttman, Shayan Sharif, D.R. Korver, John Parkinson

Bibliographic record

VenueMicrobiome · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGut microbiota and health
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationUniversity of GuelphUniversity of AlbertaHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversity of TorontoHospital for Sick ChildrenMinistry of Agriculture, Food and Rural AffairsAlberta Livestock and Meat AgencyCompute CanadaCanada Foundation for InnovationGovernment of OntarioOntario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural AffairsNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Poultry Research Council
KeywordsBiologyGut microbiomeMicrobiomeMicrobial ecologyAntibioticsMedical microbiologyComputational biologyMetagenomicsBioinformaticsGut floraMicrobiologyGeneticsImmunologyBacteriaGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The emergence of antimicrobial resistance is a major threat to global health and has placed pressure on the livestock industry to eliminate the use of antibiotic growth promotants (AGPs) as feed additives. To mitigate their removal, efficacious alternatives are required. AGPs are thought to operate through modulating the gut microbiome to limit opportunities for colonization by pathogens, increase nutrient utilization, and reduce inflammation. However, little is known concerning the underlying mechanisms. Previous studies investigating the effects of AGPs on the poultry gut microbiome have largely focused on 16S rDNA surveys based on a single gastrointestinal (GI) site, diet, and/or timepoint, resulting in an inconsistent view of their impact on community composition. METHODS: In this study, we perform a systematic investigation of both the composition and function of the chicken gut microbiome, in response to AGPs. Birds were raised under two different diets and AGP treatments, and 16S rDNA surveys applied to six GI sites sampled at three key timepoints of the poultry life cycle. Functional investigations were performed through metatranscriptomics analyses and metabolomics. RESULTS: Our study reveals a more nuanced view of the impact of AGPs, dependent on age of bird, diet, and intestinal site sampled. Although AGPs have a limited impact on taxonomic abundances, they do appear to redefine influential taxa that may promote the exclusion of other taxa. Microbiome expression profiles further reveal a complex landscape in both the expression and taxonomic representation of multiple pathways including cell wall biogenesis, antimicrobial resistance, and several involved in energy, amino acid, and nucleotide metabolism. Many AGP-induced changes in metabolic enzyme expression likely serve to redirect metabolic flux with the potential to regulate bacterial growth or produce metabolites that impact the host. CONCLUSIONS: As alternative feed additives are developed to mimic the action of AGPs, our study highlights the need to ensure such alternatives result in functional changes that are consistent with site-, age-, and diet-associated taxa. The genes and pathways identified in this study are therefore expected to drive future studies, applying tools such as community-based metabolic modeling, focusing on the mechanistic impact of different dietary regimes on the microbiome. Consequently, the data generated in this study will be crucial for the development of next-generation feed additives targeting gut health and poultry production. Video Abstract.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.829

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.238 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations71
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMicrobiomeSame topicGut microbiota and healthFrench-language works237,207