MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391944282 · doi:10.1038/s41598-024-54269-5

A comparative study of the bacterial diversity and composition of nursery piglets’ oral fluid, feces, and housing environment

2024· article· en· W4391944282 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Vinicius Buiatte, Ana Fonseca, Paloma Alonso Madureira, Andréia Cristina Nakashima Vaz, P. C. Tizioto, Ana Maria Centola Vidal, Erika Ganda, Vera Letticie de Azevedo Ruiz

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicMicrobial infections and disease research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFaculdade de Zootecnia e Engenharia de Alimentos, Universidade de São PauloNational Institute of Food and AgricultureCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível SuperiorFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São PauloHatchU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsFirmicutesFecesBiologyProteobacteriaVeillonellaMicrobiologyAlpha diversityBacteroidetesStreptococcusBeta diversityVeterinary medicineBacteriaZoology16S ribosomal RNASpecies diversityEcologySpecies richnessMedicineGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The oral cavity is the portal of entry for many microorganisms that affect swine, and the swine oral fluid has been used as a specimen for the diagnosis of several infectious diseases. The oral microbiota has been shown to play important roles in humans, such as protection against non-indigenous bacteria. In swine, studies that have investigated the microbial composition of the oral cavity of pigs are scarce. This study aimed to characterize the oral fluid microbiota of weaned pigs from five commercial farms in Brazil and compare it to their respective fecal and environmental microbiotas. Bacterial compositions were determined by 16S rRNA gene sequencing and analyzed in R Studio. Oral fluid samples were significantly less diverse (alpha diversity) than pen floor and fecal samples (P < 0.01). Alpha diversity changed among farms in oral fluid and pen floor samples, but no differences were observed in fecal samples. Permutational ANOVA revealed that beta diversity was significantly different among sample types (P = 0.001) and farms (P = 0.001), with separation of sample types (feces, pen floor, and oral fluid) on the principal coordinates analysis. Most counts obtained from oral fluid samples were classified as Firmicutes (80.4%) and Proteobacteria (7.7%). The genera Streptococcus, members of the Pasteurellaceae family, and Veillonella were differentially abundant in oral fluid samples when compared to fecal samples, in which Streptococcus was identified as a core genus that was strongly correlated (SparCC) with other taxa. Firmicutes and Bacteroidota were the most relatively abundant phyla identified in fecal and pen floor samples, and Prevotella_9 was the most classified genus. No differentially abundant taxa were identified when comparing fecal samples and pen floor samples. We concluded that under the conditions of our study, the oral fluid microbiota of weaned piglets is different (beta diversity) and less diverse (alpha diversity) than the fecal and environmental microbiotas. Several differentially abundant taxa were identified in the oral fluid samples, and some have been described as important colonizers of the oral cavity in human microbiome studies. Further understanding of the relationship between the oral fluid microbiota and swine is necessary and would create opportunities for the development of innovative solutions that target the microbiota to improve swine health and production.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations12
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicMicrobial infections and disease researchFrench-language works237,207