Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36823657›Full record

ArticleAnimal microbiome2023

Reprogramming of the gut microbiota following feralization in Sus scrofa.

Simona Petrelli, Maria Buglione, Eleonora Rivieccio, Ezio Ricca, Loredana Baccigalupi, Giovanni Scala, Domenico Fulgione

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Animal microbiome, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Simona PetrelliDepartment of Biology, University of Naples Federico II, Via Cinthia 26, 80126, Naples, NA, Italy.
Maria BuglioneDepartment of Biology, University of Naples Federico II, Via Cinthia 26, 80126, Naples, NA, Italy.
Eleonora RivieccioDepartment of Humanities, University of Naples Federico II, Via Porta Di Massa 1, 80133, Naples, Italy.
Ezio RiccaDepartment of Biology, University of Naples Federico II, Via Cinthia 26, 80126, Naples, NA, Italy.
Loredana BaccigalupiDepartment of Molecular Medicine and Medical Biotechnology, University of Naples Federico II, Via Pansini 5, 80131, Naples, NA, Italy.
Giovanni ScalaDepartment of Biology, University of Naples Federico II, Via Cinthia 26, 80126, Naples, NA, Italy.
Domenico FulgioneDepartment of Biology, University of Naples Federico II, Via Cinthia 26, 80126, Naples, NA, Italy. fulgione@unina.it.
University of Naples Federico II · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWild boar has experienced several evolutionary trajectories from which domestic (under artificial selection) and the feral pig (under natural selection) originated. Strong adaptation deeply affects feral population's morphology and physiology, including the microbiota community. The gut microbiota is generally recognized to play a crucial role in maintaining host health and metabolism. To date, it is unclear whether feral populations' phylogeny, development stages or lifestyle have the greatest impact in shaping the gut microbiota, as well as how this can confer adaptability to new environments. Here, in order to deepen this point, we characterized the gut microbiota of feral population discriminating between juvenile and adult samples, and we compared it to the microbiota structure of wild boar and domestic pig as the references. Gut microbiota composition was estimated through the sequencing of the partial 16S rRNA gene by DNA metabarcoding and High Throughput Sequencing on DNA extracted from fecal samples.

resultsThe comparison of microbiota communities among the three forms showed significant differences. The feral form seems to carry some bacteria of both domestic pigs, derived from its ancestral condition, and wild boars, probably as a sign of a recent re-adaptation strategy to the natural environment. In addition, interestingly, feral pigs show some exclusive bacterial taxa, also suggesting an innovative nature of the evolutionary trajectories and an ecological segregation in feral populations, as already observed for other traits.

conclusionsThe feral pig showed a significant change between juvenile and adult microbiota suggesting an influence of the wild environment in which these populations segregate. However, it is important to underline that we certainly cannot overlook that these variations in the structure of the microbiota also depended on the different development stages of the animal, which in fact influence the composition of the intestinal microbiota. Concluding, the feral pigs represent a new actor living in the same geographical space as the wild boars, in which its gut microbial structure suggests that it is mainly the result of environmental segregation, most different from its closest relative. This gives rise to interesting fields of exploration regarding the changed ecological complexity and the consequent evolutionary destiny of the animal communities involved in this phenomenon.

Indexed as

FeralizationGut microbiotaReprogrammingSus scrofa

Identifiers

PMID36823657
PMCPMC9951470
OpenAlexW4321748967

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.