Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37005589›Full record

ArticleBMC microbiology2023

Structural differences in the gut microbiome of bats using terrestrial vs. aquatic feeding resources.

Alexandra Corduneanu, Alejandra Wu-Chuang, Apolline Maitre, Dasiel Obregon, Attila D Sándor, Alejandro Cabezas-Cruz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC microbiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Frontiers in microbiology · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

6 authors.

Alexandra CorduneanuDepartment of Animal Breeding and Animal Production, University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine of Cluj-Napoca, Cluj-Napoca, Romania.
Alejandra Wu-ChuangUMR BIPAR, Laboratoire de Santé Animale, ANSES, INRAE, Ecole Nationale Vétérinaire d'Alfort, Maisons-Alfort, France.
Apolline MaitreUMR BIPAR, Laboratoire de Santé Animale, ANSES, INRAE, Ecole Nationale Vétérinaire d'Alfort, Maisons-Alfort, France.
Dasiel ObregonSchool of Environmental Sciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, N1G 2W1, Canada.
Attila D SándorDepartment of Parasitology and Parasitic Diseases, University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine, Cluj-Napoca-Napoca, Romania.
Alejandro Cabezas-CruzUMR BIPAR, Laboratoire de Santé Animale, ANSES, INRAE, Ecole Nationale Vétérinaire d'Alfort, Maisons-Alfort, France. alejandro.cabezas@vet-alfort.fr.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Bat gut microbiomes are adapted to the specific diets of their hosts. Despite diet variation has been associated with differences in bat microbiome diversity, the influence of diet on microbial community assembly have not been fully elucidated. In the present study, we used available data on bat gut microbiome to characterize the microbial community assembly of five selected bat species (i.e., Miniopterus schreibersii, Myotis capaccinii, Myotis myotis, Myotis pilosus, and Myotis vivesi), using network analysis. These bat species with contrasting habitat and food preferences (i.e., My. capaccinii and My. pilosus can be piscivorous and/or insectivorous; Mi. schreibersii and My. myotis are exclusively insectivorous; while My. vivesi is a marine predator) offer an invaluable opportunity to test the impact of diet on bat gut microbiome assembly. The results showed that My. myotis showed the most complex network, with the highest number of nodes, while My. vivesi has the least complex structured microbiome, with lowest number of nodes in its network. No common nodes were observed in the networks of the five bat species, with My. myotis possessing the highest number of unique nodes. Only three bat species, My. myotis, My. pilosus and My. vivesi, presented a core microbiome and the distribution of local centrality measures of nodes was different in the five networks. Taxa removal followed by measurement of network connectivity revealed that My. myotis had the most robust network, while the network of My. vivesi presented the lowest tolerance to taxa removal. Prediction of metabolic pathways using PICRUSt2 revealed that Mi. schreibersii had significantly higher functional pathway's richness compared to the other bat species. Most of predicted pathways (82%, total 435) were shared between all bat species, while My. capaccinii, My. myotis and My. vivesi, but no Mi. schreibersii or My. pilosus, showed specific pathways. We concluded that despite similar feeding habits, microbial community assembly can differ between bat species. Other factors beyond diet may play a major role in bat microbial community assembly, with host ecology, sociality and overlap in roosts likely providing additional predictors governing gut microbiome of insectivorous bats.

Indexed as

ChiropteraGastrointestinal MicrobiomeMicrobiotaAnimalsDietEcologyBacterial community assemblyBatsMicrobiomeMiniopterusMyotis

Identifiers

PMID37005589
PMCPMC10067309

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.