ArticleBMC microbiology2023
Structural differences in the gut microbiome of bats using terrestrial vs. aquatic feeding resources.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ecological insights into the cross-domain microbiome interactions in the hematophagous bat Desmodus rotundus.Animal microbiome · 2026Article
- Hibernation Shifts in Gut Microbiota Composition and Metabolic Function in the Chinese Horseshoe Bat (Ecology and evolution · 2026Article
- Review
- Virome and Microbiome of Florida Bats Illuminate Viral Co-Infections, Dietary Viral Signals, and Gut Microbiome Shifts.Microorganisms · 2025Article
- Article
- Microbial community dynamics in blood, faeces and oral secretions of neotropical bats in Casanare, Colombia.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Bat Ecology and Microbiome of the Gut: A Narrative Review of Associated Potentials in Emerging and Zoonotic Diseases.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024Review
- Exploring the impact of breast cancer on colonization resistance of mouse microbiota using network node manipulation.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Comparative Analysis of the Gut Microbiota of Bat Species with Different Feeding Habits.Biology · 2024Article
- Gut Microbiota Composition of Insectivorous Synanthropic and Fructivorous Zoo Bats: A Direct Metagenomic Comparison.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Article
- Characterization of the bacterial microbiome of non-hematophagous bats and associated ectoparasites from Brazil.Frontiers in microbiology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.