Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37605221›Full record

ArticleAnimal microbiome2023

The effects of antibiotic use on the dynamics of the microbiome and resistome in pigs.

Katrine Wegener Tams, Inge Larsen, Julie Elvekjær Hansen, Henrik Spiegelhauer, Alexander Damm Strøm-Hansen, Sophia Rasmussen, Anna Cäcilia Ingham, Lajos Kalmar, Iain Robert Louis Kean, Øystein Angen and 6 more

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 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

16 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Katrine Wegener TamsDepartment of Biotechnology and Biomedicine, Technical University of Denmark, 2800, Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8154-6122
Inge LarsenDepartment of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, University of Copenhagen, 1871, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4575-2241
Julie Elvekjær HansenDepartment of Biotechnology and Biomedicine, Technical University of Denmark, 2800, Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3885-8929
Henrik SpiegelhauerDepartment of Biotechnology and Biomedicine, Technical University of Denmark, 2800, Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark.
Alexander Damm Strøm-HansenDepartment of Biotechnology and Biomedicine, Technical University of Denmark, 2800, Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark.
Sophia RasmussenDepartment of Biotechnology and Biomedicine, Technical University of Denmark, 2800, Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark.
Anna Cäcilia InghamDepartment of Bacteria, Parasites and Fungi, Statens Serum Institut (SSI), 2300, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6079-6643
Lajos KalmarDepartment of Veterinary Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3691-8350
Iain Robert Louis KeanDepartment of Veterinary Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1066-8285
Øystein AngenDepartment of Bacteria, Parasites and Fungi, Statens Serum Institut (SSI), 2300, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2706-4501
Mark A HolmesDepartment of Veterinary Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5454-1625
Karl PedersenDepartment of Animal Health and Antimicrobial Strategies, National Veterinary Institute, 751 89, Uppsala, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5013-7409
Lars JelsbakDepartment of Biotechnology and Biomedicine, Technical University of Denmark, 2800, Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5759-9769
Anders FolkessonDepartment of Biotechnology and Biomedicine, Technical University of Denmark, 2800, Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2175-830X
Anders Rhod LarsenDepartment of Bacteria, Parasites and Fungi, Statens Serum Institut (SSI), 2300, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1713-8765
Mikael Lenz StrubeDepartment of Biotechnology and Biomedicine, Technical University of Denmark, 2800, Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark. milst@dtu.dk.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0905-5705
Technical University of Denmark · DKStatens Serum Institut · DKUniversity of Cambridge · GBSwedish Veterinary Agency · SEUniversity of Copenhagen · DK

Funding

Grønt Udviklings- og Demonstrations Program 34009-17-1246
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Antibiotics are widely used in pig farming across the world which has led to concerns about the potential impact on human health through the selection of antibiotic resistant pathogenic bacteria. This worry has resulted in the development of a production scheme known as pigs Raised Without Antibiotics (RWA), in which pigs are produced in commercial farms, but are ear-tagged as RWA until slaughter unless they receive treatment, thus allowing the farmer to sell the pigs either as premium priced RWA or as conventional meat. Development of antibiotic resistance in pig farming has been studied in national surveys of antibiotic usage and resistance, as well as in experimental studies of groups of pigs, but not in individual pigs followed longitudinally in a commercial pig farm. In this study, a cohort of RWA designated pigs were sampled at 10 time points from birth until slaughter along with pen-mates treated with antibiotics at the same farm. From these samples, the microbiome, determined using 16S sequencing, and the resistome, as determined using qPCR for 82 resistance genes, was investigated, allowing us to examine the difference between RWA pigs and antibiotic treated pigs. We furthermore included 176 additional pigs from six different RWA farms which were sampled at the slaughterhouse as an endpoint to substantiate the cohort as well as for evaluation of intra-farm variability. The results showed a clear effect of age in both the microbiome and resistome composition from early life up until slaughter. As a function of antibiotic treatment, however, we observed a small but significant divergence between treated and untreated animals in their microbiome composition immediately following treatment, which disappeared before 8 weeks of age. The effect on the resistome was evident and an effect of treatment could still be detected at week 8. In animals sampled at the slaughterhouse, we observed no difference in the microbiome or the resistome as a result of treatment status but did see a strong effect of farm origin. Network analysis of co-occurrence of microbiome and resistome data suggested that some resistance genes may be transferred through mobile genetic elements, so we used Hi-C metagenomics on a subset of samples to investigate this. We conclude that antibiotic treatment has a differential effect on the microbiome vs. the resistome and that although resistance gene load is increased by antibiotic treatment load, this effect disappears before slaughter. More studies are needed to elucidate the optimal way to rear pigs without antibiotics.

Indexed as

Antibiotic resistanceMetagenomesMicrobiomePig farming

Identifiers

PMID37605221
PMCPMC10440943
OpenAlexW4386031092

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.