Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39162552›Full record

ArticleMicrobiology spectrum2024

A comparison of wild boar and domestic pig microbiota does not reveal a loss of microbial species but an increase in alpha diversity and opportunistic genera in domestic pigs.

Rajibur Rahman, Janelle M Fouhse, Tingting Ju, Yi Fan, Camila S Marcolla, Robert Pieper, Ryan K Brook, Benjamin P Willing

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Microbiology spectrum, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing 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

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Prebiotics and probiotics in animal nutrition: implications for food safety, sustainability, and circular production systems.Brazilian journal of microbiology : [publication of the Brazilian Society for Microbiology] · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Perspectives in porcine semen conservation (liquid and frozen).The Journal of reproduction and development · 2026
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
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

8 authors.

Rajibur RahmanDepartment of Agricultural, Food & Nutritional Science, Faculty of Agricultural, Life & Environmental Sciences, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.ORCID 0009-0009-4519-8317
Janelle M FouhseDepartment of Agricultural, Food & Nutritional Science, Faculty of Agricultural, Life & Environmental Sciences, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Tingting JuDepartment of Agricultural, Food & Nutritional Science, Faculty of Agricultural, Life & Environmental Sciences, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Yi FanDepartment of Agricultural, Food & Nutritional Science, Faculty of Agricultural, Life & Environmental Sciences, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Camila S MarcollaDepartment of Agricultural, Food & Nutritional Science, Faculty of Agricultural, Life & Environmental Sciences, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Robert PieperGerman Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), Max-Dohrn-Straße, Berlin, Germany.
Ryan K BrookCollege of Agriculture and Bioresources, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada.
Benjamin P WillingDepartment of Agricultural, Food & Nutritional Science, Faculty of Agricultural, Life & Environmental Sciences, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-4285-4728

Funding

Alberta Livestock and Meat Agency (ALMA) res0030386Canadian Government | Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) RGPIN-2019-06336
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The microbiome of wild animals is believed to be co-evolved with host species, which may play an important role in host physiology. It has been hypothesized that the rigorous hygienic practices in combination with antibiotics and diets with simplified formulas used in the modern swine industry may negatively affect the establishment and development of the gut microbiome. In this study, we evaluated the fecal microbiome of 90 domestic pigs sampled from nine farms in Canada and 39 wild pigs sampled from three different locations on two continents (North America and Europe) using 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing. Surprisingly, the gut microbiome in domestic pigs exhibited higher alpha-diversity indices than wild pigs ( IMPORTANCE: The microbiome of pigs plays a crucial role in shaping host physiology and health. This study sought to identify if domestication and current rearing practices have resulted in a loss of co-evolved bacterial species by comparing the microbiome of wild boar and conventionally raised pigs. It provides a comparison of domestic and wild pigs with the largest sample sizes and is the first to examine wild boars from multiple sites and continents. We were able to identify core microbiome members that were shared between wild and domestic populations, and on the contrary to expectation, few microbes were identified to be lost from wild boar. Nevertheless, the microbiome of wild boars had a lower abundance of important pathogenic genera and was distinct from domestic pigs. The differences in the microbial composition may identify an opportunity to shift the microbial community of domestic pigs towards that of wild boar with the intent to reduce pathogen load.

Indexed as

BacteriaFecesGastrointestinal MicrobiomeRNA, Ribosomal, 16SSus scrofaAnimalsAnimals, WildBiodiversityCanadaEuropeMicrobiotaPhylogenySwineRNA, Ribosomal, 16Sdomesticmicrobiotaporcineswinewild boar

Identifiers

PMID39162552
PMCPMC11448168

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.