ReviewBiological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society2025
Comparative gut microbiome research through the lens of ecology: theoretical considerations and best practices.
Review in Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effect of Protein Supplementation on the Gut Microbiome of Omnivorous and Herbivorous Goliath Beetles.Insects · 2026Article
- Article
- Metagenomics comparison identifies shared pathogenic microbiome in humans, pigs and chickens.Applied microbiology and biotechnology · 2026Article
- The resistome bridge between livestock and workers: novel frameworks for early detection and monitoring of antimicrobial resistance.Frontiers in public health · 2026Review
- Article
- Gut microbiome and diet contribute to ecological niche differentiation between argali (Ovis ammon hodgsoni) and blue sheep (Pseudois nayaur) on the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau.Communications biology · 2025Article
- Host-microbiota matching and epigenetic modulation drive Daphnia magna responses to cyanobacterial stress.The ISME journal · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Comparative approaches in animal gut microbiome research have revealed patterns of phylosymbiosis, dietary and physiological convergences, and environment-host interactions. However, most large-scale comparative studies, especially those that are highly cited, have focused on mammals, and efforts to integrate comparative approaches with existing ecological frameworks are lacking. While mammals serve as useful model organisms, developing generalised principles of how animal gut microbiomes are shaped and how these microbiomes interact bidirectionally with host ecology and evolution requires a more complete sampling of the animal kingdom. Here, we provide an overview of what past comparative studies have taught us about the gut microbiome, and how community ecology theory may help resolve certain contradictions in comparative gut microbiome research. We explore whether certain hypotheses are supported across clades, and how the disproportionate focus on mammals has introduced potential bias into gut microbiome theory. We then introduce a methodological solution by which public gut microbiome data of understudied hosts can be compiled and analysed in a comparative context. Our aggregation and analysis of 179 studies shows that generating data sets with rich host diversity is possible with public data and that key gut microbes associated with mammals are widespread across the animal kingdom. We also show the effects that sample size and taxonomic rank have on comparative gut microbiome studies and that results of multivariate analyses can vary significantly with these two parameters. While challenges remain in developing a universal model of the animal gut microbiome, we show that existing ecological frameworks can help bring us one step closer to integrating the gut microbiome into animal ecology and evolution.
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.