Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40685369›Full record

ReviewAnimal microbiome2025

Fecal microbiota transplantation in pigs: current status and future perspective.

Rajibur Rahman, Camila Schultz Marcolla, Benjamin P Willing

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Animal microbiome, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. 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

3 authors.

Rajibur RahmanDepartment of Agricultural, Food & Nutritional Science, Faculty of Agricultural, Life & Environmental Sciences, University of Alberta, 116 St. and 85 Ave., Edmonton, AB, T6G 2R3, Canada.
Camila Schultz MarcollaDepartment of Agricultural, Food & Nutritional Science, Faculty of Agricultural, Life & Environmental Sciences, University of Alberta, 116 St. and 85 Ave., Edmonton, AB, T6G 2R3, Canada.
Benjamin P WillingDepartment of Agricultural, Food & Nutritional Science, Faculty of Agricultural, Life & Environmental Sciences, University of Alberta, 116 St. and 85 Ave., Edmonton, AB, T6G 2R3, Canada. willing@ualberta.ca.

Funding

Alberta Livestock and Meat Agency res0030386Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada RGPIN-2019-06336
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) is gaining attention as a method to modulate the gut microbiome in pigs, with the goal of enhancing health and production outcomes. While some studies indicate that FMT can enhance growth performance and intestinal health in piglets, others report minimal or even negative effects. This variability highlights the need for standardized protocols and further research to optimize FMT for swine applications. Currently, the use of FMT in pigs is still in its early stages, with limited studies showing considerable methodological differences. Although some evidence supports the effectiveness of FMT, significant gaps remain in our understanding of its approach and underlying mechanisms. Therefore, this review summarizes the role and development of gut microbiota in pigs, analyzes existing FMT research in pigs, emphasizes the varying outcomes, illustrates the potential mechanisms of action based on human and animal studies and discusses the innovative potential of using co-evolved microbial communities as a transplant material. As our understanding of pig gut microbiome advances, FMT and related microbiome-based interventions could become valuable tools in pig production. However, ongoing research is essential to elucidate their mechanisms and develop reliable protocols.

Identifiers

PMID40685369
PMCPMC12278582

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.