ArticleScientific reports2025
Evaluation of esophageal tubing and buccal swabbing versus rumen cannula to characterize ruminal microbiota in cows fed contrasting diets.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Oral-stomach sampling to replace rumen-fistulated lactating dairy cows in an experimental model of rumen dysfunction from high energy diet.Veterinary and animal science · 2026Article
- Subacute ruminal acidosis in high-producing dairy cows: an integrated diet-microbiota-epithelium-host framework for diagnosis and nutritional management.Journal of animal science and biotechnology · 2026Review
- Tears and saliva as alternative matrices for minimally invasive assessment of acute stress and pain in sheep.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2026Article
- Host identity dominates over intra-ruminal spatial variation in shaping the rumen microbiome of Holstein-Friesian dairy cows.Frontiers in microbiomes · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Rumen microorganisms are primarily essential for feed decomposition and nutrition of the host animal, playing a key role in the health and well-being of cattle as well as the efficiency of milk or meat production. However, they also generate pollutant emissions such as methane. Analysing this microbiota under different farming conditions is therefore essential for optimizing production while minimizing its environmental impact. In this study, with metataxonomic sequencing and qPCR, we analysed the composition of the cow rumen microbiota sampled through the cannula and via esophageal tubing before morning feeding under two contrasting diets, low- and high-starch contents. Buccal swabs were also collected at the same sampling times to assess their potential as a proxy for the rumen microbiota. The two rumen sampling methods resulted in similar taxonomic compositions of bacteria, Archaea, fungi and protozoa and showed similar changes after the diet shift, indicating that the use of esophageal tubing is a reliable method for capturing the microbiota structure and its potential shifts following dietary changes. In contrast, the buccal swabs did not accurately reflect the rumen microbiota under the low- and high-starch diets, even after specific stringent filtering of the buccal sequences. Furthermore, we identified microbial markers of acidogenic challenge, with Dialister spp. also detected in buccal swab samples as potential indicators.
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.