Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41131628›Full record

ArticlePorcine health management2025

The role of human-pig interactions in modulating gut microbiota, stress, and performance.

Lucas Venegas, Catalina Araya, Rocio Palomo, Nicolás Galarce, Daniela Siel, José Manuel Yáñez, Florencia Correa-Fiz, Javiera Calderón-Amor, Daniel Cartes, Maria Camila Ceballos and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Porcine health management, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

13 authors.

Lucas VenegasAquaculture Genomics Lab, Facultad de Ciencias Veterinarias y Pecuarias, Universidad de Chile, Av. Santa Rosa 11735, La Pintana, Santiago, 8820000, Chile.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3668-5681
Catalina ArayaDepartamento de Ciencia Animal, Facultad de Ciencias Veterinarias y Pecuarias, Universidad de Chile, Av. Santa Rosa 11735, La Pintana, Santiago, 8820000, Chile.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0000-0401-3800
Rocio PalomoDepartamento de Ciencia Animal, Facultad de Ciencias Veterinarias y Pecuarias, Universidad de Chile, Av. Santa Rosa 11735, La Pintana, Santiago, 8820000, Chile.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4719-4896
Nicolás GalarceDepartamento de Medicina Preventiva Animal, Facultad de Ciencias Veterinarias y Pecuarias, Universidad de Chile, Av. Santa Rosa 11735, La Pintana, Santiago, 8820000, Chile.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4288-898X
Daniela SielEscuela de Medicina Veterinaria, Facultad de Medicina y Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad Mayor, Santiago, 8580745, Chile.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7735-1218
José Manuel YáñezAquaculture Genomics Lab, Facultad de Ciencias Veterinarias y Pecuarias, Universidad de Chile, Av. Santa Rosa 11735, La Pintana, Santiago, 8820000, Chile.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6612-4087
Florencia Correa-FizUnitat mixta d'Investigació IRTA-UAB en Sanitat Animal. Centre de Recerca en Sanitat Animal (CReSA). Campus de la Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB), Bellaterra, 08193, Catalonia, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9459-5871
Javiera Calderón-AmorEscuela de Graduados, Facultad de Ciencias Veterinarias, Universidad Austral de Chile, Valdivia, 5090000, Chile.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4183-2260
Daniel CartesDepartamento de Ciencias Clínicas, Facultad de Ciencias Veterinarias y Pecuarias, Universidad de Chile, Av. Santa Rosa 11735, La Pintana, Santiago, 8820000, Chile.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5527-993X
Maria Camila CeballosFaculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Calgary, 2500 University Drive NW, Calgary, AB, T2N 1N4, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4520-2904
Agustín PiñaAquaculture Genomics Lab, Facultad de Ciencias Veterinarias y Pecuarias, Universidad de Chile, Av. Santa Rosa 11735, La Pintana, Santiago, 8820000, Chile.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1862-217X
Sergio Guzmán-PinoDepartamento de Ciencia Animal, Facultad de Ciencias Veterinarias y Pecuarias, Universidad de Chile, Av. Santa Rosa 11735, La Pintana, Santiago, 8820000, Chile.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1763-5630
Daniela LunaAquaculture Genomics Lab, Facultad de Ciencias Veterinarias y Pecuarias, Universidad de Chile, Av. Santa Rosa 11735, La Pintana, Santiago, 8820000, Chile. daniela.luna.f@uchile.cl.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7229-3194

Funding

National Research and Development Agency (ANID), Programme FONDECYT Iniciación 11220280
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe microbiota‒gut‒brain axis modulates pigs' stress response, behavior, and overall welfare. Stressful management practices can disrupt gut microbiota (GM), negatively impacting pigs' health and welfare. This study evaluated how the quality of human handling influences stress-related physiological responses, productive performance, and gut microbiota (GM) composition in pigs during the nursery phase.

resultsFemale pigs (n= 36, 21 days old) were randomly assigned to three experimental groups (12 pigs/group, four pens per treatment): positive human handling (PHH), negative human handling (NHH), and a control group (CG). The PHH group experienced gentle tactile interactions, whereas the NHH group was subjected to chronic intermittent stress through acute stressors, and the CG group received minimal handling for routine practices. Hair cortisol concentrations were measured as an indicator of chronic stress (days 15 and 64). Productive performance was assessed through body weight (BW), average daily gain (ADG), average daily feed intake (ADFI), and feed conversion (FC). Fecal samples were collected at baseline (T0, day 16), mid-study (T1, day 37), and end of the study (T2, day 65) and analyzed using 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing to assess GM changes over time. Pigs in the PHH group showed a significant reduction in cortisol levels from baseline to post-treatment (P < 0.0001), while no significant changes were observed in the NHH group (P = 0.26). A smaller but significant decrease was also detected in the CG group (P = 0.001). PHH pigs had higher BW (P = 0.0009) and ADG (P = 0.03) during the later growth phase compared to NHH pigs. At T2, PHH pigs exhibited greater diversity and richness compared to NHH pigs, indicating a restorative effect on GM composition. Differential abundance analyses identified four bacterial genera that distinguished treatment groups: Blautia, Megasphaera, and Subdoligranulum were enriched in PHH pigs, while Terrisporobacter was enriched in NHH pigs. Additionally, bacterial interaction networks exhibited the least complex network in the NHH group, with ecological associations primarily involving Clostridium and Terrisporobacter.

conclusionsThe quality of human handling influenced stress physiology, performance, and gut microbiota in pigs. Positive handling reduced cortisol levels, improved growth, and promoted microbial diversity, while negative handling was linked to decreased performance and reduced microbial network complexity. These results highlight the potential of positive interactions to enhance welfare and productivity, and identify specific bacterial genera as potential biomarkers differentiating negative and positive handling conditions.

Indexed as

Hair cortisolHuman–animal interactionHuman handlingPig microbiomePig welfare

Identifiers

PMID41131628
PMCPMC12548226

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.