ArticleAnimal microbiome2025
Effects of naturalistic housing conditions on amphibian growth and microbiome in captivity.
Article in Animal microbiome, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAnimals in captivity are inherently separated from their natural environments, which both exposes them to new heterospecific organisms as well as reduces contact with naturally occurring predators, prey or microbiota. The microbes that live on and in animals are increasingly recognized as having important impacts on animal health, development and behavior. We raised post-metamorphic treefrogs in 1) naturalistic containers in groups, 2) regularly sterilized containers in groups, or 3) regularly sterilized containers but solitary. Froglets were raised for over eight months; in addition to monitoring growth and development, we collected fecal samples on three occasions, gut samples on two occasions, and skin swab samples once. We compared the diversity of microbial communities across sample types and over time.
resultsFroglets raised in group housing, either naturalistic or regularly cleaned, had the fastest growth and sexual differentiation, but naturalistic housing also improved survival. Alpha diversity of bacteria on the skin or in the gut did not vary with rearing conditions, whereas diversity in the gut increased over time. Alpha diversity of feces did vary with rearing treatment and changed over time. Bacterial community composition (beta diversity) varied most strongly with sample type, but also with rearing conditions and over time. In addition, bacterial communities of feces were highly correlated with those of guts, indicating that feces can serve as an accurate and non-invasive biomarker of the gut microbiome. Lastly, transferring frogs from regularly sterilized environments to naturalistic vivaria improved bacterial community diversity.
conclusionsOur study suggests that naturalistic housing improves the overall health and development of captive amphibians and that these improvements may occur by facilitating a more stable and diverse microbiome.
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.