ArticleFrontiers in microbiology2026
Antibiotic growth promoter and phytogenic feed additive consistently alter microbial community structure in chicken cecum.
Article in Frontiers in microbiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Efforts to replace antibiotic growth promoters (AGPs) in livestock are often hindered by a limited mechanistic understanding of how sub-therapeutic antibiotic doses enhance animal growth. Since AGP concentrations are typically too low to directly suppress pathogens, their effects on the gut microbiome, particularly its ecological dynamics, warrant closer investigation. A critical but underexplored dimension is how these additives influence the structure and stability of microbial communities as interconnected ecosystems. Methods: We conducted a comparative network-based analysis to examine the effects of zinc-bactracin, a commonly used AGP, and Digestarom Results: Compared to the Control group, both AGP and PFA treatments induced consistent shifts in network topology, including reduced connectivity, increased modularity, increased percentage of positive interactions, enhanced mucosa connectivity, and improved structural robustness over experiment time. Overall, these treatment-induced changes were more pronounced under AGP than under PFA. Despite these changes, we identified conserved subgraphs with stable interconnections across diets and time points during the experiment. The node centrality analysis revealed condition-specific keystone taxa, but Linear Discriminant Analysis (LDA) and Random Forest (RF) struggled to accurately differentiate between diets using their abundance, particularly between PFA and the two other groups. Conclusion: Our findings reveal that feed additives can reshape gut microbial dynamics without producing marked compositional shifts. The consistent network-level changes observed for both AGP and PFA highlight the value of ecological network analysis in uncovering microbial community responses. These insights improve our understanding of cecal microbiome responses in chickens, highlight potential modes of action of AGPs, and offer a comparative framework for assessing the microbial impacts of alternative feed additives.
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.