Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42731224›Full record

ArticlePoultry science2026

Timing of an antioxidant-acidifier feed additive modulates growth performance and cecal microbiota in broiler chickens during enrofloxacin exposure.

Ádám Kerek, Máté Hetyésy, Gergely Álmos Tornyos, Eszter Kaszab, Enikő Fehér, Ákos Jerzsele, Tamás Tóth, Eszter Zsédely, Hedvig Fébel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Poultry science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

9 authors.

Ádám KerekDepartment of Pharmacology and Toxicology, University of Veterinary Medicine Budapest, István utca 2, H-1078, Budapest, Hungary; National Laboratory of Infectious Animal Diseases, Antimicrobial Resistance, Veterinary Public Health and Food Chain Safety, University of Veterinary Medicine Budapest, István utca 2, H-1078, Budapest, Hungary. Electronic address: kerek.adam@univet.hu.
Máté HetyésyDepartment of Pharmacology and Toxicology, University of Veterinary Medicine Budapest, István utca 2, H-1078, Budapest, Hungary; National Laboratory of Infectious Animal Diseases, Antimicrobial Resistance, Veterinary Public Health and Food Chain Safety, University of Veterinary Medicine Budapest, István utca 2, H-1078, Budapest, Hungary. Electronic address: hetyesy.mate@student.univet.hu.
Gergely Álmos TornyosDepartment of Pharmacology and Toxicology, University of Veterinary Medicine Budapest, István utca 2, H-1078, Budapest, Hungary; National Laboratory of Infectious Animal Diseases, Antimicrobial Resistance, Veterinary Public Health and Food Chain Safety, University of Veterinary Medicine Budapest, István utca 2, H-1078, Budapest, Hungary. Electronic address: tornyos.gergely.almos@student.univet.hu.
Eszter KaszabNational Laboratory of Infectious Animal Diseases, Antimicrobial Resistance, Veterinary Public Health and Food Chain Safety, University of Veterinary Medicine Budapest, István utca 2, H-1078, Budapest, Hungary; Department of Bioinformatics, One Health Institute, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Debrecen, Nagyerdei krt. 98, H-4032, Debrecen, Hungary; Department of Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, University of Veterinary Medicine, István u 2, H-1078, Budapest, Hungary. Electronic address: kaszab.eszter@univet.hu.
Enikő FehérNational Laboratory of Infectious Animal Diseases, Antimicrobial Resistance, Veterinary Public Health and Food Chain Safety, University of Veterinary Medicine Budapest, István utca 2, H-1078, Budapest, Hungary; Department of Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, University of Veterinary Medicine, István u 2, H-1078, Budapest, Hungary; National Laboratory of Virology, Szentágothai Research Centre, University of Pécs, H-7624, Pécs, Hungary. Electronic address: feher.eniko@univet.hu.
Ákos JerzseleDepartment of Pharmacology and Toxicology, University of Veterinary Medicine Budapest, István utca 2, H-1078, Budapest, Hungary; National Laboratory of Infectious Animal Diseases, Antimicrobial Resistance, Veterinary Public Health and Food Chain Safety, University of Veterinary Medicine Budapest, István utca 2, H-1078, Budapest, Hungary. Electronic address: jerzsele.akos@univet.hu.
Tamás TóthAgricultural and Food Research Center, Széchenyi István University, Egyetem Square 1, H-9026, Győr, Hungary. Electronic address: toth.tamas@sze.hu.
Eszter ZsédelyDepartment of Animal Science, Széchenyi István University, Vár square 2, H-9200, Mosonmagyaróvár, Hungary. Electronic address: zsedely.eszter@sze.hu.
Hedvig FébelDepartment of Obstetrics and Food Animal Medicine Clinic, University of Veterinary Medicine Budapest, István utca 2, H-1078, Budapest, Hungary. Electronic address: febel.hedvig@univet.hu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Nutritional interventions targeting oxidative stress and gut ecology may help sustain broiler performance during antimicrobial perturbation. This study evaluated the timing-dependent effects of an antioxidant-acidifier feed additive, alone or combined with enrofloxacin, on growth performance and cecal microbiota in broilers. A total of 1,200 Ross 308 male broilers were assigned to six treatments (4 pens/treatment; 50 birds/pen) and reared to 42 d: control, enrofloxacin (d15-19), additive for 4 weeks (A4; d15-42), A4+enrofloxacin, additive for 6 weeks (A6; d1-42), and A6+enrofloxacin. The additive was included at 4% of the diet, providing fumaric acid, heat-stable vitamin C, and all-rac-α-tocopheryl acetate. Performance traits were recorded by phase and overall. Cecal contents were collected from 2 birds/pen on d14, d20, and d42 and analyzed by shotgun metagenomic sequencing; microbiota analyses were conducted on pen-level aggregated profiles. Growth performance showed modest, timing-dependent numerical differences: A4 had numerically higher finisher and overall average daily gain, whereas A4+enrofloxacin was associated with lower overall gain than enrofloxacin alone. Cecal community structure was driven primarily by sampling time point. No detectable enrofloxacin-associated separation was observed at d20, whereas a trend toward separation was evident at d42. By d42, only limited genus-level differences were detected, with the strongest signal observed for Phocaeicola in the targeted differential abundance analysis. Overall, additive timing influenced growth responses and cecal microbiota trajectories during enrofloxacin exposure, supporting the importance of supplementation timing when nutritional strategies are used to improve robustness under antibiotic perturbation.

Indexed as

Antioxidant–acidifier feed additiveBroiler chickenCecal microbiotaEnrofloxacinFumaric acid

Identifiers

PMID42731224
PMCPMC13590082

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
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.