Eric R. Burrough, Bailey L. Arruda, Paul J. Plummer
Abstract
Colonic contents and mucosal scrapings from pigs inoculated with Brachyspira hyodysenteriae or Brachyspira hampsonii were collected at necropsy and classified as either positive (n = 29) or negative (n = 7) for swine dysentery (SD) based upon lesions and positive culture from the source pig. The microbiota in each sample was analyzed by bacterial census taking (16S rRNA gene sequencing). Procrustes analysis revealed similar clustering by disease classification with a relatively high M2 value (0.44) suggesting differences in the microbiota between mucosal and luminal samples from the same pig. In both sample types, differences in richness and beta diversity were observed between disease statuses (P ≤ 0.014). The relative abundance of Brachyspirales, Campylobacterales, Desulfovibrionales, and Enterobacteriales was higher in pigs with dysentery for both mucosal scrapings and luminal samples while Clostridiales, Erysipelotrichales, and Fusobacteriales were significantly more abundant in the luminal contents only. For inoculated pigs that did not develop dysentery, Burkholderiales were more abundant in both sample types, Bacteroidales and Synergistales were more abundant in mucosal scrapings, and Lactobacillales and Bifidobacteriales were more abundant in luminal contents when compared with diseased pigs. Linear discriminant analysis of effect size revealed Brachyspira, Campylobacter, Mogibacterium, and multiple Desulfovibrio spp. as differential features in mucosal scrapings from pigs with dysentery while Lactobacillus and a Bifidobacterium spp. were differential in pigs without disease. These differential features were not observed in luminal samples. In summary, microbial profiles in both sample types differ significantly between disease states; however, evaluation of the mucosal microbiome specifically may be of higher value in elucidating bacterial mechanisms underlying development of SD.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 November 2023.
All research outputs
#1,885,371
of 25,801,916 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Veterinary Science
#369
of 8,231 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,447
of 326,127 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Veterinary Science
#7
of 58 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,801,916 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,231 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 326,127 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 58 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
