| Title |
Effect of dietary copper level on the gut microbiota and its correlation with serum inflammatory cytokines in Sprague-Dawley rats
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Microbiology, September 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12275-017-6627-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Feng Zhang, Weijiang Zheng, Rong Guo, Wen Yao |
| Abstract |
In China's swine industry, copper is generally supplemented above the National Research Council (NRC) requirement (2012) because of its antimicrobial properties and the potential for growth promotion. Yet few are concerned about whether this excess supplementation is necessary. In this study, the 16S rRNA pyrosequencing was designed and used to investigate the effect of dietary copper level on the diversity of the fecal microbial community and the correlation of copper level with the serum level of inflammatory cytokines in Sprague-Dawley rat models. The results showed that the diet containing a high level of Cu (120 and 240 mg/kg) changed the microbial richness and diversity of rat feces associated with the increased copper content in the rat ileac and colonic digesta. Furthermore, a Pearson's correlation analysis indicated that an accumulation of unabsorbed copper in the chyme was correlated with the microbial composition of the rat feces, which was linked with TNF-α in serum. The results suggest that dietary copper level may have a direct impact on circulating inflammatory cytokines in the serum, perhaps inducing an inflammatory response by altering the microbial composition of rat feces. Serum TNF-α could be the chief responder to excessive copper exposure. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 4 | 80% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 41 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 11 | 27% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 6 | 15% |
| Unknown | 7 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 12 | 29% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 10 | 24% |
| Chemistry | 3 | 7% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 3 | 7% |
| Environmental Science | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 4 | 10% |
| Unknown | 7 | 17% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 14 June 2018.
All research outputs
#3,867,098
of 23,975,976 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Microbiology
#47
of 842 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#66,079
of 319,421 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Microbiology
#2
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,975,976 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 842 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 319,421 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.