You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Risks Involved in the Use of Enrofloxacin for Salmonella Enteritidis or Salmonella Heidelberg in Commercial Poultry
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Veterinary Science, August 2016
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fvets.2016.00072 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Eduardo Morales-Barrera, Nicole Calhoun, Jose L. Lobato-Tapia, Vivian Lucca, Omar Prado-Rebolledo, Xochitl Hernandez-Velasco, Ruben Merino-Guzman, Victor M. Petrone-García, Juan D. Latorre, Brittany D. Mahaffey, Kyle D. Teague, Lucas E. Graham, Amanda D. Wolfenden, Mikayla F. A. Baxter, Billy M. Hargis, Guillermo Tellez |
| Abstract |
The objectives of the present study were to evaluate the risks involved in the use of Enrofloxacin for Salmonella Enteritidis (SE) or Salmonella Heidelberg (SH) in commercial poultry and determine the effects of a probiotic as an antibiotic alternative. Two experiments were conducted to evaluate the risks involved in the use of Enrofloxacin for SE or SH in commercial poultry. Experiment 1 consisted of two trials. In each trial, chickens were assigned to one of three groups; control + SE challenged; Enrofloxacin 25 mg/kg + SE; and Enrofloxacin 50 mg/kg + SE. Chickens received Enrofloxacin in the drinking water from days 1 to 5 of age. On day 6, all groups received fresh water without any treatment. All chickens were orally gavaged with 10(7) cfu/chick of SE at 7 days of age and euthanized on 8 days of age. In Experiment 2, turkey poults were assigned to one of the three groups; control + SH; probiotic + SH; and Enrofloxacin 50 mg/kg + SH. Poults received probiotic or Enrofloxacin in the drinking water from days 1 to 5 of age. On day 6, poults received fresh water without any treatment. Poults were orally gavaged with 10(7) cfu/poult of SH at 7 days of age. Poults were weighed and humanely killed 24 h post-SH challenge to evaluate serum concentration of fluorescein isothiocyanate-dextran to evaluate intestinal permeability, metagenomics, and SH infection. In both trials of Experiment 1, chickens treated with Enrofloxacin were more susceptible to SE organ invasion and intestinal colonization when compared with control non-treated chickens (P < 0.05). In Experiment 2, poults treated with 50 mg/kg of Enrofloxacin showed an increase in body weight, however, this group also showed an increase in SH susceptibility, intestinal permeability, and lower proportion of Firmicutes and Bacteroidetes, but with control group had the highest proportion of Proteobacteria. By contrast, poults that received the probiotic had the highest proportion of Firmicutes and Bacteroidetes, but lowest Proteobacteria. The results of the present study suggest that prophylactic utilization of Enrofloxacin at five times the recommended dose in poultry increases the susceptibility to salmonellae infections, and confirms that probiotics may be an effective tool in salmonellae infections. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 3 | 75% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 2 | 5% |
| Unknown | 40 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 7 | 17% |
| Researcher | 7 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 10% |
| Other | 7 | 17% |
| Unknown | 8 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 16 | 38% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 5 | 12% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 7% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 2 | 5% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 10% |
| Unknown | 11 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 16 September 2016.
All research outputs
#13,866,700
of 23,498,099 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Veterinary Science
#1,981
of 6,693 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#183,155
of 339,565 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Veterinary Science
#19
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,498,099 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,693 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 339,565 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.