Cited by 115Gut microbiota and healthAnimal Nutrition and PhysiologyAquaculture disease management and microbiota

How can we define “optimal microbiota?”: a comparative review of structure and functions of microbiota of animals, fish, and plants in agriculture

Open access
Ikeda-Ohtsubo, Wakako, Brugman, Sylvia, Warden, Craig H., Rebel, Johanna M. J., Folkerts, Gert, Pieterse, Corné M. J.·2018·Frontiers in Nutrition

Abstract

All multicellular organisms benefit from their own microbiota, which play important roles in maintaining the host nutritional health and immunity. Recently, the number of studies on the microbiota of animals, fish, and plants of economic importance is rapidly expanding and there are increasing expectations that productivity and sustainability in agricultural management can be improved by microbiota manipulation. However, optimizing microbiota is still a challenging task because of the lack of knowledge on the dominant microorganisms or significant variations between microbiota, reflecting sampling biases, different agricultural management as well as breeding backgrounds. To offer a more generalized view on microbiota in agriculture, which can be used for defining criteria of "optimal microbiota" as the goal of manipulation, we summarize here current knowledge on microbiota on animals, fish, and plants with emphasis on bacterial community structure and metabolic functions, and how microbiota can be affected by domestication, conventional agricultural practices, and use of antimicrobial agents. Finally, we discuss future tasks for defining "optimal microbiota," which can improve host growth, nutrition, and immunity and reduce the use of antimicrobial agents in agriculture.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fnut.2018.00090

Cites

262 of 262 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Vertical transmission of bacteria has been suggested in marine organisms such as fish and sponges and has been experimentally proved in salmons.

    “Vertical transmission of bacteria has also been suggested in marine organisms such as fish and sponges and has been experimentally proved in salmons (Larenas et al., 2003; Lee et al., 2009; Ikeda-Ohtsubo et al., 2018; Nyholm, 2020).”

    From The Active Microbiota of the Eggs and the Nauplii of the Pacific Blue Shrimp Litopenaeus stylirostris Partially Shaped by a Potential Vertical Transmission (2022) · cites this paper as Ikeda-Ohtsubo et al., 2018

    The section “Acquisition of microbiota in the early life of animals, fish, and plants” (page unavailable) reports bacteria on Coho salmon eggs and in juvenile guts, suggesting that maternal transfer may occur. It does not say vertical transmission was experimentally proved in salmon or address transmission in sponges. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ikeda-Ohtsubo, W., Brugman, S., Warden, C. H., Rebel, J. M. J., Folkerts, G., & Pieterse, C. M. J.
Affiliations
  • Wageningen University & Research (NL)
  • University of California, Davis (US)
  • Utrecht University (NL)
Venue
Frontiers in Nutrition
Published
2018-10-02
Volume
5
Pages
113-113
ISSN
2296-861X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2895325477
Cited by
115
References
260
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 10 · 2017: 1
FWCI
1.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Frontiers in Nutrition (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Socio-Environmental Systems Modeling (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Lorentz Center
  • Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (17K19883)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gut microbiota and health
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Animal Science and Zoology › Animal Nutrition and Physiology
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Immunology › Aquaculture disease management and microbiota
Keywords
host microbiota, fish microbiota, plant microbiome, bacterial community structure, microbial metabolic functions, microbiome manipulation, domestication, agricultural practices, antimicrobial agents, host growth, host nutrition, host immunity, sampling bias

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review