From: Assessment of cecal microbiota modulation from piglet dietary supplementation with copper
Treatment | Genus | Â | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 | Prevotella | Treponema | Bacteroides | Oscillibacter 1 | Clostridium_XlVa | Desulfovibrio | Parabacteroides |
Control | 29.8750 | 0.8400 | 1.5775 | 1.8825 | 1.1975 | 0.4638 | 2.7010 |
Cu-MHAC | 32.7500 | 0.7343 | 0.4158 | 2.5275 | 1.4253 | 0.7847 | 0.5435 |
CuSO4 | 30.1500 | 1.4365 | 0.6033 | 2.4675 | 0.6033 | 0.5585 | 0.9645 |
TBCC | 28.8250 | 1.4660 | 0.5840 | 1.2625 | 1.6445 | 0.6310 | 0.4895 |
CVmean (%) | 8.1 | 65.8 | 182.0 | 0.145 | 44.7 | 14.3 | Â |
P -value | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â |
Trial | < 0.0001** | 0.0086** | 0.1741 | - | <0.0001** | <0.0001** | 0.0982* |
Treatment | 0.2009 | 0.1291 | 0.9817 | 0.1450 | 0.0207** | 0.0006* | 0.2582 |
P -value for Orthogonal contrasts | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â |
Control x All | 0.6330 | 0.3315 | 0.9809 | - | 0.2251 | 0.0013** | 0.0589* |
Cu-MHAC vs. (CuSO4 + TBCC) | 0.6814 | 0.5422 | 0.9995 | - | 0.0044** | 0.0033** | 0.6705 |
CuSO4 vs. TBCC | 0.0460** | 0.0373** | 0.6903 | - | 0.5215 | 0.0042** | 0.9644 |
Treatment | Genus | Â | |||||
 | Clostridium_sensu_ stricto | Succinivibrio | Campylobacter | Fusobacterium 1 | Alloprevotella | Megasphaera | Streptococcus |
Control | 1.2180 | 3.2515 | 1.6853 | 0.0755 | 5.0100 | 1.6950 | 0.5623 |
Cu-MHAC | 1.1588 | 2.6115 | 1.6738 | 0.0260 | 3.2875 | 1.1105 | 0.7545 |
CuSO4 | 1.2220 | 5.9400 | 0.5828 | 0.7720 | 3.2275 | 1.0575 | 0.9475 |
TBCC | 0.8010 | 4.0150 | 1.9038 | 0.4353 | 5.6900 | 0.9105 | 0.9150 |
CVmean (%) | 50.2 | 55.9 | 142.2 | 0.615 | 73.4 | 32.6 | 88.4 |
P -value | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â |
Trial | 0.4086 | 0.1974 | 0.0091** | - | 0.0016** | 0.2694 | 0.0001** |
Treatment | 0.6702 | 0.2242 | 0.7304 | 0.6150 | 0.1038 | 0.0686* | 0.6839 |
P -value for Orthogonal contrasts | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â |
Control x All | 0.6315 | 0.4784 | 0.4870 | - | 0.8135 | 0.0125** | 0.7089 |
Cu-MHAC vs. (CuSO4 + TBCC) | 0.4892 | 0.0786* | 0.9196 | - | 0.8283 | 0.8470 | 0.2664 |
CuSO4 vs. TBCC | 0.3796 | 0.3888 | 0.3944 | - | 0.0183** | 0.4819 | 0.9192 |
Treatment | Genus | Â | |||||
 | Roseburia | Actinobacillus | Helicobacter | Phascolarctobacterium | Acidaminococcus | Escherichia /Shigella |  |
Control | 1.9198 | 0.1473 | 0.0933 | 2.0000 | 1.0195 | 2.3318 | Â |
Cu-MHAC | 1.4760 | 0.2163 | 0.0355 | 2.8350 | 0.8313 | 3.2350 | Â |
CuSO4 | 3.0873 | 0.5953 | 0.1985 | 2.5850 | 0.5483 | 3.6100 | Â |
TBCC | 1.8483 | 0.2998 | 0.1353 | 2.8750 | 0.4458 | 3.8026 | Â |
CVmean (%) | 40.6 | 166.4 | 97.7 | 29.8 | 53.0 | 60.2 | Â |
P -value | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â |
Trial | <0.000** | 0.0235** | 0.3746 | 0.2148 | 0.0021** | 0.0053** | Â |
Treatment | 0.2500 | 0.7069 | 0.1110 | 0.3879 | 0.3475 | 0.1279 | Â |
P -value for Orthogonal contrasts | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â |
Control x All | 0.4989 | 0.3105 | 0.7716 | 0.1121 | 0.2960 | 0.0245** | Â |
Cu-MHAC vs. (CuSO4 + TBCC) | 0.0672* | 0.7067 | 0.0405* | 0.5771 | 0.8475 | 0.6287 |  |
CuSO4 vs. TBCC | 0.7312 | 0.7139 | 0.1733 | 0.9425 | 0.1476 | 0.6391 | Â |