The skin microbiome of Xenopus laevis and the effects of husbandry conditions.

16S rRNA amplicon Cutaneous microbiome Frog skin microbiota Husbandry Illumina MiSeq Tadpoles Xenopus laevis

Journal

Animal microbiome
ISSN: 2524-4671
Titre abrégé: Anim Microbiome
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101759457

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
05 Feb 2021
Historique:
received: 30 08 2020
accepted: 22 01 2021
entrez: 6 2 2021
pubmed: 7 2 2021
medline: 7 2 2021
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Historically the main source of laboratory Xenopus laevis was the environment. The increase in genetically altered animals and evolving governmental constraints around using wild-caught animals for research has led to the establishment of resource centres that supply animals and reagents worldwide, such as the European Xenopus Resource Centre. In the last decade, centres were encouraged to keep animals in a "low microbial load" or "clean" state, where embryos are surface sterilized before entering the housing system; instead of the conventional, "standard" conditions where frogs and embryos are kept without prior surface treatment. Despite Xenopus laevis having been kept in captivity for almost a century, surprisingly little is known about the frogs as a holobiont and how changing the microbiome may affect resistance to disease. This study examines how the different treatment conditions, "clean" and "standard" husbandry in recirculating housing, affects the skin microbiome of tadpoles and female adults. This is particularly important when considering the potential for poor welfare caused by a change in husbandry method as animals move from resource centres to smaller research colonies. We found strong evidence for developmental control of the surface microbiome on Xenopus laevis; adults had extremely similar microbial communities independent of their housing, while both tadpole and environmental microbiome communities were less resilient and showed greater diversity. Our findings suggest that the adult Xenopus laevis microbiome is controlled and selected by the host. This indicates that the surface microbiome of adult Xenopus laevis is stable and defined independently of the environment in which it is housed, suggesting that the use of clean husbandry conditions poses little risk to the skin microbiome when transferring adult frogs to research laboratories. This will have important implications for frog health applicable to Xenopus laevis research centres throughout the world.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Historically the main source of laboratory Xenopus laevis was the environment. The increase in genetically altered animals and evolving governmental constraints around using wild-caught animals for research has led to the establishment of resource centres that supply animals and reagents worldwide, such as the European Xenopus Resource Centre. In the last decade, centres were encouraged to keep animals in a "low microbial load" or "clean" state, where embryos are surface sterilized before entering the housing system; instead of the conventional, "standard" conditions where frogs and embryos are kept without prior surface treatment. Despite Xenopus laevis having been kept in captivity for almost a century, surprisingly little is known about the frogs as a holobiont and how changing the microbiome may affect resistance to disease. This study examines how the different treatment conditions, "clean" and "standard" husbandry in recirculating housing, affects the skin microbiome of tadpoles and female adults. This is particularly important when considering the potential for poor welfare caused by a change in husbandry method as animals move from resource centres to smaller research colonies.
RESULTS RESULTS
We found strong evidence for developmental control of the surface microbiome on Xenopus laevis; adults had extremely similar microbial communities independent of their housing, while both tadpole and environmental microbiome communities were less resilient and showed greater diversity.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
Our findings suggest that the adult Xenopus laevis microbiome is controlled and selected by the host. This indicates that the surface microbiome of adult Xenopus laevis is stable and defined independently of the environment in which it is housed, suggesting that the use of clean husbandry conditions poses little risk to the skin microbiome when transferring adult frogs to research laboratories. This will have important implications for frog health applicable to Xenopus laevis research centres throughout the world.

Identifiants

pubmed: 33546771
doi: 10.1186/s42523-021-00080-w
pii: 10.1186/s42523-021-00080-w
pmc: PMC7866774
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

17

Subventions

Organisme : National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research
ID : NC/P001009/1
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Wellcome Trust
ID : 212942/Z/18/Z
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (GB)
ID : BB/R014841/1
Organisme : Research England
ID : E3

Références

PLoS One. 2018 Oct 31;13(10):e0205652
pubmed: 30379861
Genome Biol. 2014;15(12):550
pubmed: 25516281
Ecol Lett. 2013 Jun;16(6):807-20
pubmed: 23452227
ISME J. 2014 Nov;8(11):2207-17
pubmed: 24858782
Comp Med. 2004 Jun;54(3):309-17
pubmed: 15253278
ISME J. 2017 Jul;11(7):1521-1534
pubmed: 28387770
FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2019 Mar 1;95(3):
pubmed: 30649314
Front Microbiol. 2018 Sep 03;9:2001
pubmed: 30233511
Nucleic Acids Res. 2013 Jan 7;41(1):e1
pubmed: 22933715
Methods Mol Biol. 2018;1865:19-32
pubmed: 30151756
Front Microbiol. 2018 Jul 18;9:1604
pubmed: 30072970
Front Microbiol. 2019 Sep 12;10:2060
pubmed: 31572313
Nat Commun. 2018 Feb 15;9(1):693
pubmed: 29449565
Microbiome. 2019 May 23;7(1):79
pubmed: 31122279
Trends Genet. 2011 Dec;27(12):507-15
pubmed: 21963197
PLoS One. 2013 Apr 22;8(4):e61217
pubmed: 23630581
Front Microbiol. 2018 Mar 20;9:466
pubmed: 29615997
Microb Ecol. 2017 Jul;74(1):217-226
pubmed: 28064360
Mol Ecol. 2019 Jan;28(1):127-140
pubmed: 30506592
Cell Rep. 2019 May 7;27(6):1910-1919.e2
pubmed: 31067473
Front Immunol. 2015 Mar 13;6:111
pubmed: 25821449
Microb Ecol. 2019 Aug;78(2):348-360
pubmed: 30535916
Proc Biol Sci. 2015 Apr 22;282(1805):
pubmed: 25788591
Proc Biol Sci. 2016 Sep 28;283(1839):
pubmed: 27655769
ISME J. 2012 Mar;6(3):588-96
pubmed: 21955991
PeerJ. 2019 Jun 21;7:e7044
pubmed: 31275740
Biol Conserv. 2015 Apr;184:380-388
pubmed: 25843959
Mol Ecol. 2014 Mar;23(6):1238-50
pubmed: 24171949
Nucleic Acids Res. 2013 Jan;41(Database issue):D590-6
pubmed: 23193283
Genesis. 2012 Mar;50(3):155-63
pubmed: 22253050
PeerJ. 2018 Nov 14;6:e5960
pubmed: 30479906
Nat Commun. 2019 Jun 21;10(1):2730
pubmed: 31227691
Trends Microbiol. 2008 Mar;16(3):107-14
pubmed: 18280160
Lab Anim (NY). 2019 Nov;48(11):313-315
pubmed: 31645694
Science. 1997 May 2;276(5313):734-40
pubmed: 9115194
Br Med J. 1938 Dec 17;2(4067):1253-1274.2
pubmed: 20781969
Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2013 Dec;63(Pt 12):4777-4783
pubmed: 23996834
Front Microbiol. 2018 Mar 14;9:442
pubmed: 29593686
PLoS One. 2014 Jan 09;9(1):e85563
pubmed: 24416427
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2019 Feb 5;116(6):2124-2129
pubmed: 30670649
ISME J. 2014 Apr;8(4):830-40
pubmed: 24335825
BMC Dev Biol. 2008 Sep 25;8:92
pubmed: 18817563
Vet Microbiol. 2009 Jul 2;138(1-2):140-4
pubmed: 19327918
Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2009 Dec;59(Pt 12):3001-5
pubmed: 19643904
Front Physiol. 2019 Apr 25;10:387
pubmed: 31073289
ISME J. 2017 Feb;11(2):349-361
pubmed: 27935596
Nat Commun. 2017 Jul 20;8(1):86
pubmed: 28729558
Front Microbiol. 2017 Dec 08;8:2350
pubmed: 29276502
PLoS One. 2012;7(10):e47416
pubmed: 23082164
Nat Methods. 2010 May;7(5):335-6
pubmed: 20383131
Front Microbiol. 2017 Jul 21;8:1379
pubmed: 28785252
ISME J. 2016 Jul;10(7):1682-95
pubmed: 26744810
Int J Dev Biol. 2000;44(1):43-50
pubmed: 10761846
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013 Feb 26;110(9):3229-36
pubmed: 23391737
Dev Biol. 2017 Jun 15;426(2):325-335
pubmed: 27109192
Proc Biol Sci. 2018 Aug 22;285(1885):
pubmed: 30135150
J Mol Biol. 1990 Oct 5;215(3):403-10
pubmed: 2231712
Microbiol Rev. 1995 Mar;59(1):143-69
pubmed: 7535888
Genes (Basel). 2019 Nov 07;10(11):
pubmed: 31703321

Auteurs

Maya Z Piccinni (MZ)

School of Biological Sciences, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK.
European Xenopus Resource Centre, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK.

Joy E M Watts (JEM)

School of Biological Sciences, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK.
Centre for Enzyme Innovation, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK.

Marie Fourny (M)

University of Rouen-Normandy, Rouen, France.

Matt Guille (M)

School of Biological Sciences, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK.
European Xenopus Resource Centre, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK.

Samuel C Robson (SC)

Centre for Enzyme Innovation, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK. samuel.robson@port.ac.uk.
School of Pharmacy and Biomedical Sciences, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK. samuel.robson@port.ac.uk.

Classifications MeSH