Bacterial communities in the gastrointestinal tract segments of helminth-resistant and helminth-susceptible sheep.
16S rRNA gene sequencing
Faecal-egg count
Helminth
Microbiome
Nematode
Sheep
Short-chain fatty acids
Journal
Animal microbiome
ISSN: 2524-4671
Titre abrégé: Anim Microbiome
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101759457
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
14 Mar 2022
14 Mar 2022
Historique:
received:
05
05
2021
accepted:
01
03
2022
entrez:
15
3
2022
pubmed:
16
3
2022
medline:
16
3
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Helminth parasitism is a world-wide problem in livestock industries, with major impacts on health, welfare and productivity. The role of the gut microbiota in host-helminth interactions in ruminants has been extensively examined and the present study added to this body of knowledge by assessing the effects of resistance and susceptibility to helminth infection in the gastro-intestinal tract (GIT). Australian Sheep Breeding Values (ASBVs) for faecal egg count (FEC) were used to select the 10 highly helminth-susceptible (High-FEC) and 10 highly helminth-resistant (Low-FEC) sheep. FEC status was confirmed during the experiment. Using samples from the faeces and the lumen of the rumen, abomasum, duodenum, jejunum, ileum, caecum, and colon, DNA was extracted and used for 16 rRNA gene amplicon sequencing. The most frequent genera identified along the GIT were Eubacterium, Oscillibacter, and Ruminococcus. Intersectoral-specialization zones were identified along the GIT, with the duodenum displaying major differences between the High-FEC and Low-FEC animals in values for alpha and beta diversity. After taking all samples into account and adjusting for GIT segment, the High-FEC and Low-FEC sheep differed significantly for four genera Butyrivibrio, Mycoplasma, Lachnoclostridium and Succiniclasticum. In the duodenum, the abundances of Aminipila, Lachnoclostridium and Mogibacterium differed significantly between the High-FEC and Low-FEC sheep. In the ileum, on the other hand, the genus Mycoplasma was significantly depleted in the Low-FEC group. The gastro-intestinal microbial profile varies widely between helminth-resistant and helminth-susceptible sheep. Each GIT section appears to support a particular bacterial composition leading to inter-sectoral differences among the various microbial communities. The microbial populations were most rich and diverse in the duodenum of helminth-resistant sheep, comprising bacterial genera that generally ferment carbohydrates. This observation suggests that helminth-resistant sheep can reorganize the duodenal microbiome taxa which may restrict the development of parasites.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Helminth parasitism is a world-wide problem in livestock industries, with major impacts on health, welfare and productivity. The role of the gut microbiota in host-helminth interactions in ruminants has been extensively examined and the present study added to this body of knowledge by assessing the effects of resistance and susceptibility to helminth infection in the gastro-intestinal tract (GIT). Australian Sheep Breeding Values (ASBVs) for faecal egg count (FEC) were used to select the 10 highly helminth-susceptible (High-FEC) and 10 highly helminth-resistant (Low-FEC) sheep. FEC status was confirmed during the experiment. Using samples from the faeces and the lumen of the rumen, abomasum, duodenum, jejunum, ileum, caecum, and colon, DNA was extracted and used for 16 rRNA gene amplicon sequencing.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The most frequent genera identified along the GIT were Eubacterium, Oscillibacter, and Ruminococcus. Intersectoral-specialization zones were identified along the GIT, with the duodenum displaying major differences between the High-FEC and Low-FEC animals in values for alpha and beta diversity. After taking all samples into account and adjusting for GIT segment, the High-FEC and Low-FEC sheep differed significantly for four genera Butyrivibrio, Mycoplasma, Lachnoclostridium and Succiniclasticum. In the duodenum, the abundances of Aminipila, Lachnoclostridium and Mogibacterium differed significantly between the High-FEC and Low-FEC sheep. In the ileum, on the other hand, the genus Mycoplasma was significantly depleted in the Low-FEC group.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The gastro-intestinal microbial profile varies widely between helminth-resistant and helminth-susceptible sheep. Each GIT section appears to support a particular bacterial composition leading to inter-sectoral differences among the various microbial communities. The microbial populations were most rich and diverse in the duodenum of helminth-resistant sheep, comprising bacterial genera that generally ferment carbohydrates. This observation suggests that helminth-resistant sheep can reorganize the duodenal microbiome taxa which may restrict the development of parasites.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35287759
doi: 10.1186/s42523-022-00172-1
pii: 10.1186/s42523-022-00172-1
pmc: PMC8922854
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
23Subventions
Organisme : Postdoctoral fellowship CONICYT Chile
ID : 74160038
Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Int J Parasitol. 1998 Nov;28(11):1797-804
pubmed: 9846618
AMB Express. 2017 Dec;7(1):75
pubmed: 28378284
Vet Rec Open. 2019 Sep 20;6(1):e000332
pubmed: 31673375
Appl Environ Microbiol. 2011 Jan;77(1):138-47
pubmed: 21057019
Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther. 2020 Oct;18(10):977-985
pubmed: 32530331
Asian-Australas J Anim Sci. 2017 Jan;30(1):100-110
pubmed: 27383798
Mol Nutr Food Res. 2021 Aug;65(15):e2100096
pubmed: 34061433
BMC Bioinformatics. 2017 May 10;18(1):247
pubmed: 28486927
Gut. 2020 Jul;69(7):1248-1257
pubmed: 31776231
Int J Parasitol. 1992 Nov;22(7):947-53
pubmed: 1459789
J Microbiol. 2018 Mar;56(3):199-208
pubmed: 29492877
Parasitol Res. 2008 Dec;104(1):123-6
pubmed: 18766377
J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2016 Dec;63(6):688-697
pubmed: 27031373
Vet Parasitol. 2001 Dec 13;102(3):253-9
pubmed: 11777605
Parasitology. 2014 Jun;141(7):875-9
pubmed: 24534018
Microb Ecol Health Dis. 2015 May 29;26:27663
pubmed: 26028277
Sci Rep. 2019 Jul 31;9(1):11121
pubmed: 31366962
Sci Rep. 2016 Feb 08;6:20606
pubmed: 26853110
Sci Rep. 2015 May 19;5:9743
pubmed: 25988396
Nature. 2012 Sep 13;489(7415):220-30
pubmed: 22972295
PLoS One. 2012;7(6):e39743
pubmed: 22761885
Anim Microbiome. 2020 Feb 5;2(1):3
pubmed: 33499986
Vet Parasitol Reg Stud Reports. 2019 Aug;17:100292
pubmed: 31303239
Adv Parasitol. 2016;93:95-143
pubmed: 27238004
J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2019 Sep;145(9):2169-2197
pubmed: 31401674
Vet Parasitol. 2018 Jan 30;250:60-67
pubmed: 29329625
BMC Bioinformatics. 2016 Dec 1;17(1):491
pubmed: 27905885
Sci Rep. 2021 Mar 15;11(1):5905
pubmed: 33723324
J Microbiol. 2020 Jun;58(6):472-482
pubmed: 32323198
Nat Methods. 2010 May;7(5):335-6
pubmed: 20383131
Acta Parasitol. 2020 Mar;65(1):118-127
pubmed: 31721057
Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2022;62(1):1-12
pubmed: 33261516
Appl Environ Microbiol. 2019 Dec 13;86(1):
pubmed: 31653790
Nat Biotechnol. 2019 Aug;37(8):852-857
pubmed: 31341288
Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2018 Jan;68(1):443-448
pubmed: 29235979